Business Standard

Doublespeak on Consulgate

There are double standards and inconsistencies in our reactions to the Devyani Khobragade incident

Shreekant Sambrani
Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d,/Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn’d,” wrote William Congreve in his play The Mourning Bride more than four centuries ago.  He may as well be describing the furore in the Indian media in the last two weeks following the arrest in New York City of India’s Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade for alleged visa fraud.  Except that there are two women involved, the diplomat and her one-time maid, Sangeeta Richard.  So we should expect twice the fury, right?  What we have been treated to so far, however, is merely doublespeak.
 

We have had blow-by-blow accounts of Ms Khobragade’s plight from the phalanx of retired foreign service officers, anchors of 24x7 news channels and the usual galaxy of ready-with-a-comment-at-the-drop-of-a-hat panelists, and this time, agitated members of Parliament cutting across party lines.  Ministers have given vent to their indignation, even when their responsibilities do not extend to external affairs.  If we could, we would have probably impeached President Barack Obama and declared Secretary of State John Kerry persona non grata.  And, oh, the unspeakable Mr Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the southern district of New York!  No jail in India would be severe enough for this betrayer of his roots!

But Ms Richard figures only fleetingly, either through the statements of her lawyer and the despicable Mr Bharara or in the accounts of her ingratitude (of daring to complain that she was not paid the wage in her official contract submitted in support of her visa application) by the tearful Mr Uttam Khobragade, the deputy consul general’s father and a retired member of Indian Administrative Service from Maharashtra, now on all channels.

Only The Indian Express, through its editorial (“Our VIP abroad”, December 18) and a signed column by its Editor-in-chief Mr Shekhar Gupta, (“Indian feudal service,” December 21), as also Rahul Jacob in this paper (“Maid to order?” December 21) have expressed a concern at hearing only one side of the story.  They will most likely face a barrage of indignation.  There is a far greater and more troublesome issue of double standards and inconsistencies in our reactions arising out of several reasons.

First, we have just been in a self-congratulatory mode over the celebrated “victory” of the Aam Aadmi Party in the Delhi Assembly elections and the passage of the Lokpal bill.  Both these have at their core a belief that special privileges are anti-democratic and must be shunned.  The set of commentators who hailed these “achievements” now seem to have no hesitation in vigorously defending diplomatic privileges (where they do not apply) or special considerations in charging or arresting the presumed wrong-doers.  Worse, they are not bothered by the obvious contradiction.  A week is a long time in public memory, but again the same voices had (justifiably) cried themselves hoarse to the effect that “the law must take its own course” and “the law is above all” (clichés if ever there were any).  They were then discussing how yesterday’s the now-fallen media star Tarun Tejpal and the (until recently) Hon A K Ganguly, J (retired), should be treated in respect of charges against them.  Ms Khobragade, it seems, deserved a special dispensation not accorded to the other two.

Second, the Unites States’ procedures for arresting, booking and detaining supposed offenders have been considered harsh and the arresting authorities termed arrogant. On the contrary, despite whatever tone the officers may employ, they are always required to address all suspects as Sir or Madam, as the case may be, and also required to follow set procedures exactly, with no deviation at all (which could cause summary dismissal of a possible case).  Not too long ago, a Frenchman was pulled off a plane ready to depart and arrested.  He was marched with handcuffs prominently visible.  The person concerned was the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), widely expected to be a candidate for French presidency.  Some European papers made their delicacy known, but neither the IMF nor the French Government (Dominique Strauss-Kahn was a former finance minister) made a fuss.  Should the US Marshals have followed the practice of Indian police when they dealt “sensitively” while arresting Manu Sharma (the son of a former state minister) now serving a life sentence for the murder of Jessica Lal in a drunken rage or Sanjeev Nanda (the grandson of a retired admiral) accused of drunken driving, running over and killing several people, or releasing the convicted Sanjay Dutt, not six months into jail, repeatedly on parole, or washing the convicted Lalu Prasad’s feet when he was released on bail?

Third, Mr Preet Bharara is pilloried for being “more American than Americans are,” saying how he has gone after people of Indian origin with a vengeance and imputing possible political career motives to him.  Do his Indian origins require him to be softer towards Indian offenders?  By that token, should Ms Sonia Gandhi have asked the Indian government to go easy in the Italian marines’ case?  Why is being loyal to one’s country, be it by birth or by naturalisation, worthy of adverse comment?  Does Mr Bharara’s oath of office deserve any less sanctity than, say, those of Kapil Sibal or Salman Khurshid?  And what wrong has he done by prosecuting inside traders and affidavit offenders based on acceptable evidence?

Fourth, Mr Khobragade has himself admitted to negotiations with Ms Richard and is supposed to have said that they would have been ready to consider paying $10,000 allegedly demanded by her but not the normal passport and visa.  Does that acceptance of a blackmailer’s demand make it any lesser transgression?  If there was no wrongdoing whatsoever and the dutiful daughter was honourably discharging her patriotic responsibilities at a personal sacrifice, as the tearful father had repeatedly asserted on camera, why entertain such requests at all?  And why have the media not asked this question?  In law, an acceptable practice is to establish a pattern.  Is giving in to blackmail a pattern of the Khobragades?  Similarly, what of Ms Khobragade acquiring a flat (some reports say two) in the notorious Adarsh block when Papa Khobragade was the Chairman of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority?  This is especially relevant now, when the Maharashtra government headed by the clean Mr Prithviraj Chavan has rejected most findings of the Adarsh scam inquiry report tabled in the state assembly on the last day of its winter session.

Finally, isn’t the wealth of photographs of Ms Khobragade on display amazing, in each of which she is striking a pose with the aplomb of a professional model.  Even more amazing is the speed and readiness with which these were available in Indian media, even as relevant details of the officer’s career, claims and counterclaims, were conspicuously absent, all of which were dutifully dug up by the American press.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Dec 22 2013 | 9:18 AM IST

Explore News