Talk:Devyani Khobragade incident/Archive 1

Was she arrested by local police?
I did not find in the references enclosed any sign of her being arrested by local police. Federal marshals did the job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Got any link of this information. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See below Hmmm./..one says they were handed to masrshalls and it was their responsibility. the other says it was by state depts diplomatic security(Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)).

why wikipedians always delete the facts she was linked with adarash scams and also misuse SC privileges
I always try to edit the facts that she was linked in adarsh scams... http://www.financialexpress.com/news/indian-diplomat-devyani-khobragade-owned-flat-in-adarsh-society/1207604 and also she played the SC card and got in medical school and IFS seat though her father was IPS officer... please let the world know about her... 54.253.253.225
 * Why you are bringing up useless caste issue? This is not matrimonial site neither this person has any issue with the castes. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because She and her father always misuse her position and why you are hiding the facts about adarsh scams...are you an agent of Governmenet ?... Don't misuse your power.. this is wikipedia and here we shouldn't hide any true facts..54.253.253.225
 * Indian government is favoring her or not? What type of position you are talking about? I asked about the caste, that why it's necessary to add her caste? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because her father told to press that USA government discriminate as she belongs to SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.253.253.225 (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is not directly about the person, but about the (ongoing) diplomatic incident between India and US. Actions by her, 3 (or whatever) years ago, are not relevant (IMO) to the diplomatic incident. However, if you want to include detailed background about her personal life, you will have to provide strong sources for every info you add (specially negative info that you stated above), as WP:BLP would apply.
 * from what i read at Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade, i understand that there is consensus that the person itself is not notable enough to have her own article here, so we would need to discuss here on this talk page, whether to include her biographical info. If enough editors agree about adding that info, then surely we can proceed to do so. But right now, i saw that an editor had already opposed your inclusion of info, so we will have to discuss it before re-adding it to the article. I hope you understand the reason now. Thanks! :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 11:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So now USA also discriminate due to indian castes? Anyways, give me a source about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

yesterday her father claimed that on Tv channel... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.93.163 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which TV channel? Any link? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about the incident. Her personal info is irrelevant here (other than the brief bio background)(Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)).


 * http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/devyani-khobragade-incident-deplorable-says-pm-parliament-condemns-us-action-460117

Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati made a statement that the government had not reacted sooner because of her SC status. Because over the last few days multiple news sources have tried to link this incident to previous incidents involving cast abuse creating support, it is very important to be clear that DR. Devyani Khobragade is from the Dalits caste. Although her cast is unimportant in the context of an even on U.S. soil, it becomes very important in distinguishing this event from a caste abuse issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackbird013, you really thought of replying? The link you post is highly unrelated with this subject. Mayawati? Are you kidding me? How can we add such WP:FRINGE here? This is not your caste promotional page, neither this is some page who favors political agenda. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You said you didn't like chat here, it's you chatting. All of this information is relevant in public view of the incident.  American news sources listed previous accusations about caste discrimination before the Mayawati statement.  The Mayawati statement is only important in that it differentiates this case in the non Indian eyes from a caste discrimination and abuse by Devyani Khobragade.  If this article does not stay neutral and fair to all parties it needs to be deleted.  Because of this when a source was requested I provided one of many.  I lack any knowledge of the castes the issue is whether it is a caste related argument, and I provided a link showing that it was not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did USA's government pointed out the caste? Give me a source about it. Mayawati is not a reliable source, not even a source. No one would delete this article just because caste issue is not raised, more like it's completely useless to bring caste matters, this is not even a biography page. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ..54.253.253.225 brought up caste, you are confused about me answering your question with a link. The source reliability is a matter of opinion.  The information removes the caste abuse argument.  Please refrain from politics here.  Many news sources reporting the incident and listed previous cases of caste abuse incidents involving India to try to form a link. You disputed that it was an issue, I agreed and provided a simple link.  Why are you questioning the integrity of someone giving you exactly what you asked for?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a caste abuse incident. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Charges against... " section
This WP article reads an extension of the PR department of NY Attorney General's office. Reference to police records need to be removed as these are not allowed per WP policy. The entire section needs to be summarized. Request concerned editor working on this article to rewrite this section and provide only a summary taking reference from news reports from known media sources. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Police records are primary sources and can not be used as citations per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Will remove the citations you have now included. Also, will revert the section to the earlier version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devyani_Khobragade_incident&oldid=586735276 as per editor User:Jethwarp Summary of charges is sufficient, to maintain BLP standard. If you have any issues with my edit, you may raise it here. thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With due caveat itll be fine.(Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).
 * Agreed. First, that's a court record, not a police record. Second, BLPPRIMARY is poorly worded. It does explicitly forbid the use of court documents "to support assertions about a living person" which if you insist on being a stickler means we can't use it. But I've always thought that was meant to discourage people from dredging up old, dismissed lawsuits that never went anywhere, or testimony in unrelated matters, and filling the article with it when they had a grudge against the person. This is different in a way that language doesn't reflect. This is recent, and she's been arrested and charged based on this complaint, something which has caused a huge diplomatic rift between India and the U.S. It is true that her presumption of innocence must be respected here, but at the same time we cannot shirk our duties as encyclopedists. We need to properly inform the reader what the factual (in the legal sense only, at this point) basis for the charges is. We can't do this without citing what the U.S. government alleges she did, as there is no independent reporting of these allegations. But neither can we just repeat what the complaint says. It may be public-domain text but at the moment it is not a matter of proven fact. So as noted above what we need to do is summarize the charges, with wording like "Investigators allege" or "The government claims". Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
I could not find any major dispute regarding the neutrality of this article by any users, except one objection by one IP number. So I removed neutrality dispute tag. Rayabhari (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that it is barely coherent. For example what does it mean that the maid "absconded" (she wasn't in custody) and since when do Indian courts have right to determine whether or not persons are allowed to take legal action in other countries? From what I can gather the maid has taken legal action against the diplomat, which is linked to technicalities that may allow her to claim to be "trafficked". This may or may not be because she is hoping to stay in the US. Meanwhile the diplomat is pursuing legal action designed to discredit the maid and to claim that she was being "blackmailed" by her, while also pursuing action in India. But none of this is remotely clearly articulated. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I've done my best to resolve the problem...for now. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

````http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-envoy-gets-4120-per-month-us-says-pay-nanny-4500-1934791 Sangeeta Richard the accuser was in the United States on an A3 Visa. This visa type is issued to foreign contracted employees of foreign A1 or A2 visa holders. Their sole visa standing is to be employed by the A1 or A2 individual and are required by their government to perform their duties and restricted from obtaining other employment while in the U.S.. http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_2637.html#personal

Because the person is not considered a direct employee of the foreign state but an employee of the individual they are in the custody of or they are the responsibility of the diplomatic Visa holder. Thus, when she ran away shirking her duties and demanding to be issued a standard Visa so she could obtain work in the U.S. and stay there, the Indian government declared her to have absconded, or ran away. This means she invalidated her Visa by breaking the terms of it so India demanded she be returned.

For undisclosed reasons U.S. authorities chose to assist Sangeeta evacuating her family to the United states before the incident started. http://www.rediff.com/news/report/diplomats-arrest-trouble-was-brewing-since-june/20131217.htm

To accurately portray this incident you have to go to the start of the story where Sangeeta entered the United States the first time, and what took place after that. The U.S. law enforcement was insisting she is an employee of a consul, others claim she was contracted by Khobragade as a consul to assist in her lifestyle to perform her consulate duties making her a government contracted employee rather than a personal employee.


 * This is not simple fact, but competing interpretation. Obviously the so-called absconding was no such thing in fact, since was taking advice from a lawyer, what you are saying is simply that this was the position articulated by the Indian embassy, which is now, i hope, accurately presented in the article as such. The US takes a different view of the applicability of the law in this case. We have to recognise that there are always multiple legal issues involved when people make claims that they have been exploited. Paul B (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Almost everything about this situation has been opinion, and even if it goes to court the decision will be an opinion.  I am only trying to help provide a few links and suggest that a more broad picture of the situation start to end might help people.  I've done no editing just a few links and answered a few posed questions.  The Diplomat can not ethically say that her servant ran away without it sounding like slavery.  The word abscond might be used in a similar context to desert, as in the government employee or military officer deserted their officer or post. It's not that surprising that a Indian news source would use the word as a matter of national pride talking about someone who deserted the country in what is from their perspective an illegal way.  Serious accusations were made to the U.S. government by the Indian Government months ago with a demand for her return.  Two countries with conflicting views and laws concerning a single situation is what makes this an incident and worthy of notation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, you got any suggestion for the page? How we can edit it, and how we can make it better, if you don't, then refrain from using this page for chit-chat. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Arrest: How can the person that issued the order for the arrest not be involved?  Background A3 Visa type is the type she wanted exchanged for a normal visa.  The fact that the A3 Visa is an official visa and that charges are based on an official visa application is the source of the legal arguments about the A3 Visa and her immunity from stated charges.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It does in fact appear to me that the article is of dubious neutrality. Yes, it's horribly poorly written. But beyond that, it frequently describes the case in inflammatory terms and often states things as facts that have little backing other than unsourced mentions in Indian tabloids. Here's one statement I don't like: "... the fact that Khobragade was handcuffed in public, especially that she was subject to a strip search, and that she was made to share a cell with 'drug addicts.'" None of these "facts" has been described as such in the American press, and they don't actually sound credible, given the kid gloves with which diplomats are typically treated. Someone has inserted a handful of "allegedlys" to excuse the article's language. It's not enough to impart a genuinely neutral tone to the piece.Deckoffa (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/politics/india-us-diplomat/ has the latest statements about the arrest procedure indicating special courtesies were extended. The editors have been trying to keep the article clean and concise in spite of a huge amount of conflicting information in the news.  The page has to be updated frequently because the news sources have changed information and contradicted themselves.  The article contains different information and claims from different sources at different times.  "Drug addicts" is a direct quote.  There has been a lot of confusion about the arrest chain of events, but the strip search was confirmed by USMS which also denied a cavity search.  There was some confusion about Visual cavity search during the strip search, and a digital cavity search http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerry-expresses-regret-over-strip-search-of-arrested-indian-diplomat/Blackbird013 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you have a news source that says she was not handcuffed in public? "Not handcuffed" is a misleading news article title.  The actual statement is that she was not handcuffed until she reached the courthouse. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/politics/india-us-diplomat/Blackbird013 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename and reorganize?
Should this article be renamed to simply Devyani Khobragade with the current title being set as a redirect to a new relevant section? I think the article could then be reorganized to match most biography articles. A section or two on Khobragade with some background info and career then a section about the current matter. Move everything related to Richard in the current background section to a new background subsection here, then arrest/charges and the reaction. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing it back to a biographical article would negate neutrality. The incident has involved accusations of illegal activity on both sides.  The Devyani Khobragade page was removed previously.  Any background information provided would have to be unbiased including positive and negative information.````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.248.141 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was strong consensus at Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident that only the incident is notable, and not the diplomat herself. Unless a new consensus is chalked out, the earlier consensus must be respected. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. My apologies for the suggestion; I had not read the AFD until just recently.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to have helped :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 19:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Were the barricates outside the US embassy illegal
Were the barricades illegal since they were virually placed in the middle of Road itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Retribution...?
it says "In more retribution, several senior politicians..." How can one say that this is retribution? Is there any criterial for someting being a retribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Like most things, it depends on the source of the information. If the source calls it retribution (or some similar term), then we describe it as such.  We cannot infer something about an act, but we can report (and should) if a reliable secondary source draws that inference.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reactions
U.S. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-india-usa-idUSBRE9BI0JE20131219 "Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman spoke with Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh to stress the importance of the U.S.-Indian ties following the arrest and strip-search of the diplomat while in U.S. custody and to pledge to work through the complex issues of the case." Confirmed but the quote above is more neutral: http://www.firstpost.com/world/devyani-live-sherman-calls-up-sujatha-distances-from-bharara-1291025.htmlBlackbird013 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please add
Please add the following quotes of Preet Bharara or their paraphrase: ""One wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?" "Ms. Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded," Bharara said, adding that his sole motivation was to "hold accountable anyone who breaks the law - no matter what their societal status and no matter how powerful, rich or connected they are." U.S. prosecutor defends treatment of Indian diplomat 117.195.83.65 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Who is Preet Bharara? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? 143.215.112.193 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Preet Bharara. Also this article should inform that the US government issued visas to the maid's husband and children and flew them out of India to the United States and allegations of a US conspiracy have been made in India including that the maid was a spy.India-US diplomat row: The Devyani Khobragade case looks all maid up 117.195.83.65 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well...sheds new light on the hocus-pcus double standards of the us regime!!Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read this, ignored it, and came back to it. If the article begins to include full quotes it has to be fairly represented.  Should a quote section be added to include quotes from both sides or would this simply make the article too long?  There have been a lot of quotes....can they all be presented fairly?  Quotes, or continue condensing with only information from quotes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be a mix of facts and confused insinuations, including the absurd notion that Indian courts should have jurisdiction over American ones ("A Delhi court had a couple of months ago also issued arrest warrant against Richards following a complaint that she attempted to extort money from Khobragade. The US authorities completely ignored the court ruling, reports said."). I suspect this a grandstanding gesture designed to draw attention to America's notorious double-standards on extradition, though the idea that the maid should be extradited or deported on such flimsy grounds is clearly weak. There are an awful lot of smokescreens being blown here. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Richards is an Indian citizen, with an Indian passport, but only working in US. Her family lived in India until 10 December 2013, and the arrest warrant was issued in order to arrest her if she returned to India. Nothing absurd about it. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh. What's absurd is the claim that "US authorities completely ignored the court ruling", as though Indian courts has some rights over US authorities. Paul B (talk)

The talk page should not be used for political agenda nor should the article. Both sides have been accused of serious crimes, but the crimes of one side are not in the U.S. news. This is not the first time someone implied that only U.S. news is valid on this page. Just as many Americans want justice here as Indians. THE QUESTION, is whether we should put politically motivated quotes that are not relevant to the actual incident but just grandstanding. IF we start placing these long grandstand quotes we must do so for both sides of the story. Hence I asked if we should honor this political quote request, and then do so for both sides, or ignore it. American citizens have the right to question how Americans have behaved illegally in this situation or how it violates federal law, it's just not in the news so we can't say anything. Therefore I would rather see the page deleted than filled with political quotes meant to ignore the facts.Blackbird013 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

removal of POV sections.
I have just removed 3 sections that had previously been removed by others. The second and third had nothing to do with this article and are just about India-American relations. The first is POV and make some big claims "Most American news outletss..." "XXX and XXX went further to imply that people who racially are of Indian background should not be protected by Western laws when in Western countries" violates BLP. tThere are other parts talk about Mexican workers. This has nothing to do with the article.Martin 4 5 1  02:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was sourced to someone reaction that should mbe mentiond, with the due caveat ofcourse.(Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)).


 * I never really edit Wiki much, but isn't the backgrounds section also quite POV? It seems that many of the paragraphs are copy and pasted from their cited sources directly, also. This is just a very poorly written article all around. For instance the reactions section states, "defended the handling of the arrest and custody, though his office was not involved. He claimed that Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded. Bharara defended the handling of the arrest, stating she was afforded courtesies well beyond what other defendants (most of whom are American citizens) are afforded."216.196.189.121 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It could use some editing help by anyone who can do so without making it inaccurate. Part of the problem with that section was a news article The background section is heavily one sided as is the arrest visa fraud sections. I've been wondering if they balance each other fairly.  The dispute was ongoing but we only learned about it after the arrest took place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> 'Nannygate' rocks India-US relations>> ‘Nannygate’ diplomat eyed US ambassador role>> Indian Diplomat’s Strip-Search Triggers Fight With U.S.>> Kerry 'regrets' treatment of Indian diplomat>> 'Conspiracy' behind US arrest of Indian envoy>> India-US row: Voices from the streets>> India demands US apology over diplomat arrest>> Predicting rain, Indian style[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/nannygate-tip-iceberg-201312239514397207.html >> Nannygate: Tip of the iceberg? ](Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)).
 * Seen. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This case like many hot media cases are hard to follow because of live updating news sources. As information updates old information is replaced with new information.

Original news reports described a chain of custody that involved her being arrested by the State Department, Turned over to the U.S. Marshalls, and then being placed into the custody of local police. Her own quote listed by multiple sources including http://www.cbsnews.com/news/india-protests-arrest-diplomat-devyani-khobragade-in-new-york/ indicates plural strip and cavity searches implying she was processed (subjected to search and identification) by more than one agency. The law enforcement agencies have been silent about any details concerning the exact nature of her processing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Its here to use for whoever is adding to it. And can then strike out when used.Lihaas (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. source with part of the background information: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-india-timeline-20131220,0,3220545.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Focus on Discrepancies by creating a section
I think readers would be interested in a discussion of the discrepancies. For example Khobragade says she was subjected to cavity search while the police say this is not so. Khobragade also says that Richard (the maid) tried to extort $10,000 from Khobragade (which Khobragade reported to legal authorities) while the Maid's lawyer says it was merely a negotiation for back pay. Glennconti (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Further Khobragade has said she has full immunity while the state department says she only has consular immunity.

Reference on denial of cavity search

Reference on extortion claim Glennconti (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Arrested, handcuffed and cavity-searched
This is with reference to the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident#Arrest

The arresting agency is titled "US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security" and not "United States Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service". The US Attorney Preet Bharara has said in an official statement that Devyani Khobragade was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner. The US Marshals Service has confirmed that Devyani Khobragade was not cavity-searched. Please amend the line "after which, she was handcuffed, strip searched, DNA swabbed and, according to Indian media sources, subjected to a cavity search." because this sentence makes it sound like a fact that all these things happened. Devyani was arrested without being restrained, then taken to the New York Federal Courthouse where a female US Marshals Service officer strip-searched her in a private facility and also conducted a DNA swab test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.112.228 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It says per Indian news and then the second part states the publicity statements countering the accusation and explaining procedure. It does help alleviate a lot of confusion for people in both countries to have the countering statements together so they can be understood in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Spoiled Brats
Essentially, the New York Times has accused the Indian middle-class of being spoiled brats. This view can be found:


 * http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/diplomat-arrest-row-india-has-overreacted-to-devyani-s-arrest-says-us-media_898477.html

and


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/opinion/indias-misplaced-outrage.html.

I don't see this significant view reflected in the article. 143.215.112.193 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because it doesn't belong in this article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Khobragade named as fraudulent beneficiary
The commission investigating the Adarsh scam has declared Devyani Khobragade as a fraudulent beneficiary of flat in the Adarsh Society. This article should mention that the person in question is a habitual offender.Devyani Khobragade among illegal beneficiaries, says Adarsh probe panel report 117.220.250.87 (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the current incident, not the Adarsh. Khobragade has not been convicted of any crimes, so cannot be called an offender, let alone an habitual offender.Martin 4 5 1  08:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone(almost) has some criminal related allegation, won't list any unless it's biographical page, but avoid if person wasn't convicted. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Khobragade has been named as an illegal recipient of a government subsidised flat by an inquiry commission set up by the government of Maharashtra. That is a conviction. The present incident you're right regards to an alleged visa fraud. Khobragade's background needs mention in the article as reliable sources do connect the two, and thus there is no wp:synthesis. 117.195.85.255 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Being named by a commission is not a conviction. To be convicted a person has to be tried in a court (preferably independent from the government, and definitely independent from the accusers) where they have the right to face their accusers, cross-exam the evidence against them, and argue a defence against the charges. This has not happened, so Khobragade has never been convicted of anything according to current sources. A report written by (I guess) the same government that is accusing her is meaningless has far as convictions go, it is not independent.Martin 4 5 1  23:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how the system works, "conviction is different from sentence", and in India the judiciary is independent from the legislature unlike perhaps say the United States - where we have governments appointing judges. Khobragade being named as an illegal beneficiary by an inquiry commission is a conviction, it is a crime she committed with other senior bureaucrats and politicians, a crime of commission and omission. 117.220.248.68 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

plagiarism problems
I've found several cases where this article plagiarizes Indian media sources. I've removed one paragraph and have placed the close paraphrasing and non-free material tags on the article.

The background section is largely copied and pasted form the Times of India's timeline. For instance, the Times article reads: September 20: Delhi HC passes an interim injunction restraining the maid and her husband from filing for any action against Khobragade in any foreign court.

November 19: A Delhi court issues a non-bailable warrant against the maid.

December 6: The warrant is forwarded to the US embassy with an official request to arrest the woman and facilitate her repatriation but this is ignored. The Wikipedia article reads: On September 20, 2013, the Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction restraining the maid and her husband from filing for any action against Khobragade in any foreign court. On November 19, 2013, a New Delhi court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against the maid. On December 6, 2013, the warrant was forwarded to the US embassy with an official request to arrest the woman and facilitate her repatriation.

The background section needs to be rewritten to remove close paraphrasing, or it needs to be removed altogether. GabrielF (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the background section. The material should be rewritten in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia's policies. GabrielF (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Background section should contain important information to understand the case. As suggested above, material should be rewritten, right, but is it correct to remove entire chunk of info? In the name of POV, some of the material removed seems to remove facts against Sangeetha Richards and create sympathy in favour of her. Neutrality should be achieved in such a way that the article should furnish facts of both sides, that is what I feel. Other editors kindly comment, without any prejudice or POV :) :) - Rayabhari (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Balancing points of view is not an acceptable rationale for condoning copyright infringement. The material can be rewritten but it must not violate copyright. GabrielF (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath
Please revise the penultimate sentence from: "On December 23, 2013, the United Nations approved a request from India to accredit Khobragade ." to: "On December 23, 2013, the United Nations approved a request from India to accredit Khobragade but also stated that US approval was still needed. " 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.Martin 4 5 1  19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is she a diplomat?
Hi. Should Devyani Khobragade be described as a diplomat in this article? She's the Deputy Consular General of the Indian Consulate in NY. Consular officers and diplomats have different mission scopes (diplomats communicate between governments, consulates help their citizens in foreign countries) and are protected by different UN treaties (Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations versus the Vienna Treaty on Consular Relations ). I understand that this is kind of an inside baseball distinction, but for this case, it's actually a fairly important one, I think. Consular officers, under the Vienna Treaty on Consular Relations, don't have anywhere near the scope of immunity that diplomats have under the Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations and can be tried for violations of the law that is outside of the scope of the consular mission. EdwardGlashaus (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She has "consular immunity", not "diplomatic immunity". 132.3.65.78 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that was the point I make. Consular immunity is significantly smaller in scope (and limited to actions taken as part of the consulate's mission) than diplomatic immunity. EdwardGlashaus (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * regarding US government responsibility towards a Consular. Refer UN Vienna treaty of 1963, Section II Please read : Art 40 - The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity ; Art 41 - Personal Inviolability Of Consular Officers - 1.Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. 2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect; 
 * In this case, it is clear US government has not kept to its responsibility and conducted a grave human rights crime by violating the body of this individual by its strip search and cavity checks.Prodigyhk (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, the question is moot due to the Indian Government's decision to transfer her to the UN mission (thereby making her a diplomat so that she may avoid prosecution). However, I don't see how any of what you cited have any relevance with regards to the initial (and very limited) discussion on her exact legal status under international law.EdwardGlashaus (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * my response is to your initial query on the "scope of immunity" available to her. Per Vienna treaty, as Consular she can not be arrested pending trial, except in the case of grave criminal charges. The legal definition of "grave crimes" are crime such as robbery, murder or indecent assault. In this case the crime is one of immigration fraud, which does not fall into the category of "grave criminal charges". And the trial has still not started. Hope it helps. cheers Prodigyhk (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to get truly technical, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not binding on domestic law and only reflects a commitment by the US to an international agreement, since Congress has not seen fit to enact the treaty into law. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) . Also, where are you getting the legal definition of "grave crimes" since, even so, the Vienna Convention does not define it and the term does not appear in US laws?EdwardGlashaus (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose when or "if" this case goes to trial, we will get better understanding on this. Till then, it is just us trying to guess :) Prodigyhk (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The court would still be the final determiner but it is the U.S. State Department's position that felony offenses are grave crimes: "Consular officers may be arrested or detained pending trial only if the offense is a felony and that the arrest is made pursuant to a decision by a competent judicial authority (e.g., a warrant issued by an appropriate court)". Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, p. 6. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: apparently she had full diplomatic immunity at the time of her arrest see this: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/new-twist-devyani-had-full-diplomatic-status-at-time-of-arrest/article5505177.ece?ref=relatedNews 171.65.253.128 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ps someone more experienced than me should make the changes as required as her diplomatic immunity explanation is pretty complicated thanks
 * ❌ - That article by Sandeep Dikshit in the Hindu Times doesn't cite any sources and is speculative until the facts are established in court. Jonathunder (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I was confused about the article as well and so did not edit the actual page just the talk page with the link(full immunity update:see above). Albeit similar articles have also been published in the times of india, Hindustan times, indian express etc. It seems like some kind of paid-propaganda type effort if it turns out to be speculative rather than factual. but neways here are some of the other links: (the first one actually names some of the sources including at the UN) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/376961/devyani-had-un-immunity-says.html (this cites some kind of an electronic receipt from the UN but again is not completely verifiable, doesnt exactly name devyani) http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131227/jsp/nation/story_17725107.jsp#.Ur0BX2Q9nrc

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/devyani-was-under-full-diplomatic-immunity-during-arrest-113122600876_1.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Devyani-Given-Diplomatic-Immunity-in-Aug-This-Year/2013/12/27/article1967459.ece

107.214.149.105 (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

so reuters is saying he same thing, it also claims to have access to accreditation documents.see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/27/us-india-usa-idUSBRE9BQ07120131227
 * A more recent Reuters update goes on to say: "According to the U.N. Manual of Protocol website (http://www.un.int/protocol/3_6.html), U.N. accreditation alone does not appear to grant diplomatic immunity, it simply gives Khobragade access to U.N. headquarters in New York." UPDATE 2-India seeks possible US tax violations as stand hardens in row While taking no position on this argument, I suggest it is to early to revise the article based upon this information provided by unnamed officials. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was sceptical about the news reports myself but was still interested in getting to the bottom of the issue. 171.65.253.128 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dalit
Is it appropriate to mention that Devyani Khobragade and her father are Dalits? This article suggests that both Devyani and her father benefited in their careers from quotas set aside for Dalits, which gives the question some background relevance to this article. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Devyani Khobragade's uncle, Dr Ajay M Gondane (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-19/india/45376769_1_drug-addicts-devyani-khobragade-arrest) is also from so-called 'elite' Indian foreign service, an influential IFS officer of 1985 batch, was posted in the same Indian consulate in New York (http://overseasindiaweekly.com/NewsArticle.asp?sdkjshdhsdkjs=sdhsjdhsdlsdjlksjdl;sd&NewsID=1307313142&sdhskjdhskjd=sdhsjkdhsjkdh) and (probably) now lives there at New York, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkug (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair representation of information
Originally there was a Devyani Khobragade page someone created. People voted to remove it as she was not a person of significance or fame. The article title is Devyani Khobragade incident because it was her arrest, that sparked the incident.

A few attempts have been made to add information about Devyani Khobrade that could be seen as politically motivated.

If negative biographical information or political statements are to be included in the page, it must be done for all parties. Although the title is Devyani Khobraade incident it involves many more people. Biographical information would have to be included for the accuser, the accused, and U.S. and Indian officials involved with citations for information about all parties. This would be an extremely large task which is the most obvious reason long political quotes and biographical information have been avoided. Blackbird013 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the latest information is that the figure on the form was not 4500USD, but was assumed to be so, because an agent in Preet Bharara's office made a mistake while reading the forms submitted, shouldn't this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.211.187 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Excessive biographical information
Grover cleveland after detailed discussion, the decision was that only the incident is of importance. This is the reason, we are limiting only the information regarding the incident. And as editors of WP, we need to take great care when we include biographical information about any person [WP:BLP]]. This is the reason, had removed the excessive biographical informationProdigyhk (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
I dont think why this article is proposed for Deletion. Many Trustable References are provided to justify the content of the Article. Deletion of this Article with many References will pave the way for people to Loose Hopes on Transparency in Wikipedia Vijeth N Bharadwaj 20:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a question of notability, not of the number of references. Wikipedia is not supposed to have articles on news events unless they have more lasting significance WP:NOTNEWS. In any case, so far, by far the majority of the votes on the deletion page are to keep the article. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is more than just a case of relevance to about individuals. If it was just another criminal thing like the hundreds of things happen each month, it might not have got this much attention. Regardless of the specifics of who is right or who is wrong there exist several angles such as Trafficking/Spy/Opportunistic Emigrant/Wage-Abuse/Visa-Abuse/Diplomatic-Immunity-Abuse/Insensitive Detention/Maid revenge/on whom lies the Onus of Honesty/International-Spat/Diplomatic Failure/Diplomatic posturing/Religious Manipulation/Fame hungry Lawyer/Maid contracts in India. It is bound to bring about lasting consequences as well as form impressions in minds. Until the whole thing is over it may be hard to know what detail matter and what don't. Until labor costs in India rise and become equal to that of developed countries some caution has to be taken for needless situations like this. Hgkamath (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Who on earth is this person. What makes her so special that there should be a page on her arrest? They don't even have a personal page for her. This should be deleted or condensed and included in the US-India relations page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.54.163 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This incident is all over the media and getting huge attention. I am surprised this page is proposed for deletion. The incident is very much important because of the incidents happened later. India even removed the security barriers in front of the US embassy and there is a diplomatic standoff over the issue. The template for a current incident is also inserted.Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The deletion proposal was withdrawn. See the closed discussion at Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident. I didn't comment in the discussion; if I had, I probably would have leaned towards WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Proper characterization of legal argument, not reporting one side's assertion as fact
We need to be very careful that facts are reported as such, and opinions reported as such. As the article now reads, much of the claims by the prosecutor's office are taken as fact, when they are only argument to be decided by the proper venue. Specifically, we have Preet Bharara's office claiming that Devyani Khobragade had no immunity for the alleged offense: an alleged false statement as to the compensation of an employee. I don't claim to know what the ultimate resolution of the reach of Consular Immunity is, but I find it hard to believe that the prosecutors can have knowledge that Khobragade has children, and that she is working on behalf of India, and that somehow the issue of taking care of her children while she works is not related to her work duties. To me it seems absurd, and that the prosecutors might be engaging in a frivolous argument. Does Preet claim that every hire, every purchase, every contract a consulate member engages in is subject to Preet's interpretation and prosecution? Exactly what acts would be "good enough" to be Consular in his mind? Just to illustrate: Does Preet think that he can prosecute an accupuncturist, herbalist, or any sort of health practitioner brought from the home country of a Consular member just because that professional is not licensed under the State of NY's Western centric health system? It truly is absurd.Knowsetfree (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "No law enforcement officer, State Department officer, diplomatic mission, or consulate is authorized to determine whether a given set of circumstances constitutes an official act. This is an issue which may only be resolved by the court with subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged crime. Thus, a person enjoying official acts immunity from criminal jurisdiction may be charged with a crime and may, in this connection, always be required to appear in court (in person or through counsel). At this point, however, such person may assert as an affirmative defense that the actions complained of arose in connection with the performance of official acts. If, upon examination of the circumstances complained of, the court agrees, then the court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the case must be dismissed." Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, p. 6. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How to address reliably reported apparrent hypocrisy
Would like comment from other Editors on how to include the following issue in the article. Remembering the article is about the incident, and not just Devyani per se. The article clearly is focused on the actions of Preet Bharara as well, who went out of his way to make a personal statement as to his decision to arrest the diplomat in a manner which he knew would result in her cavity search. The hypocrisy relates to a statement made by Preet as quoted in The New York Times: "Every lie is not a crime". Preet made this statement as part of his reasoning for not prosecuting a Wall Street banker who lied to a government official about the collapse of his bank. The financial crash in the U.S. is arguably are most important issue, and it just seems absurd that the DOJ should cover up crimes related to the crash (see 18USC1001) which include a lie to a government official about your banks failure. The article is about the incident of the arrest, of not just a foreigner but a diplomat, but as to a dispute over applicable minimum wage. Boggles the mind that the possible collapse of the dollar, or even the country, takes a back seat to a worker being hosted in NYC and at a wage rate likely exceeding the pay at home. I'm not saying that the allegations, if true, don't mean something. I'm saying that they mean nothing compared to the cover up of a bankers lie. Knowsetfree (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Our own opinions about whether this constitutes hypocrisy are WP:SYNTHESIS and do not belong in the article. On the merits, see Perjury and prosecutorial discretion. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013
The article does not include the scam devyani and her father carried out in India.for example Adarsh scam

Ansh23101982 (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion consensus was that the scope of this article (WP:SCOPE) was the incident in question, not her biography. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done per deletion discussion. Paris1127 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013
She joined Indian Foreign Service in 1999 ( Her father manipulated and influenced exam procedures to get devyani a seat in IAS )

Devyani and her father are also involved in Aadarsh scam in India.

I am not sure about other scams.

Ansh23101982 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion consensus was that the scope of this article (WP:SCOPE) was the incident in question, not her biography. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done per deletion discussion. Paris1127 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Links
p>> India envoy wants indictment delayed>> Indian consul gets immunity in US fraud case.> Indian visa row diplomat Devyani Khobragade leaves US>> India asks US to remove embassy officer>> Whistleblowing and India's giant corporations(Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).

Indian Diplomat Indicted in Employment Case and Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade leaves US for home under full diplomatic immunity 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014
Reference "Fraud Diplomat" >> "Devyani Khobragade" http://www.firstpost.com/world/more-skeletons-tumble-out-of-devyani-khobragades-cupboard-1301929.html

202.126.172.110 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion consensus was that the scope of this article (WP:SCOPE) was the incident in question, not her biography. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

US must have known Devyani Khobragade had full immunity: Govt of India
This article doesn't include: 39-year-old Khobragade, who was posted as Deputy Consul General in New York, was also accredited as an "Advisor to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations" by the UN w.e.f. 26th August 2013 and her status as an Advisor was valid until 31 December 2013.

references:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-01/india/45762827_1_diplomat-immunity-indian-employees

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131227/news-current-affairs/article/devyani-khobragade-had-full-immunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.101.224 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the US State Department have to issue a visa other than the one she currently holds in order for her to enjoy full diplomatic immunity?50.147.26.108 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As Reuters put it: "According to the U.N. Manual of Protocol website (http://www.un.int/protocol/3_6.html), U.N. accreditation alone does not appear to grant diplomatic immunity, it simply gives Khobragade access to U.N. headquarters in New York." India seeks possible US tax violations as stand hardens in row While taking no position on this argument, I suggest it is still too early to revise the article based upon this speculative information. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

US NEVER DENIED THIS: "We have been advised by the Government of India that Dr Khobragade was notified to the United Nations as a member of India's delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in September. We are currently looking into the matter," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf DON'T TELL ME "MARIE HARF" DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT U.N. MANUAL OF PROTOCOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.166.33 (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While I can't make sense of your statement, I would like to point out that the government of India sought to reclassify her visa after the incident in order to grant full diplomatic immunity. This reclassification has occurred and she has been permitted to leave the country. All parties involved recognized that a different visa and status was necessary to grant that immunity.50.147.26.108 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read before commenting: "Her status as an Advisor was valid until 31 December 2013" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.40.27 (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How do $9.75/hr salary at 40 hours a week work out to $4500.00/month?
Assuming $10.00/hr at 40 hours week = $400.00/week *4 = $1600.00. Assume 1 month = 4 weeks + 2 days, it would come out to $1760.00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.167.4.200 (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[| $4500 - fill in the curse] - In the final indictment, prosecution said $4500 was nobody's salary. Indian media reported $4500 was entered by Devyani as her own salary. They also noted that the person submitting the DS-160 is liable for accuracy, not the person who helped her fill it. The story was: DS-160 was filled electronically on Devyani's laptop, but Sangeeta went to the US Embassy by herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.71.189 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

India orders US diplomat to leave country
The article may include: "Tit for tat expulsions: India orders US diplomat to leave country". The Times of India. Retrieved Jan 10, 2014.(reference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.186.226 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and syntax correction
'She left the United States by plane to India later in the same day' the last sentence in the lead should actually be, 'She left the United States by plane to India later the same day.' or 'She left the United States by plane to India later on the same day.' The article is locked for editing, so someone please change it
 * ok changes done. Prodigyhk (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Security barricades
The WORD "security barricades" is often used and seriously misleading.. These barricades were provided to give extra parking space to diplomats, No such barricades are there in New York for Indians as well.

"India enforced strict reciprocity by removing the barricades as the US authorities opened the parking in front of the Indian Embassy in Washington DC to general public and refused to reinstate it despite repeated requests."

reference:http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-devyani-khobragade-row-india-steps-up-security-for-us-embassy-150-policemen-deployed-1944332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.183.95 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014
The date provided is incorrect: It should be January 10, 2014.

"On December 10, 2014, Indian government expelled Wayne May, a US diplomat based at New Delhi. Media sources state that May had taken “unilateral actions” in expediting the travel of Richard's family from India and violated various procedures while taking actions taken related to this case."

Nishgop (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  09:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Documents suggest that Devyani 'overpaid' her maid Sangeeta
A Motorola tablet, Shehnaz Hussein cosmetics, expensive perfume, her own TV set: apart from a salary of $1400, those were some of the luxuries that Sangeeta Richard, domestic help of India's deputy consul general in New York Devyani Khobragade, received from her employer.

Documents available with Mail Today show that Richards was getting more than the US-stipulated $1374.75 she was to be paid.

ref:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2530144/Documents-suggest-Devyani-overpaid-maid-Sangeeta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.5.156 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Uttam Khobragade
Devyani's rather, Uttam Khobragade, has sought a public role in this case and could have a section in this article describing his influence if the weight of sources merited this. He has had a Wikipedia article since 2009, and was a politician himself.

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Adarsh Housing Society scam
There is some media which ties the Khobragade family to the Adarsh Housing Society scam. The following text by was removed by :

Indian media also detailed the involvement of the Khobragade family in the Adarsh Housing Society scam.

Because Bladesmulti posted no rationale for removing this text I am re-inserting it. Bladesmulti, feel free to remove it again, but when you do, could you state why? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User talk:Bluerasberry, can't allege any media's news, as long as this is not a biographical article, neither she is convicted yet. Almost everyone has some allegation, doesn't means we can add all. We had edit conflicts here big time about that, that's why no one inserted that here.. You can simply remove. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a great explanation. I removed the text. Here are the archived discussions on this topic.
 * Talk:Devyani_Khobragade_incident/Archive_1
 * Talk:Devyani_Khobragade_incident/Archive_1
 * Anyone who proposes to add this content again should address the concerns raised by Bladesmulti here and concerns expressed in the archives also.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Uttam Khobragade Page now links here
Until 13 January,2014, a separate page existed for Mr Uttam Khobragade. The page now links to this page. The change happened after multiple edits to his page, highlighted the various scams he was involved him. By linking his individual article here, he has covered up his involvement in these scams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser125468965 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? What we should do? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should'nt allow his individual page to link to this incident. He is renowned enough to have his own page. The possibility of linking a person to an incident can be used by others to hide facts that they don't want to show.

I think that was the point being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.the.way.you.lie 5113 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow.. Great point mate. I must ask for it's deletion anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point "Bladesmulti". You want the page of Uttam Khobragade deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.the.way.you.lie 5113 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not notable, so yes. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is to decide if he is notable or not? Under what criterion can you deem him "not notable".

And if this is a possibility I see a loophole for those who do not want certain aspects of their life highlighted, to be linked to only one particular incident and hide everything else. Thereby giving readers incomplete and biased content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.the.way.you.lie 5113 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How we can't decide that he's notable or not, if you had read the guidelines you would had knew as well, that person is not prolific, neither a part of any encyclopedia, can't make page about every victim's father. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He is not notable for being the father of Devyani Khobragade, however is has notability of his own, and his page was present on the English language Wikipedia long before this incident. His page has recently turned slightly into an attack page. It was prodded last year, and the prod removed. The correct thing to do would be to take his page to AfD.Martin 4 5 1  06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, wasn't so aware about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you had seen the history of the "Uttam Khobragade" page, before it was linked here, you would have known that his page existed way before this case. Since 2009 to be precise. He is not recognized as only the "victim's father", but also as an IAS(Indian Admisntrative Service) Officer, posted in a various important departments. His involvement in various scams was also part of this article

After his daughter's name figured in this case, he became more of a topic of interest. His previous article began going through multiple rounds of edits by multiple users to bring it up to Wiki standards(Wiki highlighted how the article was written as an advertisement and also how it looked like the article was written by a close relative(read Uttam Khobragade))

The unfortunate thing was that vested interest(i could be wrong here) always removed or tried to cover up the controversies section, by glorifying him, with poorly sourced references and links. Which wiki users edited back to the original version, This was an obvious attempt at a cover up.

In short, Uttam khobragade, a man of public interest(Google him), not just for his daughter's arrest but for multiple other reasons, needs a separate page. By doing this we have found a loophole for a man with a tainted background to hide behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.the.way.you.lie 5113 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A separate page already exists for Uttam_Khobragade Prodigyhk (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Documents released by Department of Justice
removed two documents which I posted to the article. One is a letter explaining that Khobragade left the United States before indictment, and the other is the indictment itself. The name of this article is currently the "Devyani Khobragade incident", and the Devyani Khobragade incident is this indictment or perhaps the arrest which led to this indictment. I think these documents should be in this article because they provide the key context for understanding this topic. Other thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Other documents
Also, there are some other documents of interest available, including these: I expect that Khobragade owns the copyright to these, but apparently as evidence put before a grand jury they have some status as being available for public viewing. The United States Department of Justice is publicly distributing them, but I think that Wikipedia policy would prevent them being uploaded to Commons, right? The DoJ has these published in a way that people with slow Internet connections could not read them. They are part of a 66 page massive PDF, when these documents are each 2-3 pages. Is it correct that these could not be hosted on Wikimedia projects? Is there any host for documents of this sort?
 * So-called "fake employment contract", which said that Richard was to be paid $9.75 and which some media said was actually supposed to be Khobragade's pay
 * So-called "real employment contract", which said that Richard's pay was Rs 30,000
 * FIR filed by Khobragade and which led to arrest warrants for Mrs. and Mr. Richard

I feel that this article should at least link to them, because a huge amount of the media discussion on this topic is speculation about what these documents say but no one seems to actually have access to them.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Bluerasberry WP standard policy is clear Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents . This is the reason the documents you posted were removed. As WP editors we are not allowed to refer primary sources. Our task is only collect information from reliable secondary and present it in a neutral language here. You may refer WP:primary, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:secondary for better understanding. If you still have further query, we can request admin advice. Thanks for the coffee Prodigyhk (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I put them back, but I would remove them again or you can if you wanted me to get other comments. I see no need for an admin because we could request a third opinion or other comments. Admins deal with behavior problems, and do not settle content disputes.
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply at all because there is no one is challenging anything to be untrue. WP:PRIMARY is about citing primary sources, but that also is not happening here. The court document and letter are not cited; they are primary sources just like a photo or illustration is always a primary source, and they supplement the article but all the citations are to secondary sources. The primary sources are not cited.
 * If you disagree with my putting these back then I will remove them and get another opinion. WP:PRIMARY links to "no original research", and I am not doing original research. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry Disagree. Please remove, The images you have loaded are complete court documents -> [Indictment 21 pages long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khobragade,_Devyani_Indictment.djvu ] - [Preet Bharara letter - 2 pages long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khobragade,_Devyani_Govts_1.9.2014_Letter_to_Judge_Scheindlin.djvu ] Request remove both the documents from article space. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for posting this to the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   06:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Resolution
for better clarification of WP policy have raised a request for resolution here Prodigyhk (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Husband is Aakash Singh Rathore
Another source that says Devyani's husband is Aakash Singh Rathore. The Washington Post says they met in Germany.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-devyani-khobragade-advocated-for-womens-rights-but-underpaid-her-nanny/2013/12/20/13e23688-69a2-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html

207.239.120.10 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter who is her husband, this is not a biographic article. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

http://racistdiplomatsusa.tumblr.com/
This page does not actually exhibit racism. Moreover it applies bigoted stereotypes to US nationals. "Probably has to do with the fact that US diplomats and government officials are horribly racist and view the rest of the (non-white) world as filthy heathens that need to be civilized."

After reviewing this passage on the title of the page, one can see that it makes a broad generalization which could only be logical if all US government officials were white. More bigotry follows from the cyber-stalking caption writer.

Although some insecure individuals may construe the comments made on that page to be racist or disparaging to Indian culture, others can rightly see that these are the common observations any westerner would make when confronted with the inconsistencies of India.

Please produce changes that reflect these observations. "Media sources also quoted disparaging remarks about India and Indian culture"

Media sources quoted a blog run by a social media stalker...

Media sources misquoted critiques of India posted by...

Media sources misconstrued comments made by May's wife.

plenty of options here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.45.162 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * have now removed this tumblr link from the main article. Advice if you have any other changes request.Prodigyhk (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discrimination in the United States against Indians could be covered but not here. Consider developing another Wikipedia article and linking it here.


 * Anti-India sentiment
 * White privilege
 * White supremacy
 * Racism in the United States
 * Stereotypes of South Asians
 * Stereotypes of white Americans in the United States
 * India–United States relations


 * The tumblr is not a reliable source so it cannot be cited, but perhaps the tumblr and work like that can help journalists cover the issue better.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry should check the edit history of this page, I tried to remove this nonsensical discussion but the same ip reverted my edit. Blue, I think there's no need to add this news at all, because we don't have to promote these rejected and non-notable people at all. Interestingly this tumblr has sparked many reliable sources to promote this 2-3 year old non related issue., If there is something essential, we may just add in Racism in the United States that "Number of american diplomats have been accused and convicted of Racism", and add 2 or 3 similar news as source. That's all.. Ok? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you say is best. Still, American prejudice against Indian people is a problem, and I would not want that hidden. If someone writes on that topic then there is a right way to do it.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you felt the post was nonsensical.

To sum it up, I feel the word 'critical' or 'insensitive' would be more appropriate than 'disparaging'. On the balance the media and official response has exhibited bigotry towards US nationals. This might be something worth documenting, as it plays an integral role in the media circus currently exciting the nationalist identity.

We could do whole books on bigotry in S. Asia - I hope this is not a measuring contest. If anything jumping to the conclusion of racism is applying a tired stereotype of westerners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.45.60 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for harsh words if I used any. Other than that, I already read this one before you posted it. It has been sparked by some reliable sources, like I have posted already! I am sure many of the people would be thinking that these 2 racists made the racial remarks only because they lost job, but its wrong, one comment is from 2011, other is from 2012 November. Nothing relevant.
 * Can't really add like "those who got kicked from being diplomat were racist to Indians anyway!"... But that article Racism in the United States surely needs this one, and the miss world racism. Hope it's not getting too off topic now. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries concerning off-topics or language used. You guys are the WP experts. "those who were kicked from being diplomats were racist towards Indians anyway!" This seems to be the common perception presented in inflammatory articles. However, none of the posts I had reviewed on that tragically ironic tumblr referenced race. Some of the media backlash did seem explicitly bigoted. Others were implicitly bigoted as they presumed a white United States.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/devyani-khobragade-row-arrest-same-sex-companions-of-us-diplomats-in-india-says-yashwant-sinha-459750 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.45.60 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievabley biased
This article is unbelievably biased in favor of the maid and the US officials like Preet. How is that?186.188.176.63 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:186.188.176.63 Advice which section you find biased. Regular editors can help you to edit. This is the reason the article was protected. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Highly likely that the text has been produced by the US State Department. The controversy regarding the domestic workers of Indian diplomats between the two governments has been ongoing for some time and the arrest was planned in detail by the Americans. Taking care of PR on the webb is likely to not have been forgotten. Basically from the Indian viewpoint its a case of the Indian Government paying maids well to go to the US to work for their diplomats (who are used to maids). For the US its a case of maids working in the US under working conditions which are unacceptable for Americans. A case of two worlds clashing. Legally its a case of the US violating its agreement with the UN on the status of delegates of UN Member States (which although they can be prosecuted can not be arrested). Very likely due to forgetting to check if Khobragade besides working at the consulate also was part of the Indian UN delegation. This is fully understandable as even the Indians forgot about it before checking their records at the end of December. With the current information the case should under international law be thrown out. However its now political and US administrations usually ignore international laws they dont like at will (and invent fancifull interpretations when to their benefit e.g. in the CIA agent murder-case in Pakistan). Thus who knows what will happen. With regard to this article it needs to be thoroughly rewritten, eg. by an unbiased European like myself, but with enough time. I would outsource the work to India if I had the right connections :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.223.27 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * She didn't enjoy full immunity, which is why the Indian government sought to reclassify her visa. The USG does not grant full diplomatic immunity to consular officials, but only immunity with respect to their duties. Personal inviolability of consular officials is quite limited. It doesn't matter what duties India tasked her with, it matters how she is officially classified. If the Indians did not seek to reclassify her visa, then they did not properly seek permission for an official with full diplomatic immunity to be present in the United States. Intention of the guest nation does not grant diplomatic immunity, the USG does through a formal process. Here is a briefing on USG policy regarding immunity http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf. Stating that no one but a European can be impartial as to this case and should not edit it is inappropriate, absurd, and uncivil.50.147.26.108 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Former Indian Ambassador to the US Prabhu Dayal, who had a similar case against him speculates that the US has a number of bilateral agreements with major countries to provide full immunity to consular officers as well. And there was no reason to sign one with India, since US diplomats there got the full immunity anyway. Also note that President Obama claimed full diplomatic immunity for Ray Davis, who was a CIA contractor in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.71.189 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just commenting from the sidelines here that one comment above says, "Intention of the guest nation does not grant diplomatic immunity, the USG does through a formal process", and the next comment says, "President Obama claimed full diplomatic immunity for Ray Davis [...] in Pakistan". It seems that the US would have been the guest nation in Pakistan, and that intention of the guest nation would not have granted diplomatic immunity in that case but, rather, that the Pakistan government would through a formal process. According to the Raymond Allen Davis article, the position of the Pakistan Foreign Office was that Davis was "not a diplomat and cannot be given blanket diplomatic immunity" (that's from the article's lead section, and may be an oversimplification). According to that article, the Davis situation was eventually resolved as a criminal justice matter under Pakistani law. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the criticism from India is that US actions are one sided and played only to its own advantage. In the Davis case, Obama found it important to save this murderer by stating, But there's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/15/obama.pakistan/ While in this case of Khobgragae that involved no physical abuse of any person, the same Obama finds there is no principles at stake and does not even bother to express a simple apology that a diplomat of a friendly nation was strip searched by his overzealous police force. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoping not to get drawn into an endless discussion here, I'll say that your comment seems to be founded on some presumptions, including (1) she was a diplomat (my understanding is that she was a consular official), (2) foreign consular officials detained in police lockup should be treated differently from other detainees, (3) the police were overzealous, (4) an apology was warranted. I don't currently buy any of those assumptions. Also, my understanding is that the Pakistanis didn't buy Obama's assertion re a broader principle and the Davis situation was resolved under Pakistani criminal law -- with a Pakistani apology neither having been expected nor offered. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wtmitchell, what pakistanis have to do with this? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned above in this section. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge section from India–United States relations here
The Khobrage and Richard story is developed also at India–United_States_relations. I think that most of the content there should be merged into this article, and that article should direct people to read more at this article. I proposed at Talk:India–United_States_relations tha most of the content there be merged here. What do others think?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good one, I removed at least 14,939 bytes data. Some other user tried to remove it as well, but IP reverted it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion, but object to the deletion of the content prior to the merge is actually effective.91.182.236.237 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you want to insert? Everything is provided on the page. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bladesmulti (talk): Why don't you compare the redacted info and you will see all that is missing. A quick review shows that the retaliatory/reciprocal actions sections has sourced info that has not been moved. I'm copying the section here so that it is easily available for comparision.
 * Ad interim, I have rewritten the text so that it is more comprehensive so that it covers WHAT happened, HOW the relationship has changed and WHY this incident is viewed as having long-term repercussions.
 * BTW, from what I see in the contribution history of the article, it seems that you, Numancia and 91.182.236.237 are all equally involved in edit warring by removing the info repeatedly (twice already which is enough to merit you three can all be reported for edit warring).109.128.191.122 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived copy of "2013 Devyani Khobragade incident" section removed from India–United States relations page
In December 2013, the Indian political and diplomatic establishment reacted to the arrest and temporary detention of an Indian diplomat in New York following a domestic labour dispute.[70] Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade was arrested by US State Department Police on allegations of visa-fraud and handed over to US Marshals for detention.[71]

The incident occurred a week after US Ambassador Nancy Powell categorically stated that "an Indo-US strategic treaty will never be signed" and clarified that the US preferred a flexible approach to the critical issue of strategic collaboration.[72]

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the treatment of the female consular official which included repeated handcuffing, stripping and cavity searches, DNA swabbing, and placement in a hold-up alongside common criminals and drug offenders as "deplorable".[73] Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath demanded that the US Government apologise and said "America must understand that the world has changed, times have changed and India has changed,".[74] Speaking in the Rajya Sabha (Upper house of Parliament), the External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid undertook to “bring back the diplomat and restore her dignity. If I fail to do it, I will not return to this House, (...) First and foremost, our effort is to bring her out of this situation and then we will talk to the U.S. government.” [75]

The Government of India took steps to ensure that diplomatic and consular privileges accorded unilaterally to US Government personnel posted to New Delhi are henceforth based on reciprocity.[76][77][78][79] External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said : “We’re not hostile, this is an arrangement based on reciprocity,” [80] Shashi Tharoor, India's minister of human resource development commented : "The cardinal principle of diplomatic relations is reciprocity, and India realized that it had been naive in extending courtesies to the U.S. that it was not receiving in return,"[81]

Reciprocal measures taken by the Government of India to reinstate parity of privileges :


 * US diplomats have been asked to submit details of salaries paid to their servants, maids, gardeners, drivers, private-security guards and other domestic help to the Indian authorities.


 * American Schools have been asked to submit details of salaries paid to teachers and their bank account details, to be forwarded to Income Tax department for tax compliance. Indian authorities have demanded work-permits, salary and tax information regarding the spouses of diplomats and other officials working with the American Embassy School (AES).[82]


 * Security barriers erected without permission by the US Embassy on Nyaya Marg through-fare road have been removed to permit free flow of public traffic and replaced by a police check-post, 150 policemen and 2 permanently stationed vehicles. Indian authorities reciprocated security arrangements around the US embassy in New Delhi to match those of the Indian missions in the US.[83] [84]


 * Tax-free import clearances given to US diplomats and consular officials for importing food, alcohol and other domestic items revoked with immediate effect.


 * Diplomatic IDs and airport passes of US officials working in the embassy in Delhi and consulates across India have been revoked and ordered to be returned. Airport access clearances and security pat-down exemptions will hereafter be specified individually based on reciprocity.


 * American Embassy asked to submit tax returns for commercial activities related to use of diplomatic facilities by members of the general public including private American citizens and their families. Indian authorities have cited the provision of such commercial facilities to non-diplomats as a violation of Article 41(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.[85]


 * American Community Support Association (ACSA) club and American Embassy Club told to cease all commercial activities benefiting non-diplomatic staff by 16 January.[86] The ACSA club operates a bar, bowling alley, swimming pool, restaurant, video-rentals club, indoor gym and a beauty parlour within the embassy premises.[87][88][89] The American Community Support Association will be shut to non-diplomats from Jan. 16 for failing to provide tax returns [90] The ACSA continued to operate despite a 2005 report by the US State Department’s Office of Inspector General saying that the use of the commissary by people other than U.S. diplomats must stop.


 * US Embassy told to halt screening movies at the American Center until proper import licenses and censor certificates are obtained[91]


 * US embassy vehicles and staff no longer immune from penalties for traffic violations [92] Delhi Traffic Police was instructed to deal sternly with traffic offences by diplomats.[93] In case of acts of drunken driving by US diplomats, Delhi Police have been directed to remove the diplomat from the vehicle and perform a breath-analysis test on the spot. In case the diplomat is found under the influence, the car is to be impounded and necessary action taken as with other drunk drivers.

Concurrently, media reports stated that Indian authorities were looking into cases where US diplomats fell foul of Indian laws:[94]


 * Investigation into illegal unauthorised employment of spouses of US diplomats stationed in India [95]


 * Illegal resale of tax-free fuel and duty-free items by diplomats [96]


 * Illegal use of tinted-glass on US Embassy vehicles in violation of Indian Supreme Court orders [93]


 * Investigation into use by US officials of "77 CD" plates with an applied for (AF) number in violation of norms under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.


 * Investigation into use of CD and CC vehicles for non-designated purposes


 * Examination of cases of drunken-driving by US diplomats


 * How the US Embassy had bypassed Indian tax laws in the purchase of air-tickets for the family members of Sangeeta Richard.[97]

Ruling out the rolling back of the measures restricting privileges for U.S. diplomats, Salman Khurshid explained “It seems we were going further than what was required by reciprocity. So, we have retreated into reciprocity and that will remain,”.[98] Salman Khurshid justified the policy of reciprocity saying that the government will do what was "fit and proper and in overall national interest"[99]

Reacting to the rapidly deteriorating relations between the two countries, which had been seen as cordial and improving in the recent past, John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser said : "Whether it was wise policy to actually arrest and detain someone for a non-violent crime like this, even if technically permissible under the Vienna Convention, is questionable to me. It's really quite surprising,".

Analysts predict that the incident has caused long-term damage to the relationship. Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington said, “The Indians have taken an extremely tough line on this. They are bracing for a full-fledged fight” if the case against the diplomat goes forward. “If they are going to throw their rule book at us, then we are saying we, too, have a rule book in India,” opined former diplomat and foreign-policy commentator K.C.Singh “Of late, there has been a growing feeling here that the U.S. has lost interest in India, that it is no longer the special friendship (...) The relationship is still fragile and is resting on a crag. Till we put it on flat ground, episodes like this can cause major damage to the ties.”[100]

Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin said that the ties between the two countries have “been severely undermined, (...) This matter has a huge divisive potential in our relations with the United States.”

Former US under-secretary for political affairs Nicholas Burns said : "Hopefully this (disagreement) can be diffused so we can go back to working on the very important issues on our agenda,"