8 ms·

Having a Servant Is Not a Right

156 points by GabrielF00 13y ago

Houshalter 13y ago
A minimum wage would definitely help the wages of a lot of servants. But it would (probably) mean some percent of them becoming unemployed because they can't be afforded/aren't worth the cost anymore. It might also decrease working conditions, because those unemployed people are now competing for your job. You can't compete on the basis of wages anymore so now it on the basis of how much you can do/put up with. Also because it then becomes harder to leave your job and find another. That doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit to doing it. An ideal solution would be a basic income. Tax everyone equally, not just those that hire lots of servants, and benefit everyone equally, not just employed servants. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
chasing 13y ago
> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." To be fair, many Americans could take the same lesson. (And thanks for making me have to agree with the Heritage Foundation. Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns...)
- clubhi 13y ago
  sometimes the value of X makes a bit of difference.
- mildtrepidation 13y ago
  If being fair is your intention, perhaps "Americans" ought to be replaced with "people." There's a lot of things you can lay on the USA's doorstep, but a monopoly on irresponsibility or entitlement is not one of them.
- whyenot 13y ago
  > "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." suppose X = {health care, an education, a lawyer, ...}
- superuser 13y ago
  How dare you agree with the Heritage Foundation and its crazy libertarian views.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns... Wouldn't you just need to take another shower after reading Krugman?
toufka 13y ago
The talk show mentioned in the last paragraph is here [1]. The quote comes at the end, ~45:30. Pretty terrible moderation - it's hard to watch, though it might at least bring out some of the points from another perspective. The focus seems to be entirely on the diplomatic insult of a pretty woman put in handcuffs over a 'trivial' matter. But combined with the US's (genuine) hypocrisy as noted by their handling of the Raymond Davis issue in Pakistan, there seem to be ulterior tensions leaking into this particular incident. Diplomatic relations are hard - there is such difficulty knowing how actions will be perceived by another nation/culture. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Arresting a diplomat will always cause problems but it was absolutely inexcusable for this diplomat to expect to get away with underpaying their housekeeper. That said, strip-searching someone over a wage dispute is far beyond the pale as well. And strip-searching an Indian diplomat for no particularly good reason during an arrest, is not just wrong, but also really fucking stupid, as it could have actual security implications for the US in India as we have already seen with some of the embassy's protection being withdrawn.
- FrankenPC 13y ago
  Our authoritarian oligarchy is spilling over into the international community. First the wars, then the NSA, now violating laws of diplomatic immunity. If I weren't a level headed guy, I'd have to say that on the OUTSIDE, The USA is starting to look like an insane imperialist nation.
  - gaadd33 13y ago
    What laws of diplomatic immunity were violated? Are diplomats immune to every law in the country they are in?
    - sleepyK 13y ago
      May I present, for your viewing pleasure, a certain Raymond Allen Davis. "President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold." I see that this 'broader principle' doesn't seem to apply to a legitimate diplomat... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  Rich, poor, American, Kazakh, it doesn't matter. If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners. There are different kinds of diplomatic immunity. Hers was explicitly limited to official work. The run-Americans-over-and-get-off-scot-free kind is a different diplomatic designation.
bane 13y ago
> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domestic help.” I had a few Indian friends in college who all lamented the lack of servants in their American day-to-day. One woman I knew recalled having 6 or 7 servants, but described herself as coming from just a normal, slightly-upper-middle class family. It really stuck with me over the years. Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe. Yet I've found myself over the years, as free-time disappeared into work and salaries increased, hiring a maid to come in once a month to clean house and a gardener to mow my lawn and tidy my plants once every couple of weeks. I've hired tutors and other private instructors, a fixit guy who comes and does other maintenance on my home every once in a while and so on. My wife and I have toyed with having a cook come in once a week and prepare a bunch of meals. I'm sure if pressed I could come up with a half dozen other people I've hired on for their physical labor at one time or another. If needed, I'm sure most of them would become "live in servants" for the right price and accommodations. It's also not uncommon in my area for families to hire Au Pairs which is really just a fancy way of saying live-in Nanny/house maid, which is a servant's title. They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board in exchange for child care and some house chores/personal assistant work. In other areas dedicated personal assistants are quite common. And I've seen people setup "internships" for their personal businesses which are so tied to their personal lives that the work is usually just personal assisting for intern pay. Yet in the U.S. we've allergic to calling these people "servants" because it seems menial and disparaging I guess. I'm curious though, where does the concept of "servant" actually end? Is my mechanic a servant? Or is he not because I go to his place for him to do the work instead of having him come to mine?
- maxerickson 13y ago
  We still call all those people service providers. Specialization and number of customers seem to be pretty clear distinguishers (where servant sort of implies lots of different tasks for a single household).
FrankenPC 13y ago
Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.
- JanezStupar 13y ago
  U.S. is not a member of ICC [1]. And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...
  - JoachimSchipper 13y ago
    It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist". However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...
- zaidf 13y ago
  Who violated diplomatic immunity rules?
- kghose 13y ago
  Diplomatic immunity only applies if the actions were taken as part of diplomatic work.
  - thedufer 13y ago
al2o3cr 13y ago
"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals." Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite? Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.
  - imsofuture 13y ago
    Cutthroats aren't a thing, and muggers are desperately impoverished. It's classism.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      So you feel there's nothing wrong with placing non-violent criminals in with violent criminals?
      - ars_technician 13y ago
        Being violent is not a choice, you are just forced to be violent by circumstances. /s
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison. Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way. And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent. The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.
asimov42 13y ago
Isn't it obvious this is the result of a country of extremely low average income and extremely high population? Of course it would be great to have even a semblance of equality, but I dont see a solution given the current economic model.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Low average income, but extremely low median income. There's nothing obvious or inevitable about that.
  - asimov42 13y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean by that? The slightly less poor exploit off the extremely poor?
jordanb 13y ago
An important thing to clear up here is that Khobragade was not a full "diplomat" at the time of her arrest but rather a "consular official" who receives a limited type of immunity that only applies to laws broken while carrying out official duties. Also the most serious charge against her isn't the wage dispute but perjury resulting from incorrect data she put on the visa forms. India has subsequently promoted her from the NY consulate to the Indian diplomatic mission to the UN and has claimed retroactive diplomatic immunity for her, but there are procedural questions about this move.
- whatisa 13y ago
  A better approach would have been to deport Khobragade while still offering protection/visas to the servant and her family. Quite a few Indians have been arrested on similar charges in the past without serious uproar, it's the fact that a consular official was treated this way. The US tends to be rather lax in its definition of "diplomatic immunity" when it comes to their benefit (see Raymond Davis) so such strictness is very hypocritical. The impression I get as a neutral observer is that the focus of the action was to punish the alleged guilty rather than try and achieve recourse for the alleged victim.
akshtest 13y ago
Typical idiotic argument by NYTimes, As someone who had multiple servants working at my home (a cook and cleaner), so that my mother could work at her job. I find the argument "If you can't pay a decent wage, don't hire one" idiotic. Wages are determined by market, and in case of our house, we routinely had to give a raise as well as bonus near holidays. Simply because reliable servants are hard to find. Who determines the "Decent" wage, idiots at NYTimes? This is the same misguided argument against garment factory workers from Bangladesh and FOXCONN workers in China. Rest of the world does not have the luxury of Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid and a ridiculous minimum wage.
- tokipin 13y ago
  i don't understand. for years my mom worked at her job (12hrs night shift, hard labor, without most of her fingers on one hand which she lost in an accident), cooked and cleaned, and took care of her young children
  - kamakazizuru 13y ago
    while I respect what your mom did. I think the point the OP is trying to make is that - there were people willing to work for the amount of money that his mother could afford to pay for them to do it. Its really not any different from when you hire people on Mechanical Turk to solve tasks that you're time isnt worth spending on.
    - tokipin 13y ago
      i understand the surface argument. but it read as if they thought a servant was some kind of necessity, when it's clearly a luxury. this is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but that's the vibe i got
      - kamakazizuru 13y ago
        well - if you understand society in India - depending on where you live - it can very much be a neccessity as well. It may be a clear luxury for someone living in the west. But there cant be 2 more different places than a developed country in the West and India.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
The numbers in this article don't make sense. The article complains that servants in India receive earn $64-161/month (4-10,000 rs/month). India's median income is only 53,000rs/year. So according to the article, the average servant in India is earning between 1x and 2.5x the median income. (These numbers are skewed a bit due to the rural/urban divide.) I have no idea what is "exploitative" about this. The article talks about paying Indian servants low wages by "any objective standard", which I assume means US standards. This is true but silly - it's not just the servants with low income, even the masters are dirt poor by US standards. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/11/06/000158349_20121106085546/Rendered/PDF/wps6259.pdf http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ... http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012.pdf http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012....
petilon 13y ago
According to the story, servants only earn about $64 to $161 per month, which is too little. Author also opines that if someone cannot afford to pay more for domestic help then they shouldn't have domestic help. That's easy to say. That's like saying it is better to starve than work for $64 to $161 per month. If that's the most the employer can afford to pay you, why wouldn't you take it, as opposed to starving? Indian salaries are low across the board. A school teacher may get paid around $320 per month. If that school teacher wants to hire domestic help for $160 per month, and the alternative for the would-be servant is starvation, what's wrong with taking that job? What's wrong with the school teacher hiring that help?
- bitops 13y ago
  I think what you may not be considering here is that there's a broader point being made about what constitutes a "living wage." Of course it's better to get some money rather than nothing. But if the money is below the minimum wage and/or below a living wage, it forces the "servant" to either live close to poverty or work multiple jobs. Also, what's being touched on is a notion of entitlement. For instance, I hire somebody to periodically come and clean my house every few weeks. I pay well, way above what they asked for - both because they do a good job and because I know it's a hard way to make a living. When I made less money, I cleaned my house myself, and I never felt a sense of entitlement or right to that help.
  - jes 13y ago
    If I offer Joe a job at $2.00 an hour, which is less than the minimum wage, and Joe wants to accept the job, then I have forced Joe to live close to poverty or to work multiple jobs? The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. Why doesn't Joe get to say whether he's willing to accept the job or not? I'd say that the government is the entity introducing the use of force into what was otherwise a voluntary situation.
    - bitops 13y ago
      The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. I feel like this point is really kind of secondary to the discussion, or at least, it seems like there's an assumption in here that I don't share. For some reason, I feel like maybe there's an assumption that Joe has other options? Maybe I'm missing something.
seivan 13y ago
I've noticed this tendency to abuse the crap out of the Air Stewards on-board Singapore Airlines from indians. Not a single occurrence, but several times on several flights.
suprgeek 13y ago
While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensation is in the form of "perks" that help in their day-to-day lives - this "au pair" benefit is one such perk. While in the US this "au pair" ran away despite being (apparently [2]) treated well. Then there are serious allegations that she contacted a lawyer thru whom she tried to extort the diplomat [3]. No one is implying that having a "servant" is a right. Having an "au pair" was an accepted & Authorized perk. The article starts off with a wrong-headed premise and does some hand-waving from there. Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 for the real motivation behind this incident. [1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragade-ineligible-for-flat-says-panel-1299599.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragad... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The-housekeeper-center-international-furor-arrest-Indian-diplomat-boss-kept-virtual-slave-leaked-letter-home-reveals-claimed-not-feel-like-servant-all.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The... [3] http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-demanded-10000-khobragade-change-visa-status-termination-contract/ http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-dema...
- GabrielF00 13y ago
  So, let's say that the au pair finds out that she's getting paid a third of what her employer claimed on an official document to be paying her (and also considerably less than the legal minimum wage). What's wrong with the au pair then leaving the employer? What's wrong with her seeking legal advice? What's wrong with her lawyer threatening legal action? Also, I find it very sleazy that the diplomat's sister possesses and released to the press a personal letter from the au pair to her family.
- allochthon 13y ago
  American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the diplomat was Indian; it had to do with a point of law. - There are well-known limits to diplomatic immunity. Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.
sjtgraham 13y ago
Did anyone else read the title as "Having a Servant is Not Right"?
yetanotherphd 13y ago
I wonder if the same people who say "If you can't afford to pay a servant a living wage, you shouldn't have one" also like to claim the raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment?
- xname 13y ago
  Yes. They do. It is sad to see the society being dominated by libtards.
- tokipin 13y ago
  i'm pretty sure there have been studies on this. i think one study found that raising the minimum wage either didn't make a difference in unemployment, or that it lowered unemployment slightly (i believe this study was based on a border region between two states, one of which raised the minimum wage) but either way, i don't think you should assume it's a simple matter
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    but the point is that if you are saying "don't hire a person to do something that you can't afford to pay a living wage for" then you are encouraging them to hire less people, which directly creates unemployment (even if there are other mechanisms that counteract this). I'm aware of the study, but I think that economic theory is more informative than a single study that can't necessarily be generalized.
kamakazizuru 13y ago
The author shows a complete lack of understanding of India - and brings up completely unrelated topics (casteism?!) to support her already weak point. In fact - bringing up the Diplomats caste is her being racist (casteist? - dunno the right word but you know what I mean) herself. It's as if an American author were to say "well a few hundred years ago these black people were slaves - and now they dare to treat someone badly" - how is that a reasonable argument by any means? Coming to the crux of the matter. Having lived in Bombay - and having had servants I can say that its in no means as "exploitative" as the author claims. Sure - an indian house helper earns less than an american does. So what? The median income in India is nowhere close to comparable to that in the US. An uneducated village boy - who would either earn a few hundred rupees (10-20 USD) a month working on someone elses farm in his village - is much better off coming to the city and earning more than five or six thousand rupees (100 - 120 $) a month in the city - with which he can also support his family back in the village who get by on subsistence farming. Many servants take on multiple jobs - earning almost double or triple of that. Which is NOT bad by any means considering he will often be provided meals and accomodation in addition to his salary. Its a simple calculation - the average IT worker earns approximately 40-5000 rupees after tax per month - assume if a couple - both employed in IT - earning around 100000 rupees per month - keep a maid to cook and clean - and pay her 10000 a month. Thats 10% of their salary - why is that exploitative? The maid is free to go take 2-3 others such jobs to fill her day and is easily making close to what the IT guys make. Until we reach a standard of literacy and education where everyone can make tonnes of money - this will continue - and its NOT a bad thing. A lot of families try to break the cycle by paying the school fees for their servants children or buying them the yearly textbooks etc - we did that growing up. At the end of the day - its a free market and these are not indentured slaves - if they find better paying work elsewhere (and often they do - cleaning malls and the like) - they go do that - and no one can stop them. As for why people "need" servants - well - its a part of the culture and has a lot to do with economics as well. Right now - in a city like Bombay -its cheaper to have a servant who washes your clothes and cleans your house - than it is to have a washing machine (if you're lucky enough to have the space to fit one in) & a vaccuum cleaner. Its a dusty country - and you do need to clean more often than you do in the temperate regions. In families where all adults are working - it just makes sense to have a servant. Its economics and logic - not exploitation.
afterburner 13y ago
India has a class problem.
- kamakazizuru 13y ago
  just like the US - or pretty much any latin american country - and a lot of parts of africa and europe and the rest of Asia. Your point is? Humans have a class problem.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    Oh, then they're all the same then, right? India has more of a class problem than the US. Obviously, or this situation wouldn't have happened. If inequality in India suddenly dropped to the same level as the US, I would be very happy for India. And I would still want the US to be less unequal.
    - kamakazizuru 13y ago
      except for the flawed assumption that this happened due to some class problem - I agree with your argument.
      - afterburner 13y ago
        OK. It's not an assumption, it's my theory as to why this happened.
        kamakazizuru 13y ago
        Which is wrong.
        afterburner 13y ago
        What's your theory?
winstonx 13y ago
The moral of the article is "it's wrong to exploit the impoverished." It's easy to apply that moral to other cultures and societies, but difficult to apply to one's own. Indians deny injustice when it gives them servants just like Westerners deny injustice when it gives them iPhones.
credo 13y ago
I think it was wrong to strip-search and do cavity searches on the consular officer (in this case, a woman) "accused" of underpaying a maid. However,I'm not going to focus on that and I'm not going to quibble with some of the exaggerations in this column. Overall, I agree that Ms Khobragade must be prosecuted and the evidence clearly suggests that she is guilty. However, I find it astonishing that so many people (most of them sharing my citizenship) can be so oblivious to some of the mind-boggling arrogant hypocrisy going around. Recently, there was a news report on "diplomatic immunity" for an "information management officer" in the US embassy in Kenya. This American man was speeding in his SUV. He crossed the middle-line and crashed into another vehicle killing one man and injuring many more. This wasn't just the garden-variety "hit and run" accident we see in America. This man didn't just flee the scene, he fled Kenya (with US government help) and the US government is asserting "diplomatic immunity". Can any critic of India seriously argue that it is OK for the US to assert diplomatic immunity and spirit this "information management officer" out of the country - even though he killed one innocent man (in this case, a father of three) with his reckless driving.
- smegel 13y ago
  Well he may well have been conducting official business when the crash occurred, meaning it would be quite justified to claim diplomatic immunity. Underpaying a worker in a domestic situation has nothing to do with official consular business. The US is taking a very strong stand that it will not tolerate abuse and exploitation in its borders, even under the guise or protection of diplomatic activity.
  - kamakazizuru 13y ago
    right - then maybe the US should take a look at California where Mexican agricultural workers are severely underpaid. That's just one example. But then again - someone has to harvest those avocadoes right?
    - rhizome 13y ago
      To be sure, the people and companies who own those farms are some of the strongest opponents of immigration laws.
Havoc 13y ago
Having a maid/gardener etc is fairly common in most 3rd world countries. Often the wage is a bit on the dubious side, but I think most of our 1st world country hn people are misinterpreting this as intentionally malicious. The process usually involves asking some close friends/relatives what they pay & then paying similar amounts. The end result is that its market forces driven. As for minimum wage - certainly. However it must be set according to the country. e.g. If you set the minimum wage in my country at what an American might think appropriate then you'd double unemployment overnight. "Living wage"...sure but one has to be realistic too - at some point you push people out of the formal economy & that point is very very low for 3rd world countries.
puppetmaster3 13y ago
Yes, I see it so clear, USA culture is superior /s.
charlieflowers 13y ago
When we choose a diplomat for a country that makes homosexuality illegal, shouldn't we avoid selecting a homosexual diplomat? That seems like fairly basic diplomacy.
jacob2271 13y ago
First things first, as an Indian, Ms. Khobragade if she exploited the maid is in the wrong. The rich and the powerful do get away with a lot in India, which to the chagrin of Ms. Khobragade, she found out was not the case elsewhere. Most of the criticism we see in India about US actions and support for Ms. Khobragade isn't necessarily that. There are a couple of concerns which largely underlie the anger (a) US diplomats (and diplomats of other nations) enjoy many privileges in India. These privileges are reciprocal and India feels that this reciprocity was not available when dealing with Ms. Khobragade. Older folks like my father who was a government officer for his entire working life understand that she should be prosecuted, they only expect an apology for the treatment meted out to Ms. Khobragade during and after the arrest, which is not forthcoming. This reciprocity extends to looking the other way when granting permits and licenses such as those for importing liquor, visa for same sex couples, which is a grey area in Indian penal code and many other benefits which are not all clearly legal. (b) US actions to grant visa and arrange for Ms. Sangeeta Richards and family be flown out of India despite requests by Indian government, which provided US with details of a missing persons/absconding report having been filed in India, undermine Indian Judiciary. The undercurrent claim, Ms. Richards would not be served justice in India. It is debatable whether Ms. Richards would have justice served in India, what is not debatable is the wrong doing of the US to publicly undermine the Indian judiciary. Ms. Richards is an Indian citizen and needs to pursue cases under the Indian law. (c) There has been for a time now, a proposal to contract and place positions like those of Ms. Richards directly under the preview of the Indian government. This proposal had not been approved by the parliament yet, however the US department of state was aware of this. It is expected to be approved and when it does pass the parliament, Ms. Richards would be paid wages in India and would be free to accept or decline the offered pay. Ms. Richards was in a similar situation and was free to return to India if she considered herself exploited. This is the gray area reciprocity that India extends to US diplomats and expects the same in return. Ms. Khobragade is a smoke screen for why India feels wrong.
aagha 13y ago
What a piece of crap link-bait. The actual title of the article should have been the last sentence of her piece: "Having a servant you cannot pay a decent wage cannot be a birthright".
dalit 13y ago
The real curse of India is the hindu caste system. Here in India it's something like "you shall not name it, or say it". Everyone knows it's the real cause, but no one says it or worse tries to generalise and hide it in other words. For every single Devayani, or K.R.Narayanan (who was made the president of India), there are lakhs and lakhs of untold unspeakable cruelty and suffering and that is the true ratio. International readers would get the real picture of India if they skim through local hindi newspapers (especially states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) using Google translator everyday to know about the real India and the real hindu caste system, instead of relying on sugar-coated and watered-down reality and wonderland being churned by cunning authors or Bollywood. Here the issue is simple. It's a matter of protocols and rights. It was about nations. But even the cunning author (like the other snakes in India) brought in the hindu caste factor, perhaps for a good reason. You know the kind of sly hint to the upper caste NRIs that she's not one of us, so lie low for now and pretend to be good in the eyes of the US. The low castes (untouchables) are making headway in India not due to any empathy of the hindu caste system and hinduism but due to their becoming aware of the sheer strength of their numbers and the power of organisation. So much so that even karma and dharma have been flushed down the latrines, and people have begun to realise and make their own destiny and bright future. And the best part is that, hinduism no more has the balls to assert or speak about its true philosophy and values but is forced to hide itself in the "progressive" sheep cloth.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr073005Dont_look_at.asp http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr07300...

156 points by GabrielF00 13y ago

A minimum wage would definitely help the wages of a lot of servants. But it would (probably) mean some percent of them becoming unemployed because they can't be afforded/aren't worth the cost anymore. It might also decrease working conditions, because those unemployed people are now competing for your job. You can't compete on the basis of wages anymore so now it on the basis of how much you can do/put up with. Also because it then becomes harder to leave your job and find another. That doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit to doing it. An ideal solution would be a basic income. Tax everyone equally, not just those that hire lots of servants, and benefit everyone equally, not just employed servants. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

chasing 13y ago

> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." To be fair, many Americans could take the same lesson. (And thanks for making me have to agree with the Heritage Foundation. Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns...)

clubhi 13y ago
sometimes the value of X makes a bit of difference.
mildtrepidation 13y ago
If being fair is your intention, perhaps "Americans" ought to be replaced with "people." There's a lot of things you can lay on the USA's doorstep, but a monopoly on irresponsibility or entitlement is not one of them.
whyenot 13y ago
> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." suppose X = {health care, an education, a lawyer, ...}
superuser 13y ago
How dare you agree with the Heritage Foundation and its crazy libertarian views.
mindcrime 13y ago
Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns... Wouldn't you just need to take another shower after reading Krugman?

toufka 13y ago

The talk show mentioned in the last paragraph is here [1]. The quote comes at the end, ~45:30. Pretty terrible moderation - it's hard to watch, though it might at least bring out some of the points from another perspective. The focus seems to be entirely on the diplomatic insult of a pretty woman put in handcuffs over a 'trivial' matter. But combined with the US's (genuine) hypocrisy as noted by their handling of the Raymond Davis issue in Pakistan, there seem to be ulterior tensions leaking into this particular incident. Diplomatic relations are hard - there is such difficulty knowing how actions will be perceived by another nation/culture. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

moocowduckquack 13y ago

Arresting a diplomat will always cause problems but it was absolutely inexcusable for this diplomat to expect to get away with underpaying their housekeeper. That said, strip-searching someone over a wage dispute is far beyond the pale as well. And strip-searching an Indian diplomat for no particularly good reason during an arrest, is not just wrong, but also really fucking stupid, as it could have actual security implications for the US in India as we have already seen with some of the embassy's protection being withdrawn.

FrankenPC 13y ago
Our authoritarian oligarchy is spilling over into the international community. First the wars, then the NSA, now violating laws of diplomatic immunity. If I weren't a level headed guy, I'd have to say that on the OUTSIDE, The USA is starting to look like an insane imperialist nation.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  What laws of diplomatic immunity were violated? Are diplomats immune to every law in the country they are in?
  - sleepyK 13y ago
    May I present, for your viewing pleasure, a certain Raymond Allen Davis. "President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold." I see that this 'broader principle' doesn't seem to apply to a legitimate diplomat... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Rich, poor, American, Kazakh, it doesn't matter. If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners. There are different kinds of diplomatic immunity. Hers was explicitly limited to official work. The run-Americans-over-and-get-off-scot-free kind is a different diplomatic designation.

bane 13y ago

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domestic help.” I had a few Indian friends in college who all lamented the lack of servants in their American day-to-day. One woman I knew recalled having 6 or 7 servants, but described herself as coming from just a normal, slightly-upper-middle class family. It really stuck with me over the years. Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe. Yet I've found myself over the years, as free-time disappeared into work and salaries increased, hiring a maid to come in once a month to clean house and a gardener to mow my lawn and tidy my plants once every couple of weeks. I've hired tutors and other private instructors, a fixit guy who comes and does other maintenance on my home every once in a while and so on. My wife and I have toyed with having a cook come in once a week and prepare a bunch of meals. I'm sure if pressed I could come up with a half dozen other people I've hired on for their physical labor at one time or another. If needed, I'm sure most of them would become "live in servants" for the right price and accommodations. It's also not uncommon in my area for families to hire Au Pairs which is really just a fancy way of saying live-in Nanny/house maid, which is a servant's title. They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board in exchange for child care and some house chores/personal assistant work. In other areas dedicated personal assistants are quite common. And I've seen people setup "internships" for their personal businesses which are so tied to their personal lives that the work is usually just personal assisting for intern pay. Yet in the U.S. we've allergic to calling these people "servants" because it seems menial and disparaging I guess. I'm curious though, where does the concept of "servant" actually end? Is my mechanic a servant? Or is he not because I go to his place for him to do the work instead of having him come to mine?

maxerickson 13y ago
We still call all those people service providers. Specialization and number of customers seem to be pretty clear distinguishers (where servant sort of implies lots of different tasks for a single household).

FrankenPC 13y ago

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.

JanezStupar 13y ago
U.S. is not a member of ICC [1]. And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...
- JoachimSchipper 13y ago
  It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist". However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...
zaidf 13y ago
Who violated diplomatic immunity rules?
kghose 13y ago
Diplomatic immunity only applies if the actions were taken as part of diplomatic work.
- thedufer 13y ago

al2o3cr 13y ago

"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals." Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite? Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"

sliverstorm 13y ago
Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.
- imsofuture 13y ago
  Cutthroats aren't a thing, and muggers are desperately impoverished. It's classism.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    So you feel there's nothing wrong with placing non-violent criminals in with violent criminals?
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      Being violent is not a choice, you are just forced to be violent by circumstances. /s
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison. Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way. And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent. The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.

asimov42 13y ago

Isn't it obvious this is the result of a country of extremely low average income and extremely high population? Of course it would be great to have even a semblance of equality, but I dont see a solution given the current economic model.

pessimizer 13y ago
Low average income, but extremely low median income. There's nothing obvious or inevitable about that.
- asimov42 13y ago
  Can you clarify what you mean by that? The slightly less poor exploit off the extremely poor?

jordanb 13y ago

An important thing to clear up here is that Khobragade was not a full "diplomat" at the time of her arrest but rather a "consular official" who receives a limited type of immunity that only applies to laws broken while carrying out official duties. Also the most serious charge against her isn't the wage dispute but perjury resulting from incorrect data she put on the visa forms. India has subsequently promoted her from the NY consulate to the Indian diplomatic mission to the UN and has claimed retroactive diplomatic immunity for her, but there are procedural questions about this move.

whatisa 13y ago
A better approach would have been to deport Khobragade while still offering protection/visas to the servant and her family. Quite a few Indians have been arrested on similar charges in the past without serious uproar, it's the fact that a consular official was treated this way. The US tends to be rather lax in its definition of "diplomatic immunity" when it comes to their benefit (see Raymond Davis) so such strictness is very hypocritical. The impression I get as a neutral observer is that the focus of the action was to punish the alleged guilty rather than try and achieve recourse for the alleged victim.

akshtest 13y ago

Typical idiotic argument by NYTimes, As someone who had multiple servants working at my home (a cook and cleaner), so that my mother could work at her job. I find the argument "If you can't pay a decent wage, don't hire one" idiotic. Wages are determined by market, and in case of our house, we routinely had to give a raise as well as bonus near holidays. Simply because reliable servants are hard to find. Who determines the "Decent" wage, idiots at NYTimes? This is the same misguided argument against garment factory workers from Bangladesh and FOXCONN workers in China. Rest of the world does not have the luxury of Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid and a ridiculous minimum wage.

tokipin 13y ago
i don't understand. for years my mom worked at her job (12hrs night shift, hard labor, without most of her fingers on one hand which she lost in an accident), cooked and cleaned, and took care of her young children
- kamakazizuru 13y ago
  while I respect what your mom did. I think the point the OP is trying to make is that - there were people willing to work for the amount of money that his mother could afford to pay for them to do it. Its really not any different from when you hire people on Mechanical Turk to solve tasks that you're time isnt worth spending on.
  - tokipin 13y ago
    i understand the surface argument. but it read as if they thought a servant was some kind of necessity, when it's clearly a luxury. this is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but that's the vibe i got
    - kamakazizuru 13y ago
      well - if you understand society in India - depending on where you live - it can very much be a neccessity as well. It may be a clear luxury for someone living in the west. But there cant be 2 more different places than a developed country in the West and India.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

The numbers in this article don't make sense. The article complains that servants in India receive earn $64-161/month (4-10,000 rs/month). India's median income is only 53,000rs/year. So according to the article, the average servant in India is earning between 1x and 2.5x the median income. (These numbers are skewed a bit due to the rural/urban divide.) I have no idea what is "exploitative" about this. The article talks about paying Indian servants low wages by "any objective standard", which I assume means US standards. This is true but silly - it's not just the servants with low income, even the masters are dirt poor by US standards. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/11/06/000158349_20121106085546/Rendered/PDF/wps6259.pdf http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ... http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012.pdf http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012....

petilon 13y ago

According to the story, servants only earn about $64 to $161 per month, which is too little. Author also opines that if someone cannot afford to pay more for domestic help then they shouldn't have domestic help. That's easy to say. That's like saying it is better to starve than work for $64 to $161 per month. If that's the most the employer can afford to pay you, why wouldn't you take it, as opposed to starving? Indian salaries are low across the board. A school teacher may get paid around $320 per month. If that school teacher wants to hire domestic help for $160 per month, and the alternative for the would-be servant is starvation, what's wrong with taking that job? What's wrong with the school teacher hiring that help?

bitops 13y ago
I think what you may not be considering here is that there's a broader point being made about what constitutes a "living wage." Of course it's better to get some money rather than nothing. But if the money is below the minimum wage and/or below a living wage, it forces the "servant" to either live close to poverty or work multiple jobs. Also, what's being touched on is a notion of entitlement. For instance, I hire somebody to periodically come and clean my house every few weeks. I pay well, way above what they asked for - both because they do a good job and because I know it's a hard way to make a living. When I made less money, I cleaned my house myself, and I never felt a sense of entitlement or right to that help.
- jes 13y ago
  If I offer Joe a job at $2.00 an hour, which is less than the minimum wage, and Joe wants to accept the job, then I have forced Joe to live close to poverty or to work multiple jobs? The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. Why doesn't Joe get to say whether he's willing to accept the job or not? I'd say that the government is the entity introducing the use of force into what was otherwise a voluntary situation.
  - bitops 13y ago
    The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. I feel like this point is really kind of secondary to the discussion, or at least, it seems like there's an assumption in here that I don't share. For some reason, I feel like maybe there's an assumption that Joe has other options? Maybe I'm missing something.

seivan 13y ago

I've noticed this tendency to abuse the crap out of the Air Stewards on-board Singapore Airlines from indians. Not a single occurrence, but several times on several flights.

suprgeek 13y ago

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensation is in the form of "perks" that help in their day-to-day lives - this "au pair" benefit is one such perk. While in the US this "au pair" ran away despite being (apparently [2]) treated well. Then there are serious allegations that she contacted a lawyer thru whom she tried to extort the diplomat [3]. No one is implying that having a "servant" is a right. Having an "au pair" was an accepted & Authorized perk. The article starts off with a wrong-headed premise and does some hand-waving from there. Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 for the real motivation behind this incident. [1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragade-ineligible-for-flat-says-panel-1299599.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragad... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The-housekeeper-center-international-furor-arrest-Indian-diplomat-boss-kept-virtual-slave-leaked-letter-home-reveals-claimed-not-feel-like-servant-all.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The... [3] http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-demanded-10000-khobragade-change-visa-status-termination-contract/ http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-dema...

GabrielF00 13y ago
So, let's say that the au pair finds out that she's getting paid a third of what her employer claimed on an official document to be paying her (and also considerably less than the legal minimum wage). What's wrong with the au pair then leaving the employer? What's wrong with her seeking legal advice? What's wrong with her lawyer threatening legal action? Also, I find it very sleazy that the diplomat's sister possesses and released to the press a personal letter from the au pair to her family.
allochthon 13y ago
American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the diplomat was Indian; it had to do with a point of law. - There are well-known limits to diplomatic immunity. Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.

sjtgraham 13y ago

Did anyone else read the title as "Having a Servant is Not Right"?

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I wonder if the same people who say "If you can't afford to pay a servant a living wage, you shouldn't have one" also like to claim the raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment?

xname 13y ago
Yes. They do. It is sad to see the society being dominated by libtards.
tokipin 13y ago
i'm pretty sure there have been studies on this. i think one study found that raising the minimum wage either didn't make a difference in unemployment, or that it lowered unemployment slightly (i believe this study was based on a border region between two states, one of which raised the minimum wage) but either way, i don't think you should assume it's a simple matter
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  but the point is that if you are saying "don't hire a person to do something that you can't afford to pay a living wage for" then you are encouraging them to hire less people, which directly creates unemployment (even if there are other mechanisms that counteract this). I'm aware of the study, but I think that economic theory is more informative than a single study that can't necessarily be generalized.

kamakazizuru 13y ago

The author shows a complete lack of understanding of India - and brings up completely unrelated topics (casteism?!) to support her already weak point. In fact - bringing up the Diplomats caste is her being racist (casteist? - dunno the right word but you know what I mean) herself. It's as if an American author were to say "well a few hundred years ago these black people were slaves - and now they dare to treat someone badly" - how is that a reasonable argument by any means? Coming to the crux of the matter. Having lived in Bombay - and having had servants I can say that its in no means as "exploitative" as the author claims. Sure - an indian house helper earns less than an american does. So what? The median income in India is nowhere close to comparable to that in the US. An uneducated village boy - who would either earn a few hundred rupees (10-20 USD) a month working on someone elses farm in his village - is much better off coming to the city and earning more than five or six thousand rupees (100 - 120 $) a month in the city - with which he can also support his family back in the village who get by on subsistence farming. Many servants take on multiple jobs - earning almost double or triple of that. Which is NOT bad by any means considering he will often be provided meals and accomodation in addition to his salary. Its a simple calculation - the average IT worker earns approximately 40-5000 rupees after tax per month - assume if a couple - both employed in IT - earning around 100000 rupees per month - keep a maid to cook and clean - and pay her 10000 a month. Thats 10% of their salary - why is that exploitative? The maid is free to go take 2-3 others such jobs to fill her day and is easily making close to what the IT guys make. Until we reach a standard of literacy and education where everyone can make tonnes of money - this will continue - and its NOT a bad thing. A lot of families try to break the cycle by paying the school fees for their servants children or buying them the yearly textbooks etc - we did that growing up. At the end of the day - its a free market and these are not indentured slaves - if they find better paying work elsewhere (and often they do - cleaning malls and the like) - they go do that - and no one can stop them. As for why people "need" servants - well - its a part of the culture and has a lot to do with economics as well. Right now - in a city like Bombay -its cheaper to have a servant who washes your clothes and cleans your house - than it is to have a washing machine (if you're lucky enough to have the space to fit one in) & a vaccuum cleaner. Its a dusty country - and you do need to clean more often than you do in the temperate regions. In families where all adults are working - it just makes sense to have a servant. Its economics and logic - not exploitation.

afterburner 13y ago

India has a class problem.

kamakazizuru 13y ago
just like the US - or pretty much any latin american country - and a lot of parts of africa and europe and the rest of Asia. Your point is? Humans have a class problem.
- afterburner 13y ago
  Oh, then they're all the same then, right? India has more of a class problem than the US. Obviously, or this situation wouldn't have happened. If inequality in India suddenly dropped to the same level as the US, I would be very happy for India. And I would still want the US to be less unequal.
  - kamakazizuru 13y ago
    except for the flawed assumption that this happened due to some class problem - I agree with your argument.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      OK. It's not an assumption, it's my theory as to why this happened.
      - kamakazizuru 13y ago
        Which is wrong.
        afterburner 13y ago
        What's your theory?

winstonx 13y ago

The moral of the article is "it's wrong to exploit the impoverished." It's easy to apply that moral to other cultures and societies, but difficult to apply to one's own. Indians deny injustice when it gives them servants just like Westerners deny injustice when it gives them iPhones.

credo 13y ago

I think it was wrong to strip-search and do cavity searches on the consular officer (in this case, a woman) "accused" of underpaying a maid. However,I'm not going to focus on that and I'm not going to quibble with some of the exaggerations in this column. Overall, I agree that Ms Khobragade must be prosecuted and the evidence clearly suggests that she is guilty. However, I find it astonishing that so many people (most of them sharing my citizenship) can be so oblivious to some of the mind-boggling arrogant hypocrisy going around. Recently, there was a news report on "diplomatic immunity" for an "information management officer" in the US embassy in Kenya. This American man was speeding in his SUV. He crossed the middle-line and crashed into another vehicle killing one man and injuring many more. This wasn't just the garden-variety "hit and run" accident we see in America. This man didn't just flee the scene, he fled Kenya (with US government help) and the US government is asserting "diplomatic immunity". Can any critic of India seriously argue that it is OK for the US to assert diplomatic immunity and spirit this "information management officer" out of the country - even though he killed one innocent man (in this case, a father of three) with his reckless driving.

smegel 13y ago
Well he may well have been conducting official business when the crash occurred, meaning it would be quite justified to claim diplomatic immunity. Underpaying a worker in a domestic situation has nothing to do with official consular business. The US is taking a very strong stand that it will not tolerate abuse and exploitation in its borders, even under the guise or protection of diplomatic activity.
- kamakazizuru 13y ago
  right - then maybe the US should take a look at California where Mexican agricultural workers are severely underpaid. That's just one example. But then again - someone has to harvest those avocadoes right?
  - rhizome 13y ago
    To be sure, the people and companies who own those farms are some of the strongest opponents of immigration laws.

Havoc 13y ago

Having a maid/gardener etc is fairly common in most 3rd world countries. Often the wage is a bit on the dubious side, but I think most of our 1st world country hn people are misinterpreting this as intentionally malicious. The process usually involves asking some close friends/relatives what they pay & then paying similar amounts. The end result is that its market forces driven. As for minimum wage - certainly. However it must be set according to the country. e.g. If you set the minimum wage in my country at what an American might think appropriate then you'd double unemployment overnight. "Living wage"...sure but one has to be realistic too - at some point you push people out of the formal economy & that point is very very low for 3rd world countries.

puppetmaster3 13y ago

Yes, I see it so clear, USA culture is superior /s.

charlieflowers 13y ago

When we choose a diplomat for a country that makes homosexuality illegal, shouldn't we avoid selecting a homosexual diplomat? That seems like fairly basic diplomacy.

jacob2271 13y ago

First things first, as an Indian, Ms. Khobragade if she exploited the maid is in the wrong. The rich and the powerful do get away with a lot in India, which to the chagrin of Ms. Khobragade, she found out was not the case elsewhere. Most of the criticism we see in India about US actions and support for Ms. Khobragade isn't necessarily that. There are a couple of concerns which largely underlie the anger (a) US diplomats (and diplomats of other nations) enjoy many privileges in India. These privileges are reciprocal and India feels that this reciprocity was not available when dealing with Ms. Khobragade. Older folks like my father who was a government officer for his entire working life understand that she should be prosecuted, they only expect an apology for the treatment meted out to Ms. Khobragade during and after the arrest, which is not forthcoming. This reciprocity extends to looking the other way when granting permits and licenses such as those for importing liquor, visa for same sex couples, which is a grey area in Indian penal code and many other benefits which are not all clearly legal. (b) US actions to grant visa and arrange for Ms. Sangeeta Richards and family be flown out of India despite requests by Indian government, which provided US with details of a missing persons/absconding report having been filed in India, undermine Indian Judiciary. The undercurrent claim, Ms. Richards would not be served justice in India. It is debatable whether Ms. Richards would have justice served in India, what is not debatable is the wrong doing of the US to publicly undermine the Indian judiciary. Ms. Richards is an Indian citizen and needs to pursue cases under the Indian law. (c) There has been for a time now, a proposal to contract and place positions like those of Ms. Richards directly under the preview of the Indian government. This proposal had not been approved by the parliament yet, however the US department of state was aware of this. It is expected to be approved and when it does pass the parliament, Ms. Richards would be paid wages in India and would be free to accept or decline the offered pay. Ms. Richards was in a similar situation and was free to return to India if she considered herself exploited. This is the gray area reciprocity that India extends to US diplomats and expects the same in return. Ms. Khobragade is a smoke screen for why India feels wrong.

aagha 13y ago

What a piece of crap link-bait. The actual title of the article should have been the last sentence of her piece: "Having a servant you cannot pay a decent wage cannot be a birthright".

dalit 13y ago

The real curse of India is the hindu caste system. Here in India it's something like "you shall not name it, or say it". Everyone knows it's the real cause, but no one says it or worse tries to generalise and hide it in other words. For every single Devayani, or K.R.Narayanan (who was made the president of India), there are lakhs and lakhs of untold unspeakable cruelty and suffering and that is the true ratio. International readers would get the real picture of India if they skim through local hindi newspapers (especially states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) using Google translator everyday to know about the real India and the real hindu caste system, instead of relying on sugar-coated and watered-down reality and wonderland being churned by cunning authors or Bollywood. Here the issue is simple. It's a matter of protocols and rights. It was about nations. But even the cunning author (like the other snakes in India) brought in the hindu caste factor, perhaps for a good reason. You know the kind of sly hint to the upper caste NRIs that she's not one of us, so lie low for now and pretend to be good in the eyes of the US. The low castes (untouchables) are making headway in India not due to any empathy of the hindu caste system and hinduism but due to their becoming aware of the sheer strength of their numbers and the power of organisation. So much so that even karma and dharma have been flushed down the latrines, and people have begun to realise and make their own destiny and bright future. And the best part is that, hinduism no more has the balls to assert or speak about its true philosophy and values but is forced to hide itself in the "progressive" sheep cloth.

selimthegrim 13y ago
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr073005Dont_look_at.asp http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr07300...