Main Menu

Khobragade – The U.S. Pushes Limits of Diplomatic Arrogance


The United States recently tested the limits of diplomatic arrogance with the arrest, strip search, and subsequent housing an Indian vice consul Devyani Khobragade in a general population of prisoners. As conducted by the United States government, the arrest of the Indian diplomat was clearly an orchestrated event designed to humiliate the Indian government, its diplomatic, Vice Consul Khobragade, and garner public opinion support in the United States for the actions being taken against the Indian diplomat.

The entire manner in which the arrest, media circus, political posturing, total lack of reason and intelligence by US government officials, again, reinforces the idea that the United States was simply testing the limits of diplomatic arrogance.

Extortion or Exploitation?


At the core of the legal wrangling between the parties is the idea of “extortion” or “exploitation” as well as cultural norms regarding the employment of domestic help.

It should be well known to anyone involved in international diplomacy that the use of domestic help is a common practice among all government employees. In the case of the United States, consular officials and their families are able to secure domestic servants at a fraction of U.S. labor costs, while a diplomat assigned to the United States is forced to pay for domestic help at prevailing U.S. labor rates.

Most visiting diplomats to the United States do not have the means to pay for domestic help at these prevailing wages.

This, of course, puts the US diplomatic corp at a huge advantage. US diplomats can fulfill their duties and enjoy all the rights and privileges of buying labor at hugely discounted prices compared to the United States. Foreign diplomats, often understaffed compared to bloated US State Department consular teams, simply cannot function efficiently without domestic assistance. The US State Department puts demands on visiting consular officials that ensure this reality.

The other side of the equation is the idea of domestic workers seeking any advantage possible in order to escape to the United States.

In the Khobragade Affair, this version appears to be the more rational and reasoned reality. The domestic servant working for Vice Consul Khobragade was offered a salary nearly 4 times the prevailing wages in India, and nearly a 1/10 of the actual wages paid to Vice Consul Khobragade by the Indian government.

Per Indian standards, Sangeeta Richards, the domestic servant of Vice Consul Khobragade, was NETTING nearly US$450 per month, as her housing, food, provisions, etc., were being carried by Vice Consul Khobragade.

Before we get into the issue of exploitation, how many American families are UNABLE to NET US$450 per month? It is not an issue of “how much you are being paid”, but rather, how much you are making. Employment benefits include the cost of housing, food, and additional perks, and should Sangeeta Richards not been a live-in maid, then clearly paying for these additional expenses would have to be factored into an agreement prior to Sangeeta leaving India.

The truth be told, there would be no way for Sangeeta and her employer to be able to expense out a full employment package relative to US employment compensations, and in this case, BOTH parties should be expected to clearly understand this.

Hence the signing of the contract by Sangeeta Richards itself could be viewed as being fraudulently entered into: her intent more accurately was always to escape from her employment and seek assistance and disappear in the United States at the earliest possible convenience.

Which is precisely what she did.

More to the case. A domestic worker in New York averages approximately US$19,800 per year, while the salary of Vice Consul Khobragade is approximately US$4500 in direct income. Add in perks like government housing, schooling expense, and other unknowns, it would be impossible for Khobragade to actually pay for a salaray of US$19,800 let alone US$54,000 that is being claimed by the United States.

With these figures in mind, why would the US government issue a visa to someone for an employee they clearly cannot afford? This is like lending money to a sub-prime borrower who has not the ability to pay. The lender doing so should be viewed as primarily motivated to want to take the property, and in the case of a visa application, the issuance of the visa should be viewed that the US government wants to take the person on whom’s behalf the visa is being offered.

This seems to be what is going on in this case.

Having met with an “NGO”, Sangeeta Richards hired lawyer by the name of Sussman (Jewish?) and, according to Khobragade, immediately began an extortion attempt for over US$10K as well as assistance to normalize Sangeeta’s papers to enable her to permanently reside in the United States.

The extortion attempt was immediately reported to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, which then worked with the New York Police Department in an effort to capture the extorting housemaid. Cases were simultaneously opened in India, and the case spiraled down from there.

The “sword of Damocles” over Vice Consul Khobragade’s head was a visa application filed on behalf of Sangeeta Richards pointing to a salary of US$4500 for the housemaid. US$4500 was the salary of Vice Consul Khobragade.

With the filing and visa complete, the State Department had its vehicle to publicly humiliate the Indian government and needed to wait for the right moment.

Enter the State Department and Department of Justice

Devyani Preet Bharara diplomatic row

The story is being told that Sangeeta Richards, the housemaid, sought out assistance. These reports are coming largely from Jewish controlled sources and so should be presumed to be either fallacious or misleading. It could equally be true that the faulty visa application was already known and people sought out the housemaid in order to “assist her” in her problem of “being exploited”.

Certainly this possibility, and probability, should be considered.

At what point the US Justice Department got involved in the “investigation” for “visa fraud” against the Indian diplomat is not really known; however, various reports hint that the State Department itself was initially involved in the investigation and this investigation was later turned over to the Department of Justice.

Two days before the Department of Justice arrested Vice Consul Khobragade, they secreted Sangeeta’s family out of India, in spite of the fact that court proceedings were ongoing against the family members.

Clearly this was a case of diplomatic arrogance.

The Indian government had for months sought US assistance in solving the issue regarding Sangeeta Richards but were largely stonewalled. As the events unfolded, the Indian government was blindsided by the arrest and what appears to be a calculated plan by US officials to humiliate and disgrace the Indian diplomat in the most degrading way possible.

Subsequent press conferences by the State Department and the Department of Justice could only be seen as reinforcing this idea of absolute might being invoked to degrade and humiliate another country’s diplomatic core with the intent to “send a message” to not only the Indian government, but to all governments in the United States who might have similar situations.

Reciprocity, one of the general rules inherent in the diplomatic process, was being thrown to the wind with as much force and violence that the United States State Department could muster.

An example of Jewish power in America exerting itself?

The Repercussions to the United States

Bhopal Protesters

The United States is accustomed to working in a unipolar world where imposing might over right is the way of law. Such is the Jewish, or Talmudic, decadency that permeates US foreign policy.

In the case of the humiliation and dehumanizing of the Indian diplomat Khobragade, we can only view this as a full on display of American diplomatic arrogance.

India, to its credit, has agreed to reciprocate fully with United States dictates.

One of the early measures India enacted was the removal of all security walls in front of the US Embassy in New Delhi, walls that provided American diplomats their own private space on public Indian territory.

More importantly is the idea of reciprocation towards US diplomats by the Indian government., a condition that in American imperial hubris will come as a shocking loss of self importance.

Reciprocity serves as the guiding principle for social exchange in anarchic systems, and, in the international system, with its assumption of the sovereign equality of states, the reciprocity norm lies at the heart of diplomacy and international law.


What the United States fails is in the realities of “reciprocity”. The United States routinely denies or ignores benefits that their diplomats are afforded the world over. In the world of reciprocity, you give and get equally.

To this end, India has logically decided to invoke the principles of reciprocity towards the United States.

Indian authorities have asked all U.S. consulate personnel and their families to turn in their ID cards immediately while seeking key information such as salaries paid to all Indian staff employed at the consulates and by consulate officers and families including as domestic helps.

The Indian government has also asked the United States to provide it with visa information and other details of all teachers at U.S. schools and pay and bank accounts of Indians in these schools.


New Delhi has also stopped all import clearances for the U.S. Embassy, which includes the coveted liquor loophole.

Commercial activities on the US Embassy grounds are also being targeted.

It is but a matter of time before criminal activities within the US diplomatic corp are paraded before the people of New Delhi. Some are calling for the arrest of Gay and Lesbian “partners” of US Embassy personnel, a development that would be fascinated in its revelations.

In short, however, what we have witnessed, perhaps, is the projection of Jewish power and control within the US State Department and the limits of what would then be Jewish diplomatic arrogance.

Comments are Closed