)
The battle of diplomacy between the US and Indian govt is now being fought on multiple fronts in the Devyani Khobragade case. While Devyani has not spoken officialy to the media as the case is sub-judice, her family and supporters are posting on facebook giving their side of the story. Devyani's sister, Sharmistha khobragade has put out a statement which has been reproduced on a facebook page 'I support devyani khobragade'where she alleges that the complainant, Sangeeta Richard left devyani's home in the US without informing her only to later surface to make unreasonable demands, which she terms is extortion and blackmail.
Interestingly, Sharmistha does claim that devyani agreed to pay Sangeeta Richards 10,000 dollars if she agreed to go back to India.This does raise questions on why they were agreeable to give into her demands and settle the matter quietly if there was no violation of visa rules.
Following is the statement carried on the facebook page attributed to Sharmistha Khobragade
"I know that people want to know more about the case that Devyani was arrested for. The details that the Federal prosecutors have provided have been sketchy and one sided. Unfortunately, Devyani is not allowed to issue a statement and tell her side of the story as the matter is sub-judice. Her silence is leading some people to believe that she is guilty.
She is receiving hate mails from unknown, random people accusing her of 'using slave labour' and being a rich elite poster child of privilege, used to having servants to be at her beck and call, an 'exploiter' and a hypocrite for talking about women's rights.
More than the public humiliation she has been through, these accusations which attack the very core of her value system are causing her deep pain and anguish. It is these accusations that I wish to address through this page. I am not going to go into the legal technicalities of the case against her.
I am concerned with whether she has mistreated, defrauded or exploited another human being in any way.The answer to this is a resounding 'no'.
Here are the reasons I base my resounding 'no' on:
Devyani paid Sangeeta whatever she had promised her. A sum of Rs.30,000 was paid into Sangeeta's husband's bank account in India monthly for the period that Sangeeta was employed with her (November end 2013- June-end 2013).
In addition to this, according to the $9/hour contract, Devyani paid Sangeeta several hundred dollars each month in New York, in cash at her request. Devyani, trusting as always, did not ask for receipts for these payments. But fortunately there are some ATM withdrawal slips and other pieces of evidence for the same.
Devyani treated Sangeeta well. Sangeeta had two large, comfortable rooms to herself in a well-appointed apartment with all modern facilities and a separate entrance. She ate the same food as the family or whatever she wished to have. She was given complete discretion in managing the house and was entrusted with the funds for groceries and other living expenses.
Sangeeta was allowed to pace her work out as she wished (such as cooking every three or four days rather than every day).
She was allowed to come and go as she pleased, having the house keys, metro pass, and the option to take taxis at Devyani's expense. The children who were in her charge were attending school full time and therefore did not need constant attention at home. They are well behaved and polite children who were very attached to Sangeeta. It would be pretty difficult to imagine how she could possibly have worked for more than 8 hours in a day.
Her passport and copies of contract documents were in her own custody and not Devyani's. She was provided a mobile phone, had bought an iPad which she often used for Facebook, and could communicate with whoever she wished whenever she wished, in India or New York.
And yes, she had weekly offs and lots of holidays.So no, Devyani did not cheat her or exploit her, in any way.
Did I observe the above? No. I did not visit New York while Sangeeta was there. So I know most of this from Devyani and from my father, who did visit her in the November 2012-June 2013 period, and from my friend in New York who also used to visit Devyani from time to time.Most of the above facts were communicated to me before June 2013 (that is before Sangeeta absconded), so there is no reason to believe that they are untrue as there was no incentive for anyone to fabricate them at that time.
Now I also want to talk a little bit about how Sangeeta treated Devyani.
Devyani relied on Sangeeta a lot. Devyani's girls were aged 6 and 3 then, and were too young to be left home alone. So a housekeeper-cum-nanny was a must for her, given her peculiar circumstances and not because she is a 'poster child of privilege, used to having servants to beat her beck and call', as some crackpots are claiming.
Had that been the case, Devyani would have taken a servant each time she was posted abroad. But she did not take a servant when she was unmarried and without children, such as in her Germany posting.
The actual fact is that Devyani is happiest when she does not have servants around. But ever since she became a working mother, this has not been an option for her. Sangeeta left without any warning or notice, without even leaving a good-bye note for the girls who were so fond of her. This threw Devyani's life completely out of gear for some time. Devyani nevertheless told Sangeeta's husband that if Sangeeta was unhappy and did not want to work for her, she would arrange for a ticket for her to go back to India after settling her account. It was to no avail.
I was in New York when in early July 2013, Sangeeta voluntarily surfaced and summoned Devyani to a meeting in an immigration lawyer's office.She faced Devyani across a negotiating table and made three demands which were to be complied with in return for not bringing a suit on Devyani: USD 10,000 in cash, a normal Indian passport (she was on a diplomatic passport which was revoked soon after she absconded) and immigration support.
The A3 visa that Sangeeta had come on was good only as long as she worked for Devyani. And when Devyani would eventually be transferred out of New York in two or three years' time, the visa would become invalid and Sangeeta would have to leave New York as well. She did not want to do that. She wanted Devyani to help secure her a green card so that she could stay in the US forever.
Devyani agreed to give her the money, instantly. But she could not give her immigration support. US visa is not issued by the Indian government. At this meeting, Devyani was accompanied by other staff from the consulate, so everything in this meeting can be verified and substantiated by a third party.
The consular staff requested Sangeeta to take the money and go back to India and then to apply for an Indian passport and a normal US working visa.
Sangeeta refused. She said and I quote, 'I will not go back. Why will I go back? I know that if I go back I will never be able to come back to the US." It is on the basis of this meeting, which is on record, that a case of extortion, blackmail and breach of trust was registered against Sangeeta in India and for which an arrest warrant has been issued by a magistrate.
So who exploited whom? Who used whom? The hate mail and the unfair accusations are far more likely to break Devyani's spirit than anything else. A lot of people are writing to me to ask how they can help.
To them, I say this.
Speak up in her support. Tell her and everyone else, that you believe that she did not cheat, exploit or wrong another human being.
Tell her that you believe that she is not capable of exploitation. Tell her that you are proud of her composure as she walked out of that courtroom.
Tell her that you're proud of her bravery and her resilience in the face of adversity. Tell her that you are proud that she represents you. Say it to her and to everyone else, in person, on phone, through email, through social media.
Sign the petition we have made to the White House protesting the manner in which she was detained.
Organize marches to the US embassies and consulates around the world.
Write to the politicians and opinion makers, asking that her suffering not be prolonged or compounded.
I don't know what the future holds for her. But I do know this. She is just another working mother, fighting hard to create a balance between her professional and personal life. Her life is difficult enough as it is. This case makes it so much harder."
