The Instigator
BiggBoss
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Devyani Khobragade: US was wrong, but India is being immature !!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,052 times Debate No: 43230
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

BiggBoss

Pro

Devyani Khobragade treated her houseworker as a wage slave and expected to get away with it. That is ridiculous, as is her lawyer's excuse that she can't afford to pay the minimum wage ($1600/month). if you can't pay for the child, don't have one.

The US treatment of her is ridiculous as well. She is a diplomat and deserves a few extra perks, being detained diplomatically and not having strip searches for a crime that wouldn't require it. If she were caught smuggling something, a cavity search would be warranted, but this was different.

The Indian reaction, screaming Tit for Tat, an Eye for an Eye, will leave everyone blind. It's immature and ridiculous, and forcibly removing the security barriers at the embassy is dangerous, especially in a country that has had dozens of bombings in the past two decades.

Does India forget the support that the US offers it, the welcoming of its citizens as residents and immigrants (who send home billions of dollars a year in remittances) and everything else that comes with a diplomatic relationship? No, obviously not, the Indian government and people would rather take out their frustrations on the US because it's an easy target.

It's easier for India's politicians to gain some short term street credibility with their constituents by screaming loudly and spreading hate than it is to focus on their own very real problems.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

To prove that the arrest is wrong, Pro has to either prove beyond reasonable doubt that Devyani Khobragade is innocent of all charges, or argue that her diplomatic immunity protects her from such arrests. So far, this has not been done.

My position is that US was not wrong in arresting Devyani Khobragade and further investigating her case. I shall start with a brief narration of what happened to then present my case. My argument is only against Pro's first part of the resolution which claims that the "US was wrong."

STORY

Devyani Khobragade is the deputy consul general for India in New York, who has always claimed to be with women empowerment, and has established herself as a public figure that is concerned with the economic and social empowerment of women around the world.

Nevertheless, her domestic maid and babysitter, Sangeeta Richard, reported to the US authorities that she has been treated and exploited as a domestic slave, while receiving underpayment by Khobragade, who the US authorities also arrested for Visa Fraud and the numerous false statements made under oath in court before being arrested[1]. The investigation is still taking place with many evidence that convicts Khobaragade of violation of US laws, but has received a backlash in India by protesters who claim that such arrest humiliated their Indian diplomat. The Indian concern seems to be focused on how the Indian diplomat was handcuffed, searched and arrested, and not the high possibility that a poor woman was exploited as a domestic slave by an influential figure from India.

MY CASE

A- Khobragade's arrest is warranted and wasn't a mistake.
1- Khobragade's diplomatic immunity does not involve personal actions.
2- Enough evidence present for the arrest.

B- The arrest itself is encouraged.
1- The arrest shows equality in dealing will all Indians, regardless of their economic classes.
2- The arrest makes it clear that domestic slavery is not welcomed or taken lightly in the US.


A1- Khobragade's immunity does not involve personal actions.

The US State Department said, "Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Indian Deputy Consul General enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts only with respect to acts performed in the exercise of consular functions."

In other words, Khobragade's personal life and decisions are not acts performed in exercise of consular functions(work for the Indian council), so her acclaimed immunity does not at all permit her to accuse the US of not respecting the agreements of diplomacy, as her immunity is only limited to her actions and activities for the Indian council, and not her activities on the personal level such as hiring maids for her flats.

Pro argues, "She is a diplomat and deserves a few extra perks, being detained diplomatically and not having strip searches for a crime that wouldn't require it. If she were caught smuggling something, a cavity search would be warranted, but this was different."

Rebuttal: Her detainment was for violations of US laws by owning a domestic slave while engaging in Visa Fraud and using false statements under oath to cover that. Pro doesn't seem to understand the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which only provides immunity for consular functions, and hence arresting and detaining the Indian diplomat was justified if she had illegal activities on the personal level. Moreover, searching her was only to ensure that she is not carrying important documents that are relevant to her maid's contract or the fraudulent Visa, and because of the custom search to ensure that she is not carrying any weapons that is practiced by US authorities for any act of detainment.

A2- Enough evidence present for the arrest itself

- Sangeeta Richard submitted an accusation, claiming to be paid about $3.31 per hour, after filing a contract that she'd be paid the legally mandated minimum of $9.75[2].

- The US authorities have proved that the accused has made false statements under oath in a US court according to an official report on matters that deal with the Visa fraud accusation[1].

- Devyani Khobragade has a history of economic corruption, starting with her "controversial flat" in the Adarsh Housing Society cooperative in Mumbai, where she was considered one of the "illegal beneficiaries in the Adarsh Housing Society[3]".

B1- The arrest shows equality in dealing will all Indians, regardless of their economic classes.

The arrest acts like a reminder that the US does not differentiate between people from different economic classes when it comes to horrible crimes. Moreover, the diplomatic approach seems to have failed with the Indian diplomat in previous occasions, after she voiced out false statements to defend herself in court before the arrest, which acted like a good reason to detain her this time after such statements were investigated to turn out to be blatant fabrications.

B2- The arrest makes it clear that domestic slavery is not welcomed or taken lightly in the US.


I guess this point is self-evident. Having domestic slavery is not taken lightly or ignored in the US as it seems to be in India. Anyone who engages in such horrible acts and then covers it with blatant lies under oath is held responsible for his or her actions, and arrested so that justice is achieved.


SUMMARY

I didn't find any convincing reason why the arrest was wrong. It is a normal detainment of someone who the US Authorities claim to have enough evidence to convict, knowing that such crime is not protected by the agreement of diplomacy between India and the US, as that agreement is limited to consular functions (work for the Indian council), and when clearly exploiting an Indian maid in your house is not a consular function, neither is making false statements and fabrications in a US court of law while under oath.


CITATIONS

[1] justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeArrestPR/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Complaint.pdf

[2] India’s Devyani Khobragade advocated for women’s rights, accused in nanny scandal. Annie Gowen, Published: December 20. The Washington Post: 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

[3] Arrested Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade owned a flat in Adarsh society in Mumbai. Sandeep Unnithan New Delhi, December 13, 2013 . IndiaToday: http://indiatoday.intoday.in...
Debate Round No. 1
BiggBoss

Pro

well said Con...but the thing is it was totally disgusting how the Indian diplomat " devyani khobragade" was arrested and strip-searched. It"s not the first time an Indian diplomat has gotten in trouble over this issue " last February, Neena Malhotra was ordered to pay $1.5 million to her former maid for "barbaric" conditions. But there was no strip-search, no jail time and, therefore, no mass protests. So why this time in case of Devaynai khobragade. morever, Khobragade was impounded with people who faced drug-related charges and rape charges.
However, the American scriptwriters who choreographed the Devyani episode apparently did not account for a strong and swift retaliation by India. After all, the Americans have been doing this routinely to prominent Indians " not just stars like Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aamir Khan but also to political dignitaries like former President APJ Abdul Kalam, former Defence Minister George Fernandes and serving Indian ambassadors and top diplomats. The Americans never imagined that the Indian government which routinely allowed itself to be like a doormat in innumerable cases of humiliation would act so decisively in the case of a little known mid-level diplomat and the whole of India, cutting across the party lines, would erupt in support.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

I just discovered that Pro has plagiarized more than 95% of his text in the two previous rounds, when plagiarism goes against DDO standards.

For example, this website(http://www.firstpost.com...) contains most of the text which Pro presented here including this paragraph:

"However, the American scriptwriters who choreographed the Devyani episode apparently did not account for a strong and swift retaliation by India. After all, the Americans have been doing this routinely to prominent Indians – not just stars like Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aamir Khan but also to political dignitaries like former President APJ Abdul Kalam, former Defence Minister George Fernandes and serving Indian ambassadors and top diplomats. The Americans never imagined that the Indian government which routinely allowed itself to be like a doormat in innumerable cases of humiliation would act so decisively in the case of a little known mid-level diplomat and the whole of India, cutting across the party lines, would erupt in support."

Pro has used many propaganda and false allegations against the arrest itself, but has failed in proving that the accused should have had any special treatment, when that doesn't exist from an official capacity as her immunity is limited to her consular fuctions and to her consular functions only. I shall focus in this round on the point he raised about "strip-searching being disgusting."


MY CASE

A1- Strip-searching is a custom procedure not a sexual assault.

The U.S. Supreme Court allows strip-searching for even people arrested for minor traffic offenses, as it is a custom procedure to ensure prison security and not something meant to assault or offend the person being searched[1]. Khobragade should have known she is under US laws when she came to the US. If she didn't like such laws, she had the freedom to leave the US and live abroad.

A2- Khobragade was not stripped naked

There is no reports on Khobragade being disrobed in prison, but searched like all convicts by being asked to remove some articles of clothing and to submit any personal belongings she had on her. This is nothing outrageous but something applied to all American citizens when being convicted of a crime and detained.

A3- Strip-searching in Khobragade's case is necessary

Khobragade had to be searched as she proved in a previous occasion to be utteraly dishonest. There is no other way to ensure that she is not carrying documents that the US authorities would want to have, after she had previously lied under oath to cover up her horrible crime. Hence, it doesn't make sense for the US authorities to simply put her in the prison-cell without any searching. If Khobragade is that sensitive to being touched, she shouldn't have lived in a country where such standard procedures exist, to begin with.

REBUTTAL

Pro plagiarizes, "last February, Neena Malhotra was ordered to pay $1.5 million to her former maid for "barbaric" conditions. But there was no strip-search, no jail time and, therefore, no mass protests. So why this time in case of Devaynai khobragade."

Rebuttal: Neena Malhotra left a year before she was convicted[2]. If she did not, she would have been arrested for what she has done. The US couldn't arrest her because she was out of the country (and not willing to return), so the best way was to apply a huge economic sanction. Yet I'm sure that if Neena Malhotra was arrested, she would also use her money and influence to cause a public outrage in India and put pressure on the US Justice System.

Pro plagiarizes, "The Americans never imagined that the Indian government which routinely allowed itself to be like a doormat in innumerable cases of humiliation would act so decisively in the case of a little known mid-level diplomat and the whole of India, cutting across the party lines, would erupt in support."

Rebuttal: I stand offended by such distasteful conclusion. It is not the Americans who are making the Indian government look bad, but the actions of the government's representatives, who collect money and own agricultural land in different states in the US, while exploiting poor Indian maids to satisfy their higher caste fetishes. It is that Indian government's history of condoning the abuse of women and poor people in India and abroad that makes it dishonorable, not the US, Pakistan or any other country.

SUMMARY

The US was not wrong because...

(1) Khobragade's diplomatic immunity did not involve personal/non-consular activities. [Point of agreement]

(2) Khobragade is convicted of a serious crime: Visa Fraud, blatant fabrications under oath in a US court of Law and a mistreatment of a domestic maid. This results usually in a 15 years sentence. [Point of agreement]

(3) The US followed standard customs and procedures in its arrest. Khobragade was treated equally to any American citizen with such charges. [Fact]

(4) Khobragade should have known the US laws and standard procedures before coming to the US. If she does not agree with strip-searching, she shouldn't have chosen the US the country in which she would increase her wealth and try to establish herself as a public figure that fights for "women rights."

In summary, the US only enforced equality between American citizens, followed standard procedures, followed the agreement of diplomacy between the US and India and simply made a warranted arrest to further investigate a serious crime which involves the life and dignity of a poor Indian woman which the US protected from being further mistreated and underpaid. How is that wrong?


CITATIONS

[1] Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip Searches for Any Arrest. Adam Liptak. Published: April 2, 2012 in New York Times. Online source: http://www.nytimes.com...

[2] Diplomat's arrest: Trouble was brewing since June. December 17, 2013 10:36 IST in Reddiff News. Online source: http://www.rediff.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BiggBoss

Pro

why is Con crying out loud that I have plagiarized my points as i just want to tell that I had no intention or motive to copy from another site, as in recent past, i had gone through this discussion very often and i had read from various sources about this whole issue. so, maybe this time points have matched as the Con is saying in his previous argument.
I just wanted to ask CON that are you Indian ???
I have just asked this question because the way you are talking for that girl i.e Devyani is just unacceptable as I am a Proud Indian citizen and I will always stand for my mother land and I really feel that US behaviour towards Indian diplomat was quiet harsh and rude.
The conduct and attitude that the US government has shown regarding the Devyani khobragade issue is a matter of concern not only for India but also for all countries and everyone should raise their voice against such ruthless behaviour.
Con's point that Devyani had come to US on her own will is totally null and void as we all that She Is an Indian diplomat living in US and it's her work and duty to work for India.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro's performance in this debate was disappointing. He used blatant lies to cover up his plagiarism, while refusing to satisfy his burden of proof by showing how the US was wrong, but simply making appeals to emotion such as that Devyani Khobragade is from India and India is his motherland.

To establish that the arrest was wrong, Pro had to either prove one of the following: (1) Khobragade deserved special treatment as opposed to regular convicts in the US, (2) Khobragade was innocent or (3) that the arrest itself was disgusting and ruthless.

Pro argued for (1) and then dropped the argument after I established that Khobragade's immunity is only limited to consular functions.

Pro didn't argue for (2) but agreed that Khobragade abused her maid, Sangeeta Richard.

Pro argued for (3) without giving any evidence, but simply calling her arrest rutheless and disgusting.

Rebuttal: According to US Attorney Preet Bharara, "The agents arrested her in the most discreet way possible, and unlike most defendants, she was not then handcuffed or restrained. In fact, the arresting officers did not even seize her phone as they normally would have. Instead, they offered her the opportunity to make numerous calls to arrange personal matters and contact whomever she needed, including allowing her to arrange for child care. This lasted approximately two hours. Because it was cold outside, the agents let her make those calls from their car and even brought her coffee and offered to get her food." I personally do not see how any of that is "ruthless" or "disgusting." If Pro is referring to the strip-search, then that is a standard procedure practiced on every American citizen for prison security, and there is nothing disgusting about it. In Khobragade's case, it was performed by a female officer and in a private setting, as it is practiced to any American convict in a professional and respectful manner.

REBUTTAL

Pro exclaims, "why is Con crying out loud that I have plagiarized my points as i just want to tell that I had no intention or motive to copy from another site, as in recent past, i had gone through this discussion very often and i had read from various sources about this whole issue. so, maybe this time points have matched as the Con is saying in his previous argument."

Rebuttal: It's obvious from Pro's weak English that he couldn't possibly have written the previous paragraphs. Nevertheless, I'm going to show that Pro did not have "matching points" as he falsely claims but that he copied and pasted the paragraphs exactly.

Pro in his first round plagiarized a whole article called "Devyani Khobragade: US was wrong, but India is being immature." He copied/pasted the paragraphs without any modifications(http://www.firstpost.com...):

"
Devyani Khobragade treated her houseworker as a wage slave and expected to get away with it. That is ridiculous, as is her lawyer's excuse that she can't afford to pay the minimum wage ($1600/month). if you can't pay for the child, don't have one.

The US treatment of her is ridiculous as well. She is a diplomat and deserves a few extra perks, being detained diplomatically and not having strip searches for a crime that wouldn't require it. If she were caught smuggling something, a cavity search would be warranted, but this was different.

The Indian reaction, screaming Tit for Tat, an Eye for an Eye, will leave everyone blind. It's immature and ridiculous, and forcibly removing the security barriers at the embassy is dangerous, especially in a country that has had dozens of bombings in the past two decades. "

Does India forget the support that the US offers it, the welcoming of its citizens as residents and immigrants (who send home billions of dollars a year in remittances) and everything else that comes with a diplomatic relationship? No, obviously not, the Indian government and people would rather take out their frustrations on the US because it's an easy target.

It's easier for India's politicians to gain some short term street credibility with their constituents by screaming loudly and spreading hate than it is to focus on their own very real problems. "

Pro in his second round plagiarized from an article called "Devyani Khobragade case: Why the US will have to back down" as noted in my previous round. There is also plagiarism from two more sources but I think that those are enough.

...

Pro argues, "Con's point that Devyani had come to US on her own will is totally null and void as we all that She Is an Indian diplomat living in US and it's her work and duty to work for India."

Rebuttal: She chose that position knowing that she would live in the US and be under US laws, and that her immunity according to the Vienna agreement only includes her consular functions. Therefore, she chose to be under US Laws, and so she should respect them or leave her position to someone that does.

Pro argues, "the way you are talking for that girl i.e Devyani is just unacceptable as I am a Proud Indian citizen and I will always stand for my mother land"

Rebuttal: If you're truly supporting your "mother land," you would care about all Indian citizens, not just the higher caste. You would care about Sangeeta Richard and many other Indian maids being mistreated, exploited and threatened by those public figures you support, and not enraged because a "spoiled maiden" does not like being touched and searched, even after she abuses and disrespects the life of an Indian woman. What if that woman was your mother or your sister?


SUMMARY

Pro failed in satisfying his burden of proof, dropped many arguments(which mostly were not even his) and ignored many of my rebuttals, while either copying/pasting whole paragraphs from other sources, or simply giving inadequate responses.

I thank Pro for starting this debate.
It was at least interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
Ugh. Pro handled this so poorly. Although I'm staunch supported of India in this case, Con obviously supported his arguments better. Plagiarism is bad conduct, the arguments were mere assertions without any back up. Plus Con was the only one who used sources.

If I were Con, I wouldn't framed the resolution so- either argue for that US was wrong, or that India is acting immaturely. Supporting both of them is pretty huge in a debate, since they are kind of contradictory- it makes for a good discussion- but not a debate topic, for which you usually require strong positions. Plus India has merely reciprocated the actions- the perks offered to US consulates in India were apparently more than those being offered to Indian consulates in US. Reciprocity is a standar basis of any international relation.
Posted by BiggBoss 3 years ago
BiggBoss
Thanks Con for your arguments.:)..:).. U desrve victory this time..:)..:)..All the best..:)
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Pro loses conduct for plagiarizing and claiming Con "cried" about it. Pro also loses sources, he had none, when he should have had some. Con also had reliable and relevant sources from justice.gov, washingtonpost, NYtimes, indiatoday, and much more. Con argued that there were justified reasons for the arrest that extends beyond diplomatic immunity. And that it demonstrates various favorable aspects of law enforcement. Pro's rebuttal seemed more like an appeal to emotion. He said it was disgusting how they treated her without demonstrating it was wrong. He also gave other cases where a strip search never happened. He did not address Con"s objections. Con showed how the search was justified and not as bad as Pro made it out to be. Pro"s next round tried to justify plagiarism in a poor way and said he would stand for the diplomat because he"s indian. This doesn"t prove the resolution, it"s not an argument. He also went on to claim it was rude.

I found that Pro"s case was really weak. Essentially, he ignored Con throughout the entire debate.
Posted by varun.vow 3 years ago
varun.vow
interestting challenge....i too want to be on Pro side....it was totally disgusting on the Part of US..
Posted by me413 3 years ago
me413
wonderful date..keep it up.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
An interesting challenge.

If I had the chance to debate as CON

The actual complaint can be found here
- www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeArrestPR/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Complaint.pdf
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
BiggBossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
BiggBossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON was better. He had better conduct because he showed us vienna convention on consular relations whihc I never knew. conduct point voted on CON. His arguements were convincing such as: this arrest showed us everybody is equal and e.t.c hence, arguement point went to CON. sources: CON was better and showed his sources while PRO plagiarised.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
BiggBossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave well reasoned and well presented information.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
BiggBossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.