Devyani

I am sure that all of us have been stirred by the Devyani Khobragade arrest incident that has shaken the diplomatic ties between India and US for now. I spent much time yesterday reading through the news reports and talking to people with experiences into diplomatic scenarios. We spoke at lengths on the measures being taken by the various authorities and the excessiveness being exercised in matters deemed necessary. We all concluded that there were some gaps in the manner the situation was handled. This article today is dedicated towards the lamentation of these gaps.

In the Devyani case, the US officials have reported to have acted as per their rules and regulations. Their reports said that since the Indian Diplomat failed to align with their rules and regulations, they were supposed to take a corrective action and force the punishment on the accused. What were these rules? Putting appropriate salary to the domestic help (which is allowed as per US rules and regulations) in the visa application. However, the standards for the salary are too high and cannot be meted out since the employer is not paid enough. In such a case, the rules and regulations leave a case by allowing the domestic help to a diplomat, yet cut it down by raising the salary bar too high. In any case, the fact of the matter is, Devyani is in trouble which she may or may not have caused at all. She is at the center of mayhem being caused by someone else with different other motives that what is evident at this time.

At the same time, we ought to ask the question – how do you determine what is right? In the case above, it is seen that aligning to the rules makes a person right. If so, what makes the rule right? If following the rule makes a right or a good person, all law abiding people would be good people. If following the rule made good people, why did Jesus broke the law of the land? Why did Moses break the law and guided Jews out of slavery from Pharaohs? If the rules were good and following them made you a good person, why does every government changes the laws or rules set by the previous ones?

Rules or laws cannot be definitive. They are context based and time and place sensitive!

Sri Ram followed the rule of his ancestors to follow the word of his father. He went to exile renouncing his claim to the throne for fourteen years. Bhishma later followed the same rule to uphold his father's wish and renounced his claim to the throne forever and decided not to have children. The same law! In one case is considered great boon and in the other a great disaster! Had Bhishma laid claim to the throne, the entire Mahabharata could have been avoided. Duryodhana always followed the law. As per the law, he won Draupadi. He could do whatever he wished with her. She was no different than other courtesans in principle. However, we do consider him evil and his act of disrobing Draupadi the most evil of all – Why? He was just following the law. As per the law, Duryodhana was the eldest son of Dhritrasthra (elder of the two brothers – who ruled Hastinapur). Lawfully, he was the rightful heir to the throne. Yet we understand that he did injustice to the Pandavas. Following the law but not the principle behind it, will not make you a good person. Any rule or law which is applicable to a set of people in a particular timeframe at a place will not be applicable at other place as the parameters or the environment has changed. When Shabari fed half eaten fruits to Sri Ram, he ate them fondly. Though Lakshmana was enraged that how could a old, uncivilized woman offer leftover food to Sri Ram – future king of Ayodhya! Sri Ram pointed it out to Lakshmana that they and not Shabri were privy to court manners. It was they and Shabri who knew who they were. How could they expect the same court manners from Shabri when she hadn't been informed of the same? Thus the same rules do not apply to both! At the end of the war between Sri Ram and Ravana, the gods poured Amrit – or the nectar of life. Though Amrit fell on both the monkeys and demons, no demons got their life back. Doesn't the same rule applies to both?

Similarly, even in the US, every state has its own set of rulings with respect to certain topics. It is because the same rules do not apply to people when the environmental and social factors change. While such a dichotomy over the rules exist in a country, how could one be so sure that they take steps to jeopardize the relationships in a grave manner as this?