Manhattan Attorney Preet Bharara under scanner for 'targeting Indians'



Preet Bharara, US attorney for Southern District of New York

The row between Washington and New Delhi over the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade has brought into focus the role of Preet Bharara, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.



Mail circulating among the South Block officials shows Bharara has come under the scanner for targeting people of Indian origin.



Before spearheading the arrest proceedings in Devyani's case, Bharara had hit the headlines for prosecuting former McKinsey MD Rajat Gupta for insider trading charges.

Many from the diplomatic community wondered why there was no thought given to bringing to justice those who have committed crimes against India.

Significantly, the US has given asylum to countless pro-Khalistanis. It may be mentioned that American courts have been admitting law suits filed by pro-Khalistani groups against Indian leaders.

Summons were issued to leaders like Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Union Minister Kamal Nath and even the Congress party in connection with the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.



"How are the US courts concerned with a matter that did not occur within its territory?" a senior official wondered.

The development surrounding Devyani brought back memories of Krittika Biswas, the daughter of an Indian diplomat posted at the Indian Consulate in New York, who was arrested in her school, handcuffed and forced to spend 28 hours in a detention cell for cyber-bullying in February 2011.It was later found that another student was responsible for the crime.

India and the US differ on the issue of immunity that should be granted to Devyani. Washington argues that she does not have immunity from arrest. But officials have pointed out a double standard, as witnessed in the case of Raymond Davis, who was arrested for the murder of two Pakistanis in Lahore in 2011. The US State Department had said Raymond cannot be arrested as he was working with the American Consulate.



"As it was later revealed, he was not even a consular employee but a contractor employed by the CIA! It is strange that Americans then argued that he had immunity while now asserting that the Indian Deputy Consul General does not have such immunity. Or, does the Vienna Convention have to interpreted in one way for Americans and in another way for Indians?" a former diplomat questioned.

