US claims on American Embassy School in New Delhi are wrong

The world’s sole superpower had started a diplomatic spat with India – its self-professed “natural ally”, a “strategic partner” and America’s “Asia pivot” – on 12 December with the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade on many criminal charges, including visa fraud, on a moral high ground. But the Americans themselves are guilty of subterfuge. On 17 January, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington that the American Embassy School (AES) in New Delhi, under a cloud for a number of alleged visa and taxation frauds, is not run by the US embassy. “It (American Embassy School) is not run by the embassy. Only about a third of the students there are American. We are in discussion with the government of India regarding issues they have raised concerning the school,” she was quoted as saying. Thus the State Department was not only distancing itself from the wrongdoings of AES but also was seen as washing its hands off an important American entity in New Delhi at a time when the entity needed Washington’s support the most. However, the State Department’s lame argument does not cut much ice if you see the attached document. View here. [caption id=“attachment_1359069” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] US Embassy in New Delhi. Image used for representational purposes. AFP[/caption] Article III of this document makes it clear that the US ambassador in New Delhi enjoys supervisory powers over the school. In fact, it clearly states that the US envoy in New Delhi is responsible for the management of the school. Of particular relevance is clause 2 (d) of Article III which states as follows: “The Ambassador will appoint to the Board two representatives from the American Embassy (who need not be members of the Association) who shall serve at his/her pleasure; one such representative shall normally be the Embassy’s Counselor for Administrative Affairs who shall concern himself primarily with financial and budgetary matters.” The operative words in this clause are” who shall serve at his/her pleasure”, which clearly refer to the role of the US ambassador in New Delhi in running AES. Further, Article VI (2) says thus: “The Board, subject to approval of the Ambassador, may establish, and from time to time amend, By-Laws of the Association consistent with this Charter.” This conclusively proves that the US ambassador in New Delhi enjoys powers to make or amend by-laws from time to time in the running of the AES. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs is obviously aware of the American subterfuge and the blatantly wrong statement of the senior State Department official. This gives rise to the following questions: 1. Has the MEA confronted the State Department or the US embassy in New Delhi with the facts? If no, why not? And if yes, what is the American response? 2 The Indian deadline for the US embassy to furnish information about AES, salaries paid to the staff and taxes paid and deposited by them expired a month ago. Has the MEA extended the deadline? 3 When is the US embassy in New Delhi going to furnish all the information required by Indian law? 4 Is it not a fact that the AES has been violating many Indian laws with impunity since 1974? If so, the details thereof? This writer is given to understand that the AES case is currently under microscopic scrutiny by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Sources familiar with the case say that the CBDT investigation has made much progress. But the vital questions are whether the Indian finance ministry will have the gall to push the envelope and take the AES case to its logical conclusion or whether the Indians have lost the appetite to take it any further now that Devyani Khobragade is back in India, though the criminal cases against her stay alive? The UPA government will do well to provide some clarity to these questions.