The Gurgaon episode involving a Saudi diplomat’s alleged slave-like exploitation of two Nepalese ladies raises multiple questions about the immunities of diplomats as indeed the very notion of human enslavement and its history amongst Arabs of the Gulf and now manifest in Iraq and Syria in the conduct of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Unfortunately, sexual enslavement and exploitation of abducted females belonging to another religion has found new practitioners in the IS, if not lurking approval amongst radicalised fringes in other Islamic nations. However, the problem in a lesser form has been chronic to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries since migration of labour began to those countries in the mid 1970s.
Today there are almost 25 million migrant workers in the six GCC countries, constituting almost a third of their population. While work opportunities undoubtedly benefited the large masses of people of South and East Asia economically, work conditions have often been a cause for concern.
Though some reform has been undertaken in recent years, the conditions are far from compliant with International Labour Organisation Convention No. 189, Article 7, prescribing minimal contract conditions for domestic workers. Female workers have been particularly vulnerable in these countries as labour courts are usually chary of examining the work environment in the homes of locals.
Because of incessant complaints, India in the mid 1990s adopted a stricter regime for the emigration clearance of maids. The Paris-based Committee Against Modern Slavery estimates that in a recent two-year period there were 135 reported cases in Western countries of sexual misconduct/rape by individuals enjoying diplomatic protection.
While there has been debate on amending Article 31 particularly when a diplomat commits a heinous crime while not in conduct of his duties, status quo persists.
There is even a sensible proposal for an international tribunal to which such cases of misconduct or suspected criminality could be referred. Caution is also in order because every charge may not be entirely true.
Indian and other developing country diplomats have discovered in recent years that their domestic staff, in developed countries, have been more prone to claim mistreatment, often incited by NGOs and tempted by an opportunity to get asylum. Not every Indian diplomat may be without blemish, nor is abuse of servants rampant as complaints may seem to indicate.
That aside, when abuse of the nature alleged by the Nepalese maids is in question, no nation must throw the blanket of immunity over the case. Clearly, in today’s networked world medieval practices and old immunity arguments need a closer look. The Saudis have an opportunity to show that they are different from the ISIS by joining the inquiry. Otherwise, the suspicion will persist that what ISIS does blatantly, some amongst the Saudi elite have no compunction doing privately.
The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry. He tweets at @ambkcsingh
