The outrage over a senior Indian diplomat's arrest by federal authorities earlier this month is officially at the insane stage. Indian officials and politicians—who are gearing up for elections season next year—are ratcheting up the rhetoric about the United States. Like flag-burning and throwing rocks at a Domino's in Mumbai, as well as this: "Yashwant Sinha, a former BJP foreign minister, has said that India should now arrest the same-sex partners of US diplomats after a court ruling last week that upheld a colonial-era ban on homosexuality."

Devyani Khobragade, a deputy consul at the Indian Consulate in New York City, was charged with visa fraud and falsifying statements in her application for her nanny to come to America. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharaha's office alleged that she claimed she was paying the woman $4,500, but it was actually only $573. Khobragade's arrest, which included a strip-search and cavity-search, have been denounced by Indian officials, who then removed security barriers (to prevent bombings) outside the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.

Devyani Khobragade (AP)

Secretary of State John Kerry reached out to India's national security adviser to apologize, which confused the NY Times. A Times editorial supported Khobragade's arrest, "It is not unusual in India for domestic employees to be paid poorly and required to work more than 60 hours a week. But such practices are not allowed under American law, and abuses by anyone should not be tolerated, regardless of their status... All diplomats, including Ms. Khobragade, presumably are made aware of their legal obligations and American procedures before accepting an assignment in the United States."

As deputy consul, Khobragade only has limited diplomatic immunity, which didn't protect her from these charges. So India has transferred its mission to the U.N., which has full diplomatic immunity. Still, a State Department spokesperson emphasized, "Receiving diplomatic immunity does not nullify any previously existing criminal charges. Those remain on the books. Nor does obtaining diplomatic immunity protect the diplomat from prosecution indefinitely. It relates to the status of a diplomat's current status for the length of the time of that status."

Khobragade's father, who is also a former civil service officer, claimed that the nanny, Sangeeta Richard, is actually a CIA agent, sent to wreck his daughter's life. Uttar Khobragade said, "Going by the developments that have taken place over the last one year, the government of India feels that it appears to be a conspiracy... We suspect that Sangeeta Richard is an agent of the CIA. We were made scapegoat in the whole case. Devyani is a brave woman and she has been performing all her duties regularly." A spokesperson helping Richard said, "I’m happy to confirm she’s not a CIA agent."

On the other side, the family of domestic worker Richard recounted how she was treated terribly by Khobragade:

“Even though the contract stipulated that Sunday would be an off day, she worked from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., minus two hours for church . . . She worked from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturday, as well,” Philip ­Richard said.

And the housekeeper’s daughter, Jennifer Richard, wrote to US officials last summer that her mom “used to sound unhappy whenever she talked to us on the phone. She asked Devyani to send her back to India, but Devyani refused her request.”

Further, the Richards say that Khobragade's father sent the police to intimidate them into stopping the complaints.

The Times reports, "Washington warned the Indian government of the investigation against Ms. Khobragade in a letter in September. Asked why the Indian government did not withdraw Ms. Khobragade then, [Foreign Minister Salman] Khurshid responded that he 'didn’t expect this could happen... Don’t hold it against us that we have trust and faith in the U.S. government and its liberal credentials."

U.S. Attorney Bharara has defend the charges, and pointed out that Khobragade got special treatment during the arrest (the cavity search is standard). He told the Times, "Is it for U.S. prosecutors to look the other way, ignore the law and the civil rights of victims, or is it the responsibility of the diplomats and consular officers and their government to make sure the law is observed?”