Penthouse In Ruins, India Pays Rs 72 Lakh

Among the things missing were a couple of paintings and a set of food-warming dishes. "They were small but not small in value," Kruger said. When the lease expired, she went to take possession but took one look and refused to take over charge. She gave the embassy a month to clean up the place. When nothing was done (an embassy official cited lack of funds and even encouraged her to file a claim), she wrote to former foreign minister Natwar Singh in October '05 detailing her charges. There was no response, she said. Frustrated, she had an Indian lawyer friend leak the news to a Delhi newspaper to generate pressure. But media exposure only triggered a boilerplate response from the official spokesman about "exaggerated claims" made routinely by landlords abroad. This prompted Kruger to go to the Court of Conciliation in Geneva, which decides on property disputes.

Kruger inherited the apartment from her late Arab first husband. She is now married to a Swiss man, who's an adoptive father to two Indian children. "It's not my intention to humiliate India. I didn't go to the local press because I did not want to give India a bad name. I don't think in my heart they had bad intentions," she said. But she did hire Bernard Ziegler, one of Geneva's prominent lawyers, to fight the case, forcing the Indian mission to appoint a lawyer as well.

So, was the sorry shape of the apartment a case of imperious officials treating the property as sarkari and therefore not worthy of care—as a Geneva-based diplomat opined—or was it systemic failure where responsibility does not seem to rest with anyone and the buck perpetually passes on? Under the rules, the mission's administrative officer is responsible for maintaining inventories, checking for damages and ensuring various properties rented by the government of India are running smoothly. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the occupant who must look after his residence, especially for the privilege of having swanky living quarters for free. Many are scrupulous about leaving government property as they found it, listing all bedsheets and towels meticulously but some come from the school of "who cares, it's sarkari stuff".

Kruger's fully furnished apartment laden with granite and Limoges crockery was rented for representational purposes—India's ambassador to the WTO has much entertaining to do to win friends and influence countries. The rent at $20,500 (about Rs 9 lakh) a month was stiff even by the standards of rich western countries. Chandrashekhar acknowledged that he did not sign any inventory when he left nor when he moved in, which apparently absolves him of responsibility. Why the administrative officer failed in his basic duty—ensuring a proper inventory is done—is unclear. Chandrashekhar described the place being in "reasonably good shape" with no indication of "any damage". When pressed, he revealed that "the floor carpet in one room was ripped off because of water seepage". Then he surmised that it'd have been better to "purchase apartments" or rent unfurnished ones because of landlords slapping exaggerated claims. But if the claims were unfounded, why didn't the mission fight back?

The irony of a revenue secretary rationalising the many systemic failures resulting in needless expenditure, including his own responsibility in the matter, seemed lost on the powerful gentleman. He even had an overall justification for the Rs 72 lakh damages—if you calculate two months' rent for annual maintenance which the mission should have spent but didn't, it all evens out.

A Europe-based Indian diplomat with a reputation for exposing abuse of privileges said administrative officers hate spending money on routine maintenance of even government-owned properties. "They find it safer not to spend because spending the money involves judgement and work," he said. They have to meet contractors, find a reliable company, ensure a good price, oversee the execution. "They operate below the radar and things go unnoticed until there is a disaster. How much can an annual audit catch?" Not much, it seems.