Opinion Honour in uniform

The director of military intelligence,who was handling the investigations,was reluctant to let the Intelligence Bureau participate,even though there were clear standing instructions that the IB should be associated in the interrogation of army suspects in espionage cases. The director of the IB wrote several letters to hte director of military intelligence,to no avail. It was only towards the end of 1979,and that too after some of the army officers had been court-martialled and sentenced to imprisonment,that the director of military intelligence agreed to allow the IB to look into the case. The IB insisted on interrogating all the suspects,but not all of them were made available. Eventually a joint team consisting of representatives from the IB,R&AW and J&K police,headed by a deputy director of the IB,went into the case thoroughly and recorded the evidence. The deputy director was V.K. Kaul,an expert in counter-espionage investigations. He later headed the Bureau of Police Research and Development in the home ministry.

The interrogation of the suspects was carried out in the Delhi cantonment in the presence of army officers designated by the military intelligence directorate. The team conducted a thorough investigation and unanimously concluded that the case built up by the army authorities was totally suspect,and that there was very little substantial evidence to support the various accusations. None of the 11 civilian officers who were implicated in the case was found guilty by the joint team,which recommended that no action against any of them was called for. This finding alone should have alerted the army authorities to take a fresh look at the entire case. Unfortunately,this did not happen. By the end of 1979,seven army officers were dismissed,six had been sentenced to jail terms ranging from six to fourteen years,and one was acquitted. One of the officers court-martialled and sentenced was Captain Rathaur and his sentence was awaiting confirmation. Notwithstanding the findings of the joint team,the army authorities were processing more cases against the remaining suspects.

A few days after I was appointed director of the Intelligence Bureau in February 1980,Prime Minister Indira Gandhi handed over to me a bunch of petitions from the dependents of some of the army officers who were under court-martial proceedings in the Samba spy case. The petitioners had made a pathetic plea for a impartial inquiry,and the prime minister asked me to look into the case closely and report to her.

After examining the files carefully,I discussed the case at length with the head of the joint team,V.K. Kaul,and it was clear to me that there was something very seriously wrong in the case. I sent a detailed report to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi stating that the entire spy case was doubtful,unsubstantiated and unreliable. The prime minister discussed the case with me and a few days later,ordered a review of the case by the defence ministry. Unfortunately,nothing happened,as the army authorities had strongly opposed a review or dropping of the proceedings on the grounds of army morale and discipline. Some of the aggrieved officers later went to the Delhi high court and then to the Supreme Court,but the judicial bodies declined to go into the case.

Six years later,in August 1986 when I was governor of Sikkim,there was a report about the plight of the Samba spy case victims,who were still clamouring for justice. I wrote to the then prime minister,Rajiv Gandhi,who was also holding the defence portfolio,with a copy to the minister of state in the defence ministry,Arun Singh. I suggested that the Samba spy case might be looked into afresh and that my comments as director of the IB,made in 1980 in my report to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi,might be considered.

I had reiterated the various discrepancies and improbabilities in the Samba spy case and my opinion that the accused army officers and others deserved a proper inquiry. The PM replied saying that he had directed a review of the case.

The release of Captain Rathaur after nine years in May 1989,despite the 14-year sentence,and the subsequent sanction of gratuity were apparently the outcome of the review ordered by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in late 1986. Both the release and the sanction of financial benefits were a grudging and belated admission of the fact that the case against Rathaur and his colleagues was not all that straight. But would that be enough?

The case needs to be reopened and examined without prejudice or preconceived notions. If it is perceived,on review by an impartial authority,that the evidence against the accused is suspect and there is an element of miscarriage of justice,it should be rectified and the unfortunate victims restored their dignity and honour.

The complete story of Sarwan Dass,the villain of the whole case,has now been published in full,if nothing else,this points out to the need to reopen the case afresh. Moreover,the postmortem report of Havaldar Ram Swaroop,which has now surfaced,clearly shows that he was tortured during his interrogation by military intelligence.

After the Armed Forces Tribunal declined to intervene in the matter on technical grounds,the plight of these unfortunate army personnel is pitiable indeed. Under Article 165 of the Army Act,1950,the chief of army staff may annul the proceedings of any court-martial on the grounds that they were illegal or unjust. It is hardly necessary to recapitulate the Samba spy case from the beginning. The army chief,General V.K. Singh,may like to send for all the papers on this case,empowered by the Army Act,review the case with an open mind and take action as he may deem fit.

The writer is a former IB chief and governor of Sikkim,West Bengal and UP