Category: Freedom Team

In relation to the ISRO case, DGP RB Sreekumar has sent two documents for review: one chapter entitled The Grounded Rocket from the book "Open Secrets: India's Intelligence Unveiled" by  Maloy Krishna Dhar. Dhar, a senior IPS officer, was Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau at the time the ISRO incident occurred.

The second document Sreekumar has sent is a High Court judgement which commented on the ISRO case in some detail.

I'm extracting key sections from the MK Dhar book and also attaching the High Court judgement which CLEARLY concludes that there was no torture and that CBI had ignored vital pieces of evidence. It appears significant political reasons had came into play with CBI's involvement, which was not interested in an honest inquiry into the issues.

It is clear that there are 70 video tapes of the interrogations. These have NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY the then Director IB TO BE PRODUCED IN COURT. These video tapes are almost certain to demonstrate that there was no torture of Nambi Narayan. To me this matter is important enough that the government should appoint an independent judge to examine all facts.

The ISRO espionage case had arisen out of interception of a Maldivian national Mariyam Rasheeda. Mariyam was intercepted by Kerala police for Overstaying her visa period and crime number 225/94 was registered on 20.10.1994. Her questioning resulted in registration of case no: 246/94 dated 13.11.1994 under section 3, 4& 5 of the Official Secrets Act and 34 India Penal Code. Interrogation of Mariyam Rasheeda and Faujiya Hassan, also a Maldivian national, by Kerala police and Kerala unit of the Intelligence Bureau indicated that Mariyam was an employee of the Security and Intelligence Service of the Maldives. She had developed questionable linkages with senior scientists of the Fabrication and Technology Division, LPSC, Valiamala, Trivandrum, a prestigious and sensitive segment of the ISRO.

Amongst the scientists the names of D. Sasikumaran, Nambinarayan, Deputy Director LPSC, had figured prominently. Further interrogation implicated Raman Srivastava, IPS, an officer of the rank of Inspector General, Chandrashekhar, a Bangalore based businessman having linkages the Indian and USSR space agencies, and a Mangalore based doctor, and others

Initial reaction of the Intelligence Bureau was to depute Rattan Sen – personal aide to the Director IB and B. K. R. Rao of the R&AW to … inquire into the matter. These high profile officers confirmed the Mariyam with the intelligence and security organisation of the Maldives government.

Suspicious and clandestine linkages between Mariyam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan and the ISRO scientists D. Sasikumar and Narnbinarayan were proved beyond doubt. What remained unsolved was to unearth the nature of transactions between them and If such transactions tantamounted to compromising of national security parameters and leakage of ISRO secrets to foreign agents.

I also argued with the Director that the ISRO case had taken a mammoth shape and the lB was not in any way competent to investigate the linkages in Sri Lanka, Russia and Maldives. There was no scope for handing over the case to R&AW also. The R&AW did not have expertise in handling counter-intelligence matters. I, however, visited the R&AW office on a couple of occasions and briefed the R&AW officers about the progress achieved in the investigation. They, especially Arun Bhagat, the senior R&AW hand, who later managed to grab the chair of Director IB, were briefed and handed over briefs that required investigation by them, in Sri Lanka, Russia and Maldives. The inputs received from R&AW mostly corroborated some important disclosures made by the suspects interrogated. It may, however, be remembered that the R&AW cannot issue letter rogatory to foreign police agencies and involve the Interpol. Therefore, the R&AW enquiries were superficial and secret in nature.

A few days later a Bangalore based joint secretary of the Department of Space, who happened to be a Bengali, visited me in Delhi and expressed his appreciation of the progress of the investigation. He gave me to understand that the  chief of ISRO had ordered an in house investigation to locate and identify the 'missing documents' those were purportedly smuggled out by Sasikumaran and Nambinarayan. He also conveyed the appreciation of the ISRO chief. This discussion session was recorded in writing and conveyed to the DIB.

In the meantime a summon from the personal secretary to the Prime Minister rattled me completely. He wanted to impress me with two arguments: the high fly publicity received by the case was likely to harm the intrinsic interests of India's space programme and the political opponents of the Prime Minister were likely to use the case to weaken the Congress party in Kerala. Politically his concerns were perhaps valid. But I was neither in a position to muzzle the media nor throttle the gullets of the politicians.

Nevertheless, I understood that I was handling a hot piece of iron and it should be transferred to a different palm. The Central Bureau of Investigation was the natural choice. Only that agency could interact with the Interpol and appoint a special team to investigate the intelligence leads culled out from the interrogation reports, I persuaded the Director IB to discuss the matter with the Director CBI, Vijaya Rama Rao. But D.C. Pathak, for some reason or other, was not on talking terms with the Director CBI. I was directed to interact with him and fathom out his mind. In fact, I enjoyed close rapport with the CBI Director. He received me well but was not in favour of taking up investigation into the complicated espionage case.

I argued with Pathak once more and dragged him to the room of the Union Home Secretary (Padmanabhaiya) to request him to hand the' case over to the CBI. The note prepared by me impressed the Home secretary and he agreed to do the needful after initial dithering, Probably he was bound by the convention of taking clearance from the Home and Prime Minister. He took the correct approach. I felt a sense of relief.

Next day I sat over a meeting with the CBI team in the office of Mathew John and two- of us together handed over the following case materials to the CBI team:

• Copies of all interrogation reports,
• Three Videotapes of interrogation (rest of the tapes were secured in Delhi).
• Copies of telex massages originated by Mathew John.
• Copies of written reports sent by Mathew to lB
• summary of the case as perceived by the IB.
• Summary of preliminary investigation done by the IB
• Oral briefing by Mathew and his deputy Srikumar

I must admit that Mathew had done a thorough job and he had maintained a dispassionate distance from the ongoing interrogation and investigation. Like a true professional he refused to accept what was pedalled as solid intelligence input and he was the first to scrutinise the incongruities in the statements made by the interrogatees. At no point of time he sided with the local politicians and police officers.

After the crucial meeting at Mathew John's office the CBI team went on its own way and avoided the IB officials including me.

As I understood the CBI went on breakneck speed to investigate the case in India and abroad. [Sanjeev: There appears to have been political interference] Its findings exonerated the ISRO scientists and even the Maldivian nationals.

At paragraph 113, page 94 of its report, the CBI concluded that Mariyam Rasheeda was in no way related to ISRO plot. Similarly Faujiya Hassan was exonerated too. The report was critical of Inspector Vijayan of Kerala police for prevarication and malfeasance. The report overruled the possibility of Colombo based Zuheira being an ISI agent. Similarly Chandrashekhar of Bangalore and Raman Srivastava, the IG police, were cleared of all charges. The CBI had concluded that "… the accused persons including Rasheeda, Nambi Narayan and Chandrashekhar were harassed and physically abused…There is reason to believe that the interrogators forced the accused persons to make statements on suggested lines ….To sum up, in view of the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, as discussed above the allegations of espionage are not proved and have been found to be false…"

Before this report was filed with the government on 16.4.1996 the matter of CBI's alleged partisan investigation had come up in Kerala High Court. In Niyama Vedi Vs Raman Srivastava (1995 (1) KLT 206) case the IB was called upon to produce documents as material pieces of evidence. The IB was reluctant to produce its papers and the videotapes. The developments were pregnant with dangers for the working methodology of the IB. There was also the danger of IB officers being exposed. These nameless and faceless officials normally avoided public glare.

On the other hand the MHA mounted pressure on the IB to represent its case and to retain the Additional Solicitor General and CBI's advocate in the case.

I opposed the idea. While the investigation and Court proceedings were on, the CBI, as a part of its trademark speciality, had launched a massive media campaign through newspapers and periodicals about the incongruous ISRO espionage case, which was allegedly concocted by zealous IB and Kerala police officers.

Exceeding all norms of governance the Additional Solicitor General also contributed a detailed piece for the now defunct Sunday magazine of Calcutta. The write up ridiculed the IB and Kerala police. How could he cross the limits of professional decency?

I was appalled by the propaganda barrage mounted by the CBI. I argued with the Director IB that we should appoint a different advocate to protect the department's interest. Pathak overruled me as he was under pressure to offer a united face in the ISRO case. He was pulverised by political pressure and had decided to sacrifice his junior colleagues.

It was argued by the Special Secretary (Home) that two organs of the government could not afford to disagree on the vital national issue. I argued that the case made out by the IB and the CBI was different. As far as the was concerned it was a genuine counter-intelligence case. Findings by the IB were contrary to the hasty conclusions drawn by the CBI. It would be better if the IB went unrepresentative as the case was formally handed over to the CBI. But the government insisted that IB should produce agreeable and unified evidence to the Kerala High Court.

The PMO and the MHA had informally made it clear that the ISRO case should be given a nice burial, The Director IB was incapable of facing the challenges and protecting his officers. He ordered me to produce the evidences to the Kerala High Court and accept CBI's advocate as IB's counsel. I deputed a senior officer (V. K. Joshi) to Ernakulam with three videotapes and copies of the essential documents instead of undertaking the visit myself. I had witnessed the hostile attitude of the CBI and did not like to ruffle the feathers by presenting my personal views in the case.

The court had screened the tapes to its satisfaction and observed… "Reports sent by the IB to the government, which were produced before us, were perused…The report would show. that Mariam (sic) Rasheeda and Fousiya (sic) Hassan had reportedly mentioned the name of Raman Srivastava, IG…The reports of IB, which has its own investigating machinery, had in unmistakable terms found the involvement of Raman Srivastava, IG of police, Kerala in the ambit of the case…The Director of CBI while filing his affidavit dated 7.1.95 is seen to have ignored the above aspects of the case. We direct him to re-examine the issue…"

The High Court also exonerated the Kerala police and the IB from the CBI charges of torturing the arrested/detained suspects. The Court observed that….. "The three videocassettes produced before the court by the Intelligence Bureau were viewed by us by playing it in a VCP, belonging to this court. From that, it is crystal clear that the three accused gave answer to the questions without any fear of torture…." The High Court, in fact, passed a serious stricture on the CBI.

At this stage I requested the DIB to produce all the 70 odd videotapes that contained recording of the whole interrogation proceeding. That would contradict the hasty findings of the CBI and satisfy the High Court. Pathak could not gather courage to confront the government with the clinching evidences. My pleadings that this vital omission might cause irreparable damage to the organisation could not instil an iota of courage in him. He appeared to be worried about his own future. His idea of surviving the crisis by playing to the tune of the politicians was a horrendous act of betrayal of the agency. He should have known that a machete wielding politician and abattoir butcher had common genome factors. Pathak did not know how to die the glorious death of a field General.

The Director IB was not on talking terms with the Director CBI and he even avoided meeting the Special Secretary and Secretary of the Home Ministry. I was forced to keep the frayed dialogue line open. The CBI Director, at personal level, continued to be courteous but the Additional Solicitor General tried to browbeat me when I was directed to see him at his Old Fort Road residence. My deputy Dilip Trivedi, a bright and daring officer from Uttar Pradesh, accompanied me. The counsel demanded to know as to why the IB did not pay his fees. I told him to raise a demand and the IB would sure reimburse his honorarium.

He suddenly started calling names and flaunted his status of a Minister of State in the government. I lost cool. I told him slowly but bluntly that he was dealing with two senior officers of Indian Police Service and he should maintain decorum in official discussions. He did not tone down the bully vocabulary. I stood up by saying that I had no intention of tolerating his indecent behaviour and left in protest.

I was shocked by the development. It appeared the counsel had fully sided with the CBI and was not willing to hear what the IB had to say. Colleagues warned me that the ASG might exploit his proximity to the Prime Minister and Chandraswami to fix me up. I was worried, but I had never accepted bullshit throughout my life and I was not ready to lower my head to an advocate.

I requested the Director IB again to produce all the 70 videotapes before the court to prove beyond doubt that the IB officers did not torture the persons interrogated. I demand systematic interrogation of Nambinarayan, Raman Srivastava and Sudhir Kumar Sharma, another suspect in the counterintelligence case.

The chief did not agree on the plea that secret video-operations by the IB should not be exposed to public glare. We had shared three videotapes, which had convinced the High Court. What was the harm in sharing the rest of the tapes? After all these tapes could have been treated as secret materials and viewed by the High Court in camera. There was no law in the country that prohibited IB to produce evidences before a court of law in national interest. It only required government permission. How could the government refuse permission when it had already allowed production of three tapes? The dictum of departmental security could not stand in the way of concluding a palpably clear counter-intelligence case. However, Pathak's reluctance to face the truth had caused irreparable damage to the agency and individual officers. [Sanjeev: It would appear that Sreekumar is one of the victims of this shameful inability to defend the truth by Pathak – even today these 70 tapes should be available and should be examined]

ADDENDUM

See this blog post in Times of India by Brijesh Kalappa