2 hrs ago
Jairam Ramesh Questions Release in VanDyke Terror Probe
Indian authorities arrested Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainians in March.
They were accused of helping groups that India considers anti-India insurgents.
Investigators said the foreigners entered India on tourist visas and traveled toward Myanmar.
The NIA later filed a chargesheet under immigration laws but did not include terrorism charges.
The agency said its investigation under the anti-terror law was still open.
A Delhi court gave VanDyke default bail in September.
The court later allowed him and the Ukrainians to return to their countries.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh says the government may have released VanDyke because of pressure from the United States.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh questioned the release of US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke.
The NIA arrested VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals on March 13 over an alleged conspiracy involving anti-India insurgent groups.
The accused allegedly entered India on tourist visas, visited restricted northeastern areas and traveled to Myanmar.
A Delhi court granted VanDyke default bail on September 18 after finding the NIA chargesheet was filed piecemeal.
Ramesh alleged US pressure influenced the outcome, while the NIA said its UAPA investigation could continue.
- Who
- Matthew Aaron VanDyke, six Ukrainian nationals, the NIA and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.
- What
- Ramesh questioned VanDyke's release and sought explanations about the alleged terror investigation and the foreigners' entry and travel.
- Where
- The case was investigated in India and involved alleged travel through northeastern India to Myanmar; VanDyke was allowed to return to the United States.
- When
- The arrests occurred on March 13; default bail was granted on September 18, and travel was permitted on September 24.
- Why
- Ramesh alleged that US pressure influenced the outcome and questioned how the foreigners received visas and traveled to Myanmar.
Government Accountability Concerns
Investigation and Legal Process
Reason for VanDyke's release
Government Accountability Concerns
Jairam Ramesh alleged that US pressure determined the outcome and asked what India received in return.
Investigation and Legal Process
The court granted default bail after finding that the investigation period had expired while the UAPA probe remained pending.
Status of the terror investigation
Government Accountability Concerns
Ramesh emphasized allegations that the accused supported insurgent groups and were involved in weapons and drone training.
Investigation and Legal Process
The NIA and government sources said the September chargesheet's omission of UAPA provisions did not close the anti-terror investigation.
Entry and movement of foreign nationals
Government Accountability Concerns
Ramesh demanded answers about how the foreigners obtained visas and were allowed to travel through India to Myanmar.
Investigation and Legal Process
The article reports the NIA's allegations about their travel but does not provide a government explanation for how the visas and movement were authorized.
Key facts
- Arrest date
- March 13
- People arrested
- Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals
- Investigating agency
- National Investigation Agency
- Initial allegations
- Conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities and support for anti-India insurgent groups
- Chargesheet
- Filed in September under the Immigration and Foreigners Act without UAPA offences
- Default bail
- Granted to VanDyke by a Delhi court on September 18
- Travel permission
- VanDyke and the six Ukrainians were allowed to leave India on September 24
- NIA position
- The UAPA investigation had not necessarily closed and could result in a supplementary chargesheet
Quotes
Jairam Ramesh
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications
“More fundamentally, how were these suspicious foreign individuals given visas and allowed to travel through India to Myanmar in the first place? The HM must answer this”
thestatesman.com
“Obviously US pressure determined this outcome but what did India get in return?”
thestatesman.com









