NEW DELHI: Two recent fiascos allegedly led by foreign investigators and adversaries, according to their claims and court filings, to India’s intelligence operations have generated concern among former and serving intelligence officials who believe that, even though these two incidents, one involving Kulbhushan Jadhav and the other related to Nikhil Gupta, were not part of any officially acknowledged or sanctioned government operation, they need deeper introspection as they have brought Indian intelligence working under undesirable spotlight.
The Government of India has already rejected allegations suggesting official involvement in such matters.
A retired director-level official of one of India’s intelligence gathering apparatus said that analysis should happen at the relevant government level on how these two incidents came to be linked by adversaries and foreign agencies to Indian intelligence agencies and how adversaries were able to allegedly establish or claim a trail of these two individuals to Delhi.
According to him, the case of Gupta should be more concerning as U.S. agencies have alleged in court filings that he was in close touch with an Indian security official, Vikash Yadav, who at that time was attached with the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). He is no longer a part of the government.
This newspaper could not independently verify the allegations made by the Department of Justice in the U.S. court.
The reading inside the rooms where these things are discussed is that Yadav, as what officials described as possible over-zealous conduct, may have allegedly attempted to pursue an unsanctioned activity, and in that background, a civilian, Gupta, was caught in the middle, according to internal assessments described by officials familiar with such discussions.
“Assuming it was an operation that did not have the blessings of the agency but was at least known to a few security officials within the apparatus, we need to ask why Yadav acted so recklessly. Going by the version put out by the U.S. Department of Justice, Gupta, on the directions of Yadav, allegedly recruited two individuals who were later identified by U.S. authorities as undercover agents. The basic framework that Yadav or anyone in his place should have done was to verify the antecedents of the two individuals Gupta was talking to. It is clear that Yadav appears, based on those allegations, to have failed in doing this verification diligently. The recklessness attributed to Yadav raises questions about whether supervisory audit mechanisms functioned adequately. Was anyone held accountable?” the official, who for decades worked on India’s covert capabilities, told this newspaper, expressing his personal assessment of the situation based on publicly reported allegations.
As history shows, all major intelligence powers follow the operational doctrine of categorical denial. The United States routinely rejects allegations of covert action, even in cases where foreign governments or investigative bodies have strong evidence of its involvement. Russia follows an identical pattern, consistently denying intelligence activities abroad regardless of public exposure or attribution by Western agencies. China also maintains blanket denials when accused of espionage or covert influence operations, framing such accusations as politically motivated or unsubstantiated. Israel, likewise, almost never acknowledges intelligence operations, even in situations where circumstantial evidence or foreign investigations strongly suggest its role.
Another official said that lessons were not learnt from the Kulbhushan Jadhav episode, where the Mumbai-based businessman was alleged by Pakistan to have links with Indian intelligence, despite India maintaining that he was not part of any sanctioned or approved intelligence operation and that he was kidnapped by groups with ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, a position India has reiterated in diplomatic and legal proceedings.
“These are very sensitive issues and how and what should be brought into the public domain has to be decided very carefully. The Jadhav episode was something that should have led to internal changes. Even if private individuals are acting on their own in hostile environments, their trail should not lead back to official channels,” the official said, referring to risks arising from alleged exposure rather than confirmed operational activity.
Two separate officials said that such developments tie the hands of the political leadership and discourage them from exploring the complete array of options available to them, something that is highly detrimental for statecraft, and hence accountability, in private, needs to be assigned, if allegations and exposures whether proven or unproven create diplomatic and strategic complications.
“Covert intelligence operations are tools of statecraft only when they remain covert. Exposure converts them into liabilities. This is the basic rule of intelligence that cannot be flouted. Unprofessional conduct hurts India’s interest in the long run,” the official added, speaking in general terms about intelligence doctrine and risks associated with alleged exposure.
