Indian Defence Review

On July 11, 2012 at approximately 6 pm one of the most responsible news channel in India claimed that an officer of Indian Army was caught in a honeytrap in a five-star hotel by the counter-intelligence unit of IB.

The story was run practically in every news bulletin subsequently with a rare vehemence impacting on the army morale, damaging army’s reputation without verifying the facts before running such a sensitive falsehood.

The TV channel claimed besides the honeytrap angle that two laptops have been lost, which possibly contained sensitive information since the officer was posted in Suratgarh sector and was privy to the plans as Second-in-Command of an armoured regiment.

The Saviour of the Valley

Brig Rajinder Singh

When Pakistan invaded J&K in 1947, the hopelessly out numbered State Forces were stretched to the limit. Just six battalions were then guarding a state that is now defended by over three Corps. A critical situation developed on 22 October 1947, when the raiders broke through at Domel and the road to Srinagar lay wide open. Brig Rajinder Singh was the Chief of Staff of the J&K State Forces. There were no reserves left. He personally gathered a company column from Srinagar and sallied forth to stop the invaders. He fought a gallant and fierce rearguard action. Ultimately he succeeded in blowing up the vital Uri Bridge. He was killed in the fighting but managed to gain the critical 48 hours in which the Indian Army was able to fly in and save the Valley. Brig Rajinder Singh is thus the true savior of Kashmir. He was posthumously awarded the first Maha Vir Chakra of Independent India.

The reputed channel did not bother to investigate these vital angles of the story that took place in May 2012!If the couple were caught by IB in a five star hotel, the IB will hand over the officer to the army authorities and the woman mole to the Delhi Police, as it has no arrest powers. The Delhi Police will have to produce the female mole in the court within twenty four-hours. Also, as she is a foreign national, India will have to inform the Embassy of Bangladesh which in turn will have the right to visit and meet their citizen in cutody immediately. The question is , therefore, where exactly is this mole nabbed from the five star hotel in Delhi?

The Indian Army has denied that any physical contact was ever made by the Lieutenant Colonel as he was posted in Suratgarh and the woman concerned was in Bangladesh. What merely happened was while chatting on the Facebook or a social-media site, the officer came in contact with this lady. He possibly subsequently obtained her telephone number in Bangladesh and made a call. All international calls, especially emanating from military areas to foreign countries are likely to be monitored by the counter-intelligence wing of civil intelligence agencies.

It is said that this female mole was also involved earlier in enticing another Indian Army Officer. This officer was doing a course in Staff College, Bangladesh and was brave enough to inform his superiors of the blackmail being conducted by ISI to force him to pass sensitive secrets through this lady. Therefore, the counter-intelligence would be tracking the calls from and to the ISI mole to monitor her activities. This could be another reason that if the officer made a telephone call to Bangladesh, it immediately came under the intelligence scanner.

While it is not known whether IB was monitoring the traffic on Facebook or on the telephone line, it is clear that the officer in violation of military laws was conversing on Facebook and possibly subsequently on telephone with a foreigner.

IB as a precautionary measure informed the Army and the latter immediately swung into action by ordering a ‘Court of Enquiry’.

It now appears after the military denial that neither the officer was found in a honeytrap, as claimed, nor the lost laptops had anything remotely to do with this female mole, who was in Bangladesh while the officer was in Suratgarh. The story of loss of laptops in relation to ISI mole appears to be concocted.

The breaking news only ended up maligning the Army for no rhyme or reason and lowering channel’s own credibility. The officer, it appears did violate by chatting on the facebook or making a international telephone call to a country considered sensitive by India. The court of enquiry will also possibly come to the conclusion that no secrets were really passed on the facebook and it was just a normal chat that could have subsequently led in a long run to unwanted scenarios. However, this is subject to investigations, but the damage that was done wittingly or unwittingly by leaking this falsehood to a media channel by the intelligence agency and later the channel broadcast without counter verification of the news has unnecessarily damaged the social fabric of the Indian Army.

In the 21^st century, it is very difficult for an average middle-class to avoid the social-media interaction. The military may not legally permit use of the social-media, but in practical terms it is not “doable”. For example even if the officer and the men are not allowed, their family will be using the social-media at home and other places. Further, an officer sitting in a remote area will be chatting with his children under a false identity on facebook. There is no way this can be stopped or even monitored.

Therefore, it is better that the military works out “dos and don’ts” for itself and educates and creates high level of awareness in the men and the officer. Similarly, the media should be mature enough to verify again and again such sensitive and damaging broadcast. Particularly in view of the fact that the military and its activities being of sensitive nature do not permit it to defend itself in the public in such slanging matches! While the politician or the bureaucracy can offer counter arguments to defend themselves, the militaries of the world by virtue of their work do not enjoy such privilege – the media must understand and respect this professional limitation.