The circumstances in which two Union ministers of State, Mr. K.P. Singh Deo and Mr. Chandrakar, and chairman of the electronics commission, Mr. Sanjeevi Rao, have had to resign remain obscure. All that can be said is that the resignations have something to do with an espionage case. As in other similar cases of alleged espionage, a lot of leaked material has got published in this one as well. But it is difficult for an outsider to reach any conclusion on the basis of the far from disinterested leakages. Like the allegations by various agencies of the Union finance ministry against respected business houses, charges by agencies of the Union home ministry too should be treated with care. One point comes out clearly in this case. Which is that a large number of leading Indians, including MPs and journalists, had no hesitation in accepting the hospitality of an individual who has openly functioned as a “representative” of Formosa, a political entity India does not recognise, and in accepting free jaunts to that island. But we did not need disclosures in this specific case to know that most members of the Indian elite are not protocol conscious. They fraternize with anyone who cares to cultivate them. An agent, whether working for an Indian or a foreign business house or a foreign agency, will be a big fool if he or she does not take advantage of this lack of discrimination on our part. This may in some specific cases involve national security. But one should not automatically rush to conclusions. Indeed, it would appear that our intelligence agencies which have been found extremely incompetent on every critical occasion are keen to extract the maximum propaganda advantage every time they are able to frame up someone on an espionage charge.
This is not to pronounce anyone innocent. Innocence in such cases, like guilt, has to be established in a law court. In this regard the time has come in our view to make the point that espionage trials also must be open as they are in Britain. Why should they take place in camera? It is not our case that the existing system involves miscarriage of justice. If it does, we have no evidence. The point, however, is that if it did, we would not discover it. It is also no secret that a lot of well-informed individuals believe that trials in camera are not always fair. National security is, of course, important and needs to be protected. But that must not serve as a cover behind which incompetent agencies are allowed to perpetrate crimes. These are general observations. They must not be seen to apply to any specific case. We have the uneasy feeling that some unhealthy practices have become rather well established and need to be countered. An atmosphere of hysteria is built through leakages so much so that judges are unable to apply their mind to the facts of a case without prejudice. The danger has become particularly acute as the quality of judges has gone down. In this specific case, we are frankly in a quandary. Since we do not know the facts we cannot say either that in seeking and accepting the resignations of the three individuals the Prime Minister has unjustly exposed them to obloquy, or that mere resignations cannot suffice. But it must be one or the other. If the matter can be clarified by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, he should.