New Delhi: The Congress on Saturday questioned the decision to allow US national Matthew VanDyke, an accused in the Myanmar arms training case, to return to his country, drawing a contrast between the relief granted to him and the arrests of young activists participating in protests against alleged electoral irregularities in India.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh questioned why a foreign national accused of terrorism-related activities was being granted such liberty while, according to him, the government continued to detain peaceful protesters raising concerns over alleged “vote chori”.
“US national Matthew VanDyke, arrested for conspiring to carry out terrorist activities against India, was released yesterday and allowed to return home for 4 months. Why has such liberty been extended to a foreign national accused of terrorism?” Ramesh asked in a post on X.
He alleged that the government’s approach towards VanDyke stood in contrast to its treatment of Indian citizens participating in demonstrations over alleged vote theft.
“This even as the government has shown no hesitation in detaining and arresting youth activists and peaceful protesters during the anti-vote chori protests this past month,” Ramesh said.
The Congress leader also drew attention to the timing of the developments, referring to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visits to India.
“It is worth noting that his case was raised during US Secretary of State (Marco) Rubio’s last visit to India in May. The secretary of state was visiting again this week,” he said.
Ramesh had previously targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the handling of VanDyke’s case, describing him as a “compromised PM” following the American national’s release in September.
The Congress leader claimed that VanDyke’s case had figured in diplomatic discussions during Rubio’s visit to India in May. He also alleged that US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor had raised the matter with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
According to Ramesh, charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against VanDyke were dropped on September 8.
“This stands in sharp contrast to the law’s widespread misuse against Indian citizens by the government and where such cases are deliberately dragged on,” he alleged.
Following VanDyke’s release on September 24, Ramesh had also accused the prime minister of having “failed” to protect India’s elections, institutions and national security.
Delhi Court extends permission to remain abroad
The Congress criticism came a day after a Delhi court extended until February 24, 2027, the permission granted to VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals to remain outside India in connection with the Myanmar arms training case.
Special Judge Prashant Sharma passed the order on Friday while considering applications filed by the seven foreign nationals. The hearing was conducted in-camera.
During the proceedings, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) informed the court that additional time was required to examine several aspects of the case. The agency’s counsel, Rahul Tyagi, made submissions explaining the need for further investigation.
VanDyke appeared before the court in person and was granted permission to return to the United States.
The six Ukrainian nationals, meanwhile, attended the proceedings through video conferencing, citing health-related reasons.
What is the Myanmar Arms Training Case?
The case concerns allegations that VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals traveled to Myanmar through India’s northeastern region and provided training to ethnic armed organizations.
According to the NIA, the foreign nationals entered India using tourist visas and subsequently traveled to the Northeast without obtaining the mandatory permits required for visiting certain areas.
Investigators alleged that the group later crossed the international border from Mizoram into Myanmar, where they provided training to ethnic armed groups.
The agency initially invoked provisions of the UAPA, including those relating to criminal conspiracy, while investigating the alleged activities.
However, the NIA did not include UAPA offenses in its chargesheet. Instead, it proceeded against the accused under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
The offenses cited in the charge sheet can be compounded before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), subject to the applicable legal provisions.
The NIA had earlier indicated that its investigation into the alleged terrorism-related aspects of the case was continuing.