NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday granted 11-day police custody to six Ukrainians and a US citizen arrested for illegally entering Myanmar via India and contacting ethnic war groups.This comes after the National Investigation Agency arrested three Ukrainians from Delhi, three from Lucknow, and one US citizen from Kolkata.According to the investigative agency, the accused — namely Matthew Aaron Van Dyke, Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim, and Kaminskyi Viktor — were in direct touch with, and abetted, terrorists carrying AK-47 rifles.The agency also said the accused, linked with ethnic armed groups, were supporting certain proscribed Indian insurgent groups by supplying weapons, terrorist hardware, and training them.How do they reach Myanmar?According to news agency AFP, the group first illegally entered Mizoram without an official permit. The seven then allegedly passed from Mizoram into neighbouring Myanmar.It is also alleged that they brought a huge consignment of drones from Europe via India. However, the type of drones or their countries of origin is not clear yet.Myanmar descended into civil war after a junta seized power in a 2021 coup, with pro-democracy guerrillas and ethnic-minority armed groups fighting for control of large parts of the country.New Delhi has been suspicious of certain Myanmar factions that share ethnicity with populations on the Indian side of the border, fearing a spillover of violence and unrest.Who is Matthew Aaron Van Dyke?Matthew Aaron Van Dyke is not new to controversies. The American adventurer-turned-filmmaker has gained attention for embedding himself in conflict zones and aligning closely with rebel movements.According to The Guardian, Van Dyke first came into the spotlight during the 2011 uprising in Libya, where he fought alongside anti-Gaddafi rebels.During the Libyan conflict, Van Dyke was captured and detained for six months in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison before escaping after the fall of the regime.Van Dyke describes himself as a “freedom fighter” and documentarian. He later surfaced in Syria during the uprising in Aleppo, where he said he was filming a documentary on the rebel movement.However, he also admitted to advising fighters on weaponry based on his experience in Libya, blurring the line between observer and participant.His activities and self-presentation have drawn criticism from some observers, who accuse him of being a reckless thrill-seeker rather than a neutral storyteller.Critics argue that his involvement in combat situations undermines journalistic integrity and puts others at risk.Van Dyke has actively used social media and crowdfunding platforms to promote his projects, aiming to create viral content that could draw global attention to conflicts like Syria and generate support for rebel groups. Despite setbacks — such as the suspension of his Kickstarter campaign — he has continued pursuing his work in high-risk environments.He maintains that his efforts are driven by a belief that conflicts like Syria’s are underreported and that impactful storytelling can influence public opinion and support on the ground, even as he acknowledges the significant personal risks involved.What the court said?The court noted that the FIR contains serious allegations that the accused travelled to prohibited areas in Mizoram, illegally crossed into Myanmar, and established links with ethnic armed groups and proscribed insurgent organisations. It also took note of allegations that the accused were involved in supplying weapons, imparting training, and assisting in drone-related operations.Observing that these aspects “definitely affect national security and interests of India,” the court held that the matter cannot be treated as routine in nature.The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma at Patiala House Courts on March 16, in a case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).Upon perusal of the case diary, the court observed that the investigation is still at a nascent stage but has shown progress in recent days. While reiterating that custody orders should not be passed mechanically, the court found that sufficient material exists to justify further police custody in the present case.Allowing the NIA’s plea, the court held that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, identify accomplices, trace funding sources, and analyse digital evidence, including mobile phones and social media accounts. It also noted that disclosures made during initial interrogation indicate a wider conspiracy involving cross-border activities and links with insurgent groups.In a significant observation, the court stated that there is “no ground to have suspicion over the manner in which FIR is registered or the manner in which investigation is being done.”The court concluded that, given the gravity of the allegations — particularly those involving national security and cross-border links — continued custodial interrogation is justified at this stage, while rejecting all objections raised by the defence.
