Former US diplomat Robin Raphel, known to be an out-and-out India-baiter and one with strong pro-Pakistan leanings, has been placed under federal counterintelligence investigation, with her security clearances withdrawn.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has searched her Washington home and sealed her office in State Department. While her contract with the department as a senior adviser on civilian aid to Pakistan ended on November 2, she was placed on administrative last month itself.
The precise nature of investigation against Raphel has not been disclosed, but The Washington Post, which broke the story, cited officials as saying it was a counterintelligence matter that typically involves allegations of spying on behalf of foreign Governments.
“We are aware of this law enforcement matter,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “The State Department has been cooperating with our law enforcement colleagues,” she added, confirming that Raphel was no longer employed by the department. The 67-year-old Raphel has spent much of her career on Pakistan issues, but it was not clear if the FBI probe was related to her work with that country, the Post said, noting agents removed bags and boxes from the home.
Raphel angered India no end in the 1990s with her sharp anti-India and pro-Pakistan stance on the Kashmir issue. Appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 as the first US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, she was also dismissive of Islamabad’s active role in fanning militancy in Kashmir, claiming “very strong indigenous elements to that insurgency”.
Raphel even questioned the validity of the Instrument of Accession, stating during a background briefing for South Asian journalists based in Washington at that time: “We do not recognise — and that means that we do not recognise — that instrument of accession as meaning that Kashmir is forever an integral part of India.”
In his book, India’s Foreign Policy in a Changing World”, Professor VP Dutt wrote: “Raphel in fact appeared to be questioning the validity of the Indian Independence Act and her statement bristled with far-reaching legal and political implications. She was also dismissive of the Simla Agreement…”
Raphel “became the focal point of Indian anger, chiefly because of the apparent hauteur with which she seemed to address the problem and the insensitivity she was exhibiting in expressing herself on very sensitive issues”, Dutt wrote, pointing to the widespread criticism in India’s Parliament, media and community of analysts over her utterances at the time.