VanDyke claims the UAPA investigation had no substantive basis and alleges that Russian pressure played a role in the group’s arrest. He promises further revelations about the case.
BY PC Bureau
November 16: American national Matthew VanDyke has alleged that Russia pressured India to pursue what he described as a fabricated investigation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), resulting in his imprisonment for more than six months along with six Ukrainian nationals.
In his first interview with a publication since his release last month, VanDyke told The Sunday Guardian that there was never a genuine UAPA case against the seven accused and that their detention continued despite the Indian government knowing that they posed no threat to national security.
VanDyke, who heads the non-profit organisation Sons of Liberty International, said his organisation had funded his travel to India and its activities in Myanmar. He denied working for any government or intelligence agency, including the CIA, and said his organisation had never accepted government funding.
Explaining the circumstances of his visit, VanDyke said foreign nationals travelling to areas of northwestern Myanmar outside the control of the military junta had routinely used India as a transit route. He maintained that the border crossing used by his group was well known and regularly used by people travelling between the two countries.
He said he had organised and led the mission in coordination with established Myanmar organisations that were friendly towards India but opposed to the military dictatorship.
According to VanDyke, the mission involved providing assistance to vulnerable civilian populations facing threats from airstrikes and drone attacks by Myanmar’s military. He described the activities as humanitarian in nature and said the organisations involved had no links with Indian insurgent groups.
He also maintained that the group’s movement through Mizoram was open and that they had encountered no problems with Indian authorities during their journey.
VanDyke said he would disclose further details about the arrangements for their travel and the circumstances of their arrest in the coming weeks. He suggested that these revelations would raise questions about why the investigation was pursued and why the seven were kept in prison for so long.
READ: Jensen Huang’s Daughter Witnessed His Close Moments With Alice, Took Photos
Denies CIA links, says organisation received no government funding
Rejecting allegations that he was associated with the CIA, VanDyke said his organisation had financed his travel and operations independently.
He argued that his professional activities and personal history had been extensively documented by international media over the past 15 years, including through a film, a television series episode and a web series produced by a major American network.
He dismissed suggestions that he was working for an intelligence agency, saying his activities over the past two decades were hardly consistent with the way intelligence organisations operated.
I disclosed some truly shocking details in my first interview since being released from prison in India following our mission in Myanmar.
Those who are good at reading between the lines can start figuring out what happened in our case.
More revelations are coming soon…
— Matthew VanDyke (@Matt_VanDyke) November 15, 2026
Questions US role in securing release
VanDyke also rejected reports that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had intervened to secure the release of the seven accused.
He acknowledged that the governments of the United States and Ukraine had raised the matter with India, describing such communication as normal diplomatic action when their nationals were allegedly being wrongfully detained.
However, he insisted that neither Washington nor Kyiv had secured their release through diplomatic intervention or a negotiated arrangement.
According to VanDyke, the seven were released because the six-month statutory period for filing charges under the UAPA had expired. He claimed that the Indian authorities had no substantive case and would have faced defeat in court had they attempted to pursue the matter further.
He cited Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s public statement in March that the group posed no threat to India and had merely transited through the country to reach Myanmar.
VanDyke alleged that Russia, rather than the United States or Ukraine, had exerted pressure on India to pursue the UAPA investigation. He promised to disclose more information about what he described as Moscow’s role in the case.
He also rejected suggestions that the alleged diplomatic intervention by Rubio was linked to the National Investigation Agency’s expanded investigation into the Myanmar National Airlines aircraft incident.
VanDyke maintained that the group’s release had nothing to do with any diplomatic deal and argued that the matter was essentially an immigration violation involving the use of an unofficial border crossing.
He said the larger question was why the seven had remained behind bars for six months despite what he described as the government’s own acknowledgement that they had merely transited through India.
Says his return to India was a matter of principle
Explaining why he returned to India after being granted bail, despite reportedly having the option of attending subsequent hearings through video conferencing, VanDyke said he wanted to be physically present in court.
He said he had sought permission to attend hearings in person since March but was allowed to do so only once after being transferred from the NIA’s custody to Tihar Jail.
He alleged that he was also rarely allowed to watch or participate in court proceedings through video conferencing, describing this as a violation of his rights.
VanDyke said he had never feared being charged in the case, although he was concerned about the possibility of false charges or fabricated evidence being used against him.
Legal expenses leave organisation in debt
VanDyke also disclosed that the legal battle had cost him nearly $100,000, severely affecting both his personal finances and those of his non-profit organisation.
He said he had initially intended to represent himself but received assistance from two lawyers associated with the public defenders’ office. Advocate Nishant Singh is now representing him, while Advocate Piyush Sachdev is advising him.
He said he had cooperated with the investigating agency and remained willing to do so if required.
VanDyke’s allegations about Russian pressure, the basis of the UAPA investigation and the circumstances surrounding the group’s detention remain his account of the case. His claims about the involvement of Russia and the absence of a substantive UAPA case would require independent corroboration.
