On March 2, Gunner Roy Mathew posted in Deolali Cantonment in district Nashik, Maharashtra, was found hanging from a ceiling in an abandoned Army barrack. A few days before his decomposed body was found, Roy had appeared in The Quint’s ‘exposé’ on the sahayak system.

A day after the news of his death, the sting operation headlined “Soldier or Servant: The Quint Exposes Army’s Abused Sahayak System” was pulled down from the website on March 3. For nearly a month, the website issued no clarification as to why it did so, neither did it deem it important to answer the questions that were raised on the ethics of the sting.

Early this week, The Indian Express reported that a first information report (FIR)  had been filed against journalist Poonam Agarwal. Following this news, The Quint broke its silence and put up a piece on March 28, detailing its stance and the need for a fair probe into Roy’s death.

We reached out to Agarwal to know more about the case. Here are the excerpts from an email conversation with her:

You have said you have proof that certain officers in the Army were harassing its jawans and your sources after your story came out. Can you elaborate? Why do you believe Roy Mathew was harassed by his seniors?

I was a little taken aback when the Ministry of Defence issued a press release within 24 hours of Mathew’s body being found, in which they said that he had committed ‘suicide’, instead of stating unnatural death. The press release also claimed that ‘there is no question of any enquiry that could have been ordered against the deceased’ as the faces were hidden. This disclaimer made by the Army clearly indicated to me that attempts were made to protect some Army officers. This is hugely evident also in the complaint (part of the FIR) filed by a person from the Army to the Nashik police, where he clearly states that after the video was aired (he is referring to the video being aired on a Marathi Channel – 9 News), he was called by an officer asking him if he had seen the video. He then talks about being further questioned.

On the 24th of February, my source informed me that the jawans had been summoned by some officers and their testimony was taken in writing. He also told me that these jawans were grilled to reveal the name of the person who introduced me to them.

He also informed me that he was summoned by Army officers a few days before the body of Gunner Roy Mathew was found. My source also got a notice from the Army to vacate his army canteen with a month’s time and no explanation was given for this. (I have a copy of the letter sent to him).

Can you detail how you approached the story? Did your sources have any knowledge of the fact that you would be conducting a sting on the jawans?

All relevant details are in the article published by The Quint. Since the matter is under investigation, I cannot provide any further information.

Did any of the jawans you spoke to have an inkling that you were a journalist?

There was no conversation between the jawans and me regarding my professional identity.

In The Quint’s March 28 story, it is said that you reached out to the Army after the story was published along with the video. Was this raw footage? Do you not think this could have jeopardised the jawans in the video?

The video sent was the one that was published on the site. The identities of the jawans had been concealed in this video. I had sent it with a letter seeking an inquiry into the sahayak system.

A big criticism of The Quint is that it revealed the source to the police? Can you respond to that?

That is absolutely incorrect. Unfortunately, even NL critiqued me on journalistic ethics, without fact checking or reaching out to me either via email or call to check whether I had indeed revealed my source. Fact checking is a must before opinion and criticism for any form of journalism – even one that critiques fellow journalists. [Note: the piece Agarwal is talking about is an op-ed and only mentions her revealing her sources as a possibility not as a fact that had occurred.]

Here is what happened. As is clear from the complaint (part of the FIR) filed with the police the jawans were questioned by officers after the video was aired on a local Marathi channel. While being questioned they had revealed my source’s identity to the questioning officers. The source’s name was then given to the police in the complaint. A copy of the FIR is with me as provided by the court.

My source’s statement was recorded by the cops two days before my statement was recorded. All these documents are on record. Anybody who wishes to verify them can do so. When my testimony was recorded, they already had all the information.

Strangely, the press release by the Ministry of Defence states that since the identities of the jawans has been hidden in the video, the jawans could not have been questioned.

Another criticism is that in the latest piece, The Quint has identified both the sources that helped you. Was prior permission sought of these people to name them on your platform?

My source’s [a Kargil war veteran who has been named in the FIR along with Agarwal] name was identified by the Nashik police in their press conference on Tuesday, way before our article was published. The cops were also aware of the Colonel’s name because my source has informed me that he had had to reveal the name to the cops during questioning. That was BEFORE MY STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. While I was being questioned, it was clear to me that the police already had the details on both my source and the Colonel.

In the same piece, The Quint states that you spoke to Roy’s father and that he told you that the Army killed his son. The family has told us that you never spoke to him because he cannot speak Hindi or English. They have said that you spoke to Roy’s father’s brother, Thomas, and he gave you the number of the officer Roy had been attached to. Your comment?

I spoke to Mathew’s father first then he handed over the phone to his brother to give me the phone number of the officer, Roy Mathew’s father didn’t have the phone number.

Further, the family also claims that Roy’s father’s elder brother (Thomas) who you spoke to did not say that the Army killed Roy instead he blamed your report. Your comment?

Roy’s father blamed the army for his death.

Did any of Roy’s family members at any point express misgivings with your report? What had been your response to that?

On the day when Roy’s body was found all the family members requested me to investigate the reason behind his death.  All of them were very polite to me while talking to me over the phone. Like them, I too was shocked when I heard about Roy Matthew’ s death.

Roy’s family has told Newslaundry that they had approached you, telling you that the video The Quint put up had made Roy vulnerable. What was your response to the family’s fear?

The family approached me on 1 March to help them track down Gunner Roy Mathew, who had been missing since his call to his wife.  He had been missing for over 3-4 days by then. They also told me that the officer had advised them against filing a missing person report. On 2 March the family members informed me that Mathew’s body had been discovered. Mathew’s father sought help from me in digging deeper in to the matter. The family wrote to me saying that as a Protestant, Mathew could never have committed suicide. And that he was a strong willed person.

The sting video makes very little attempt to mask the identities of the jawans – one can recognise them from the voices, the clothes they wore and their physique. Do you think in hindsight, The Quint could have done a better job of protecting the identities?

We had ensured that the faces were strongly masked.

Questions have been raised on my ethics on using a sting on a victim. My intention was to expose the truth with full faith in the Army as an institution to take action against those who ill-treated our soldiers.

The Quint has taken a long time to explain its stance? What was the reason for this delay?

We were focusing on facilitating a fair investigation by the police, so that the events leading upto the tragic death of Gunner Roy Mathew would be investigated. I have co-operated in every possible manner with the police, ensuring at every step that the safety of the other jawans and my source was protected. We did not bring out the details we had, in public domain, as we felt it may come in way of the investigation, or would compromise the other jawans. We chose to stay silent even as some sections of the media turned on us. But when even after a month since the death, there was no investigation in the death of the jawan – other than my questioning, I felt it was time to raise unanswered questions.

As an investigative journalist, do you stand by your decision to sting jawans? We ask this because they were alleged victims of a malpractice not the perpetrators.

I approached the story in the way I did because I found that this was the only way I could bring out the real situation with the jawans in the army. Selfie videos by jawans complaining about ill-treatment had changed little in the armed forces. My attempt was to expose the wrong doing.

I agree that an innocent person should ideally never be stung unless a clear public interest justifies it. In this case the perpetrators of Sahayak abuse (commissioned officers) would never admit to misusing their Sahayaks. And the Jawans would never talk freely and openly about the menial jobs that they are made to do. Hence keeping these points in mind we decided to blur the jawans faces. My office and I thought the Army would take action against the Army officers abusing their positions but instead these Jawans were threatened with court martial.

The authors can be contacted on Twitter @MnshaP and @shrutimenon10