Foreign News
The Spymaster Who Never Stopped Watching
One interaction with Bahukutumbi Raman has stayed with me ever since.
I once told him that he would surely be remembered for the impressive and thought-provoking columns he published on his blog. He simply replied: “You either publish or perish.”
That quiet response still echoes in my mind. It captured something fundamental about Raman: his relentless commitment to study, analyse and share what he knew. He wore his stature lightly, spoke with rare clarity and commanded deep admiration and respect.
Had he lived, B. Raman would have turned 90 today.
The legendary spymaster and one of the original members of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), India’s external intelligence agency, served for 26 years and built a formidable reputation as an authority on India’s most important neighbours: Pakistan, China, Bangladesh and Burma, now Myanmar. His contributions significantly shaped Indian foreign and security policy and influenced how India engaged with the world.
Raman was widely regarded as one of India’s most brilliant intelligence operatives and a doyen of the country’s strategic security community.
Known for his detailed analyses of terrorist organisations and their networks across South Asia, he possessed a sharp mind and produced a considerable body of work on strategic issues.
As one of the few surviving officers who witnessed the creation of R&AW in 1968 under R.N. Kao, his analyses on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and China remained an enduring asset to the intelligence community.
In 1968, when R&AW was established, Raman moved to the new agency and continued to handle Burma—earning him the nickname “Burma Raman.” He was a member of the Indo-Burmese Joint Boundary Demarcation Commission (1968 to 1971).
He was also part of the team of officers involved in the covert operations that preceded the creation of Bangladesh. Over the years he contributed substantially to many pivotal chapters in India’s intelligence and security history, including the 1971 Bangladesh liberation struggle, the developments in Sikkim, Operation Blue Star in 1984, and the gradual containment of the separatist Khalistan movement in Punjab.
Beyond counter-terrorism, counter-espionage and security matters, he was also a member of the Government of India’s Special Task Force on the Intelligence Apparatus (May-Sep 2000) and Member of the second National Security Advisory Board (July 2000 – June 2001).
One of his significant contributions was laying the groundwork for intelligence liaisioning and cooperation with friendly foreign services. Many of these agencies were initially sceptical of the value of such exchanges, yet they quickly came to appreciate the quality of Indian inputs, particularly on terrorism.
Raman’s writing was marked by a hard-nosed realist conception of India’s strategic interests. He never hesitated to criticise the policies of Pakistan, China, or the United States when he believed they endangered India’s interests.
During his time in R&AW he maintained a difficult relationship with the United States, which he saw as unfairly favouring Pakistan.
His autobiography, The Kaoboys of R&AW, opens with an account of his anger at the U.S. State Department’s refusal to designate Pakistan a state sponsor of terror against India, citing alleged Indian intelligence operations in Pakistan as justification.
He viewed China as India’s principal long-term strategic challenge. Even his last blog post, written on 14 May 2013, addressed Chinese incursions in the Daulat Beg Oldi sector just before Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to Delhi.
As always, Raman urged vigilance without panic and persistence. That was characteristic of his approach: understand the adversary, examine the evidence and never confuse alarm with analysis. A firm believer in ‘realpolitik’, he sought the maximum advantage for India; his watchword remained “Show me”—trust, but verify.
His analyses of Pakistan, China, Bangladesh and Myanmar retain striking relevance amid the complex challenges India confronts from these neighbours today.
Raman long diagnosed Pakistan as a revisionist state that systematically deployed terrorism through the ISI as a low-cost instrument to bleed India and keep Kashmir issue alive; that assessment continues to illuminate the persistent hybrid threats, cross-border infrastructure of groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the deepening China–Pakistan strategic lock that confronts New Delhi with a two-front problem.
On China, he warned, with characteristic clarity, that the greater danger lay less in episodic border intrusions than in Beijing’s quiet diplomatic, economic, military and strategic penetration of India’s periphery, from ports, pipelines and railways to political influence stretching from Sri Lanka and Myanmar to Bangladesh and Nepal.
At the same time, he warned of China’s infrastructure modernisation in illegally occupied Tibet, including dual-use infrastructure, and its refusal to settle the boundary question. Those insights map directly onto the present reality of OBOR (One Belt and One Road) footprints, dual-use facilities, and sustained pressure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
With Bangladesh, he highlighted the security implications of large-scale illegal migration and the need for India to retain decisive influence; recent political flux and competing external outreach only underscore the point.
In Myanmar, he stressed the competition for influence with China and the risks of instability along the shared border; the country’s ongoing conflict, Chinese leverage over key actors, and the resulting spillover threats reaffirm the enduring value of that perspective.
In each case Raman’s hard-nosed realism prioritising national interest, institutional memory and long-horizon vigilance over short-term sentiment offers a durable compass for navigating a neighbourhood that has grown more contested, multipolar and unpredictable.
A hard taskmaster and workaholic, Raman set exacting standards of diligence, attention to detail and all-round excellence, leading always by example.
One of the many stories told to aspiring intelligence officers about his fierce devotion to duty is that he returned to his desk within hours of his mother’s funeral. He possessed an encyclopaedic memory and could instantly recall political developments across India’s security neighbourhood—the hallmark of a classic spymaster.
His writing style was distinctive: he habitually presented his arguments in numbered paragraphs, producing a lifelong stream of concise foreign-policy notes that combined clarity with strategic depth. Though that stream has ended, his knowledge, experience, sharp analytical mind and unwavering dedication remain a model for younger analysts in the foreign and security policy domain.
His analyses of Pakistan, China, Bangladesh and Myanmar remain relevant because the underlying questions he asked have not disappeared. What are the intentions of the adversary? What are we missing? Which assumptions are we making? And, above all, what serves India’s national interest?
Those questions remain as important today as they were when Raman was asking them.
For younger officers and researchers, Raman was a living repository of experience, yet he never seemed burdened by his reputation. His example of sustained, low-key, indefatigable hard work remains a source of lasting inspiration. They would do well to imbibe his rare qualities of selfless devotion to discipline and thorough study of a subject before venturing into the complex world of intelligence operations.
His example is worth studying not merely for his conclusions, but for the method behind them: sustained reading, attention to detail, intellectual independence, and the courage to state an uncomfortable assessment plainly.
Raman believed that knowledge had to be put to work.
For me, however, the memory is more personal and remains vivid, especially his hearty laugh. He left behind a remarkable body of writing that continues to inform and provoke thought.
I remember an extraordinary person: a perfect guru, a demanding mentor, a hard taskmaster and a man of impeccable integrity who always placed the national interest first. There are a few shared moments and insights that remain mine alone to cherish and carry to the grave.
People like B. Raman leave a lasting imprint because of the standards they set for those who follow them. The most fitting tribute is to remember those standards—discipline, intellectual honesty, relentless curiosity and an unwavering commitment to India’s national interest.
And, perhaps, to keep watching.
