Surmise of a conspiracy

I have some questions regarding Subir Bhaumik's piece ("Conspirator's Cauldron") in the May issue of Himal. I am not entirely certain that there are answers to them, but I suppose they ought to be asked. Normally I feel enormously upbeat about what gets printed on Himal's pages, and that is precisely why I am not sure about Bhaumik's piece, and not sure what your editorial policy is.

The reasons for this question are obvious. Bhaumik's explanation of a military incident between India and Bangladesh is based exclusively on the compulsions of the latter's domestic politics, one that seems to be dominated by conspiracies in the correspondent's reading of it. We all know that Bhaumik has been reporting on militancy in India's Northeast, so could it be that this has coloured his world view? He quotes intelligence agencies as sources. This is highly unusual because 'agency quoting' died many years ago due to its sheer unreliability. When you grab a phone to get information you will never be able to tell whether you are being fed or not. One can continue with this practice only at the risk of eroding the distinction between the media and intelligence outfits in the legitimate dissemination of news. Conspiracy theories have no space in the media unless proved beyond doubt, which is when they cease to be conspiracy theories. But when Himal prints them, what does that make you? Or is it that Himal is not uncomfortable with intelligence feeds?