Citing a “reprisal” by the Indian government against its human rights work, Amnesty International said Tuesday that it had to lay off staff and halt operations in India. In a statement, the watchdog accused India’s Hindu nationalist government of “an incessant witch-hunt” against human rights organizations that have revealed wrongdoing by Indian authorities in recent years. Amnesty International’s latest investigations in India have focused on alleged human rights abuses in India’s only Muslim-majority region, Kashmir, as well as on alleged misconduct by Indian police in last February’s Delhi riots that killed dozens of mostly Muslim civilians. The group said its work in India has come to “a grinding halt” after it learned on Sept. 10 that the Indian government froze its bank accounts. “For a movement that has done nothing but raise its voices against injustice, this latest attack is akin to freezing dissent,” Avinash Kumar, executive director of Amnesty International India, said in the statement. Later Tuesday, the Indian government issued a statement calling Amnesty International’s claims “unfortunate, exaggerated and far from the truth.” It accuses Amnesty International of illegally routing money to India through its U.K. branch for several years. “All the glossy statements about humanitarian work and speaking truth to power are nothing but a ploy to divert attention from their activities which were in clear contravention of laid down Indian laws,” the government said. This is not the first time Indian authorities have taken action against Amnesty International. In 2016, they charged the group with sedition for holding an event in the southern city of Bengaluru, related to Kashmir. In 2018, Indian authorities raided Amnesty International’s Delhi office and froze its bank accounts. They have long accused the group of violating rules on foreign funding, including as far back as 2009, before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party won power nationally. Amnesty International denies any wrongdoing. It has temporarily shut its India operations and then resumed them several times in the past. Amid fears of rising authoritarianism around the world, Tuesday’s events put India in the same category as Russia, where Amnesty International says its Moscow office was seized by the Russian government in 2016. The group’s local director in Turkey has also faced detention and trial. In September, Amnesty International USA submitted a statement to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, accusing Indian authorities of harassing journalists during the pandemic, violating Kashmiris’ rights and failing to investigate abuses by Delhi police. The acting secretary-general of Amnesty International’s worldwide operations, Julie Verhaar, issued a separate statement calling the closure of its India operations an “egregious and shameful act by the Indian Government.” “However, this does not mark the end of our firm commitment to, and engagement in, the struggle for human rights in India,” Verhaar was quoted as saying. “We will be working resolutely to determine how Amnesty International can continue to play our part within the human rights movement in India for years to come.” (NPR producer Sushmita Pathak contributed to this report)

The Lower House of the Indian Parliament has approved a Bill by approving that drastically changes The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020 on Sunday, September 20^th. The Bill is aimed at making rules governing the foreign funding of non-government organizations (NGOs) more stringent and also mandating Aadhaar for all office bearers of these organizations.

The bill also seeks to bar government employees and judges from receiving foreign funds, and to prevent recipients from transferring funds to other organizations or individuals. The new bill also gives sweeping powers to the Centre to suspend the licence of any NGO, which could previously be suspended for 180 days under the original law, by an additional 180 days. And it reduces the amount of funds received that can be spent on administrative expenses to 20% from the previous 50%.

The 1976 Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act was replaced by the 2010 Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which was passed to “regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”[5]

Section 3(1) of the 2010 Act listed persons and entities barred from accepting foreign contributions, including candidates for election, members of any legislature, political parties or party officeholders, organizations of a political nature, and associations or companies engaged in the production or broadcast of audio news, audiovisual news, or current affairs programs.[6] No person or resident in India, and no citizen of India resident outside the country, is allowed to accept any foreign contribution or acquire or agree to acquire any currency from a foreign source on behalf of any political party, any person referred to in Section 3(1), or both. Delivery of currency from a foreign source is also prohibited under the Act.

The amendment (2020) passed this week by the Parliament seeks to make specific changes to the FCRA law, first introduced in 2010 by the UPA government and whose rules were amended in 2012, 2015 and 2019. The law provides the framework under which organizations in India can receive and utilise grants from foreign sources. This primarily affects the non-profit sector in India, comprising a wide range of organisations – NGOs that implement development projects, research organisations, civil society activists, etc.

Governments have argued that the receipt and use of foreign grant funds need to be regulated to ensure that they are not used to hurt the national interest. Nobody denies that there should be greater transparency when it comes to activities that are funded by foreign sources.

The Bill says the amendment is required to enhance transparency and accountability in the receipt and utilization of foreign contributions worth thousands of crores of rupees every year and facilitating the “genuine” non-governmental organizations or associations who are working for the welfare of society. But is it too much to hope that the government will see NGOs and civil society organisations as genuine partners in India’s development journey? As demonstrated during the ongoing pandemic and the migrant workers’ crisis, NGOs and activists routinely make up for gaps in government programmers, by reaching the unreached, supplementing the quality and quantity of services provided, and speaking for those whose voices are marginalized.

Restraining non-profit organizations is equal to restraining democracy itself. But several elements of the FCRA rules and their vague definitions of national interest makes it hard to believe that the government sees this sector as an ally. The government has used the FCRA as an instrument for harassment of political rivals or activist organizations such as Amnesty International. Starting from environmental activism to religious activities – a wide range of organizations have come under the scanner of government authorities in recent years.

The “Coalition to Stop Genocide in India”, a broad coalition of Indian American and US-based civil rights organizations and activists, today welcomed a letter written by fourteen US Senators to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stressing that US law requires the US Government to consider a federal commission’s recommendations that some countries be designated as a Countries of Particular Concern (CPC), which is the US Government’s official term for countries that are the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom.

The bipartisan letter was signed by ten Republican senators and four Democratic senators and sent to Secretary Pompeo this month. Should the US government decide not to accept the recommendations made by the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a federal commission, the letter requires the State Department to inform US Congress of its reasons within 30 days of making that determination.

Last year, the US designated nine countries, including China, North Korea, Burma, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as CPC on the basis of USCIRF recommendations. In April this year, the USCIRF recommended adding nine more countries, including India, to this list.

CSGI has repeatedly called for the inclusion of India in the list of countries of particular concern, and has urged the State Department to accept USCIRF’s recommendations in this regard, given the escalating levels of persecution against religious minorities in India.

“Our nation was founded on the principle that all people have a right to freely practice the faith of their choice, without fear of persecution by their government or any other actors,” the bipartisan letter to Secretary Pompeo said. “As the leader of the free world, it is vital that the United States model and promote this crucial human right and our values to the rest of the world as a fundamental part of our foreign policy objectives.”

The Senators wrote that to accomplish that goal, “we must first publicly highlight abuse, persecution and discrimination experienced by people and groups of faith around the world.”

“We are encouraged to see the pressure from Congress to designate India a Country of Particular Concern. The US should always lead with its values and hold our friends accountable when they miss the mark on religious freedom,” said Matias Perttula, Advocacy Director, International Christian Concern. “The Modi government must move away from its radical agenda and secure the rights and liberties of all religious minorities in India as is guaranteed in its constitution.”

Added Ahsan Khan, National President, IAMC: “The Senators’ letter to Secretary Pompeo shows that there is a strong bipartisan Congressional support for holding India accountable for its escalating violence against its principal minorities, the Muslims and the Christians. The US Government must designate India as CPC.”

The Senators who have signed the letter are James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia).

“Both the State Department and USCIRF play important roles in sustaining the United States’ leadership in religious freedom across the globe, including through their annual reports,” the letter said. “These reports are invaluable for Members of Congress, other governments, and civil society groups, and help hold bad actors accountable.”

Reports by USCIRF and the State Department “enable the international community to identify atrocities, encourage progress and develop solutions,” the letter said.

The letter has also been sent to US Ambassador for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback.

The Coalition to Stop Genocide has urged Secretary Pompeo not only to accept the USCIRF’s recommendation that India be designated as CPC “for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA),” but also to move quickly to impose “targeted sanctions” against Indian agencies and officials “responsible for severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ assets and/ or barring their entry into the United States.”

The “Coalition to Stop Genocide in India” is committed to safeguard peace, pluralism and social justice in India by ensuring that American institutions and discourse continues to highlight human rights abuses and religious freedom violations in India.

Harsh Vardhan Shringla, India’s Foreign Secretary’s lecture last week was a broad overview of Indian foreign policy. He described the fundamental impulses that underlie it in a rapidly changing international environment. He also spoke about its contemporary challenges and direction.

The Foreign Secretary pointed out that the current pandemic has affected every facet of India’s national life and its external policies. It has been an enormous economic shock. It is also likely to have serious geopolitical repercussions.

The pandemic has exposed the deficiencies of globalization. The Foreign Secretary said that India is an advocate of globalization that is human-centric. He also spoke about the Prime Minister’s vision of “Atmanirbhar Bharat.” Atmanirbharta is not about inward-looking withdrawal from a globalized world. Instead, it aims to strengthen India’s position as a prime participant in global supply chains and as a major player in global trade and innovation.

The Foreign Secretary said that India is committed to multilateralism. He referred to India’s forthcoming tenure as a non- permanent member of the UN Security Council. He also referred to India’s forthcoming presidencies of G-20, BRICS and SCO. These are testimony to India’s enhanced global standing, providing India an opportunity to project its priorities and participate in generating global solutions.

India’s first priority remains its neighborhood. It’s Neighborhood First policy reflects this central focus.. India’s engagements with ASEAN countries under Act East and with the Indian Ocean Region in line with Security and Growth for All in Region (SAGAR) vision have also strengthened. India’s Think West outreach to West Asian countries, and its engagements with African countries have intensified.

Terrorism continues to remain a growing threat, while non-traditional challenges in space, cyber-space and biological domains are complicating the security landscape. India takes its development partnerships very seriously. It is committed to working its partners in the spirit of sabka saath, sabka vikas.

During the pandemic, India established that it was a responsible member of the international community through its actions in supplying drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine and Paracetamol. These are investments it has made in the future. It has built on its reputation as the “pharmacy of the world.”

He drew attention to the fact that serving the diaspora and Indians abroad is one of India’s highest priorities. More than 1.2 million Indians have returned home to India under the Vande Bharat Mission, the largest repatriation exercise of this nature undertaken in recent history. 

It was in the Fall of 2007; Smt. Sonia Gandhi led a delegation to the United Nations. The occasion was the extraordinary General Assembly session to launch the International day of non-violence on October 2, Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday. The delegation included senior Congress leaders such as Dr. Karan Singh, Vayalar Ravi, Anand Sharma along with late Pranab Mukherjee. Prior to the U.N. General Assembly session, Indian National Overseas Congress (renamed in 2018 as Indian Overseas Congress, USA), gave a thumping reception to Sonia Gandhi and the delegation at the Marriott Hotel in Times Square, where a few thousand people attended.

Before the meeting was called to order, at the reception room adjacent to the auditorium, prominent figures from the local Diaspora were rubbing shoulders and taking photographs and were busily engaged in chit-chats. However, one leader was sitting alone in the corner isolated from all the hoopla surrounding him. He was none other than Pranab Mukherjee, the Minister of External Affairs of India.  As the General Secretary of the organization, I wondered why he was not interacting with people and walked up to him to inquire how he was doing.  His security detail then told me that he would like to be left alone.

I have no explanation for his reaction then. But the more I thought about it; I concluded that he was not your conventional politician but someone who has elevated the level of engagement with people to find tangible solutions to the pressing issues of the time. He appeared to be disinterested in meaningless conversation or insincere overtures. News reports have revealed that he disliked socializing in the Delhi circuit and listed that he had attended just one private dinner in Delhi – hosted by Sibal.   Mukherjee was never a mass leader but derived much of his political clout in his association with Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and P.V. Narasimha Rao.

Addressing the Diaspora during that visit, Mukherjee said that ‘the future of India and that of the Indian community appear to be intrinsically intertwined”. He then paused for a few seconds and wondered out loud, “When I look at you and meet fellow Indians from different parts of the world, I often ask myself, what is it in us that we are able to adapt ourselves so easily to different societies, traditions, and cultures? Why is it possible for Indians to make different places their home and make themselves liked and admired?  Then he answered his own question by saying, “While I do not always look at antiquity to seek answers to the riddles of contemporary times, I am convinced that many of the answers to the success of Indians at home and abroad lie in our history and culture.”

True to its creed, he was a Master of History and purveyor of our culture and traditions. All those who know him closely talk about history’s anecdotes he was fond of creating and retelling. From being an Assistant Professor in Vidyanagar college, Kolkata to the President of India, his remarkable journey was that of an intellectual and a scholar with a passion for politics and great loyalty to the Congress Party.During the UPA-1, Manmohan Singh Government signed the historic US-Indo Civil Nuclear Agreement with the United States. It soon became a contentious issue for Democrats, and the Bush Administration sought help from all avenues for its ratification. INOC, under the leadership of Dr. Surinder Malhotra at that time, joined the campaign engaging in advocacy and promotion to make the passage of the agreement in the Senate a reality. The deal was an important milestone in cementing the strategic relationship between the two democracies that would pave the way for closer cooperation in the areas of National Security and Trade. Pranab Mukherjee played a pivotal role in the agreement’s passing, but for the Left front, which was a coalition partner in the UPA-1, threatened to pull down the Government. A task force set up under the leadership of Mukherjee took charge of the situation, effectively troubleshooting the issues leading up to its passage in the Parliament. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, in his message of condolences stated that “As Minister of External Affairs and Defense, he championed the landmark US-India Civil Nuclear agreement, a foundation of the US-India strategic partnership, and signed the Defense Framework agreement to enable the US-India security relationship we witness today. Few Indian statesmen played a more vital role in preparing India for the mantle of global leadership in the 21st century.”

There is no doubt that Mukherjee’s acceptance of an invitation by RSS at their convention had stunned the Congress party and many in the leadership. Congress leaders, including his own daughter Sharmistha Mukherjee, expressed displeasure at the former President’s visiting the RSS headquarters in Nagpur. He went there anyway and called the RSS founder K.B. Hedgewar as a ‘great son of India’ to the anguish of millions who regard him as a polarizing figure in Indian history. It is quite difficult to fathom that the former President could not have been aware of the Hindutva ideologue’s views that contradicted the very ‘idea of India’ that was planted and nurtured by Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru.

However, to his credit, Mukherjee has given a speech at the RSS meet that reiterated his faith in the country and its constitution. He said, “I want to share some truths I have internalized in 50 years of my political life. The soul of India resides in pluralism. We derive our strength from tolerance. We accept and respect our pluralism. We celebrate our diversity. Any attempt at defining our nationhood in terms of dogmas and identities of religion, region, hatred, and intolerance will only lead to dilution of our national identity. India’s nationhood is not one language, one religion, and it is perennial universalism of 1.3 billion people who use more than 122 languages and 1600 dialects, practice seven major religions and belong to three major ethnic groups, live under one system, one flag, and one identity of being Bharathiya.”

Pranab Mukherjee was his own man with an independent mind and a steely resolve. Coming from a flicker of a lamp in a small Bengali village to chandeliers of Delhi, his immense contribution to modern India’s development will never be forgotten. Moreover, Mukherjee’s 5’3″ physical frame undoubtedly towered over most of his contemporaries, whether it is upholding timeless principles or proposing much-needed solutions to the nation’s serious Domestic and International problems.  In his last address to the nation as the President of India,  he said, “For the past fifty years of my public life, my sacred text has been the constitution of India, my temple has been the Parliament of India, my passion has been the service of the people of India.” That summarizes a great legacy at its best! Farewell, Pranab Da. (The writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations and the Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)