Category: India

An American Citizen asks “personal character or the national policy of the president that matters most?”  May be both are important, when you think about American President. There is no politics involved, only intriguing concerns disturb the fragile minds of common man elsewhere. While the presidential election votes were being counted, for long a strong  group alleges that there is widespread fake votes dumped. It might have happened or not, nowadays even God does not know.

In this country, where we boast that we have zero tolerance for most things and we are perfect to land the missile exactly on the Captain’s head on a moving submarine, how come we are unable to declare our voting system fool-proof?

Even on most of the TV channel discussions, we heard a consoling remark that President Trump is lost, because of his character and language. May be true. Trump is not an eloquent orator, nor he is a seasoned politician. Americans knew it four years back; and chose him as president of the nation. We know his achievements out balance his failures. That is why he got only 46.1% of popular votes winning over Hillary Clinton, whereas he could gather almost 47.5% during his so called “defeat” in 2020.

An average American can only succumb to his wild thoughts that Trump’s leadership during the last four years were not a total collapse, but overall a peaceful, warfree, safe term for the country. (Except for the Covid pandemic and his tough attitudes with some dubious countries and global organizations).

Sincere to the history of America, we had good presidents comparatively. I have heard much about John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who were much adored for their “sense, sensibility and sensitivity”. Exceptionally they were even sensuously emancipated by womenfolk for they were handsomevor glamourous. During voting period, that too matters, because there was abundant hatred towards Trump by our womenfolk. There is absolutely no discrimination gender wise when hate grows faster than cancer, among voters; Trump proved that. But the magnifying glass glows the stains on those faces of those well accepted presidents, even now. Can we tell our children that any of these Presidents as role models?. The good old George Washington or Abraham Lincoln were exceptional, technology and social media were then nil to expose them otherwise.

Coming back to the track of the topic, character of the President of a nation is of utmost importance. Deligently that itself won’t lead the nation to be safer or prosperous. Proper policies to simplify the economic burden of the citizen, and securely pushing the nation healthier, stronger and economically prosperous can only be achieved with smart political polices. Economists approve the latter part of President. trump’s rating good enough; and they have no interest of analyzing the personal, racist, a misogynist, and timid habits of the Presidents.

“We call on all relevant authorities to ensure tabulation of votes and resolution of complaints is undertaken in a transparent and credible manner,” USState Secretary Mike Pompeo said. Still, his suggestion the election’s outcome was still unclear came as  many key leaders around the world are already congratulating the President-elect Joe Biden on his projected victory.

We remember that during  2000 we took about 37 days to ensure the counting of votes. We have gone far ahead during the last 20 years. We need to count all legal votes, and abandon all suspiciously illegal votes. That ensuring that acceptance of legitimate election results are essential for any fledgling democracy.

Off late, we hear that Georgia State is venturing for a recount of the 2020 votes. That escalated the suspicion that something is slushy there with the voting. If we are good enough to reveal some intentional malpractices in that state, it is evident that the system is malignantor corrupted.

If the investigation into election fraud finds NO evidence of wrong doing; then so-be-it, Biden wins. But voters need to know that it was a fair and honest election and their vote counted. All illegal votes need to be removed from the totals. If observation of vote counting was prohibited, then there needs to be a recount with total transparency, no excuses. And Let none declare  “there was very little fraud so it won’t make a difference”. That is like being “a little bit pregnant”. We have to check everything even if it takes months. We need to be faithful to the voters and model to other nations. We are either pregnant, or not ; there is no situation called – ” a little bit pregnant”.

(By Dr. Mathew Joys, Las Vegas)

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on Tuesday appealed to the Government of India to safeguard the rights of human rights defenders and NGOs, and their ability to carry out their crucial work on behalf of the many groups they represent. Bachelet expressed regret at the tightening of space for human rights NGOs in particular, including by the application of vaguely worded laws that constrain NGOs’ activities and restrict foreign funding.

“India has long had a strong civil society, which has been at the forefront of groundbreaking human rights advocacy within the country and globally,” the High Commissioner said. “But I am concerned that vaguely defined laws are increasingly being used to stifle these voices.”

Bachelet cited as worrying the use of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which a number of UN human rights bodies* have also expressed concern is vaguely worded and overbroad in its objective. The Act prohibits the receipt of foreign funds “for any activities prejudicial to the public interest.”

The Act, which was adopted in 2010 and was amended last month, has had a detrimental impact on the right to freedom of association and expression of human rights NGOs, and as a result on their ability to serve as effective advocates to protect and promote human rights in India. It is expected that the new amendments will create even more administrative and practical hurdles for such advocacy-based NGOs. Most recently, Amnesty International was compelled to close its offices in India after its bank accounts were frozen over alleged violation of the FCRA.

“The FCRA has been invoked over the years to justify an array of highly intrusive measures, ranging from official raids on NGO offices and freezing of bank accounts, to suspension or cancellation of registration, including of civil society organizations that have engaged with UN human rights bodies,” Bachelet said.

“I am concerned that such actions based on the grounds of vaguely defined ‘public interest’ leave this law open to abuse, and that it is indeed actually being used to deter or punish NGOs for human rights reporting and advocacy that the authorities perceive as critical in nature. Constructive criticism is the lifeblood of democracy. Even if the authorities find it uncomfortable, it should never be criminalized or outlawed in this way.”

The UN Human Rights Committee – which oversees implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party – has found** that when a State invokes national security and protection of public order as a reason to restrict the right to freedom of association, the State party must show the specific nature of the threat or risks posed, and limit its responses to those necessary and proportionate to address such threat or risks.

Activists and human rights defenders have also come under mounting pressure in recent months, particularly because of their engagement in mass protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act that took place across the country earlier this year. More than 1,500 people have reportedly been arrested in relation to the protests, with many charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act – a law which has also been widely criticized for its lack of conformity with international human rights standards.

Charges have also been filed under this law against a number of individuals in connection with demonstrations that date back to 2018. Most recently, the 83-year-old Catholic priest Stan Swamy, a long-standing activist engaged in defending the rights of marginalized groups, was charged and reportedly remains in detention, despite his poor health.

“I urge the Government to ensure that no one else is detained for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly – and to do its utmost, in law and policy, to protect India’s robust civil society,” the High Commissioner said. “I also urge the authorities to carefully review the FCRA for its compliance with international human rights standards and to release people charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for simply exercising basic human rights that India is obligated to protect.”

Earlier this year, in a welcome development for advocacy-based NGOs, India’s Supreme Court significantly narrowed the definition of what constitutes a “political activity” under the FCRA. “I encourage India’s national institutions to strengthen the social and legal protections that enable civil society to function freely and contribute to progress,” the High Commissioner said.

Bachelet said the UN Human Rights Office would continue to closely engage with the Government of India on issues relating to the promotion and protection of human rights, and will also continue to monitor developments that positively and negatively affect civic space and fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Australian and Japanese foreign ministers, the Indian external affairs minister, and the U.S. secretary of state met in Tokyo on October 6 for the second ministerial of the Quadrilateral, or “Quad.” While the Quad ministers did not release a joint statement, Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S. did issue readouts. They provide a sense of the agenda, as well as where there is — and is not — overlap. The separate readouts also give some additional details. For instance, the Japanese one noted that North Korea and the South China Sea came up for discussion; the Australian and Indian ones mentioned the delivery of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines; and Canberra’s document highlighted the subject of critical minerals.

In their readouts as well as their opening statements, each Quad country also outlined its vision of the kind of Indo-Pacific it would like to see. All four also emphasized the importance of working with other like-minded partners (even beyond the Association for Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN). Japan mentioned European partners, in particular. As expected, no announcement was made about including Australia in the U.S.-India-Japan MALABAR maritime exercise, but Indian official sources indicated that an announcement would be made before the exercise in November.

While most of the countries did not explicitly mention China, there were various implicit references to it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the exception, mentioning the Chinese Communist Party in particular. The lack of consensus on whether or not — and how — to mention China might be one reason why the countries did not release a joint statement. Nonetheless, in a subsequent press availability, American officials made clear that China was discussed. They also indicated that Beijing’s behavior vis-à-vis Australia, India, and Japan over the last few months — rather than the Trump administration’s urging — increased their enthusiasm for the Quad.

The 2020 ministerial was the first standalone meeting of the Quad — previous minister-level and working-level meetings have taken place on the sidelines of other summits. The readouts of the four countries noted the importance of regularizing the ministerial, as well as continuing working-level and subject experts’ meetings. The visit to Tokyo also provided an opportunity for Minister Marise Payne, Minister S. Jaishankar, and Secretary Pompeo to meet with new Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, as well as for the four countries to have bilateral meetings with each other.

Indian Overseas Congress, USA joins millions of non-resident Indians across the globe in condemning the horrific rape and murder of Manisha Valmiki of Hathras, U.P. The barbarity and the bestiality involved in the killing show the depraved and criminal mindsets of those who perpetrated such heinous acts against a Dalit woman who is from the lowest rung of India’s caste system. The ghastly way this woman was raped and murdered has indeed shaken the nation to its core and terrorized the people of conscience across the world. 
 The victim, who belonged to the Dalit community, was raped by four  men on September 14 in the heartland state of Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras district. The woman’s family told local media that they found her naked, bleeding, and paralyzed with a split tongue and broken spine in a field outside her home. On Tuesday, she died two weeks later after battling severe injuries in a hospital in New Delhi.

To add insult to injury, the police barricaded her family members & locals inside the house and forcibly burned the body. The family was not allowed to see their daughter for one last time and say good-bye. As it has been said by Yogendra Yadav, “even criminals are allowed dignified cremation. Here is a rape victim being cremated by police at 2.30 AM without family members”.

“Mr. Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, it is your party which is in power. Given your supremacy within the party in U.P. and the centralized control you exercise, you more than anyone else have to be held responsible for this terrifying state of affairs,” said George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA. Your past statement, such as ‘women not capable of being left alone and their energy should be regulated, lest it becomes worthless and destructive,” is not only despicable but misogynistic and chauvinistic.

“while you have ordered an inquiry, Mr. Chief Minister, you haven’t taken any steps to cure this rape culture in your state or shown any resolve to change the social, political, and administrative conditions under which such anti-Dalit hatred is bred,” said Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA. Your continuing inaction in this regard will gain you the title as the Chief administrator of the notorious Rape State in India,” Mr. Gilzian added.

“It is indeed the growing culture of violence emanating out of the wrong-headed sense of ultra-nationalism and majoritarian arrogance that is polarizing the communities and dividing the nation.  We call upon the Modi Government to stop paying lip service with slogans like “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” and provide true leadership in bringing perpetrators of this pervasive rape and abuse of women culture across the country to justice regardless of their party affiliations and oust any government officials who remains stumbling blocks to that effort” the statement added. 

National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)   is shocked and dismayed at the verdict of the CBI Special Court in acquitting all 32 persons accused of being responsible for the demolition of Babri masjid on December 6, 1992. For reasons best known to it, the CBI led a weak prosecution based upon defective evidence, even though the Liberhan Commission after its detailed investigation (1992-2009) pointed to the involvement of senior RSS and BJP leaders, including L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti. It is indeed sad commentary for  our democracy that active participants in a movement such as this often say one thing inside Court and the exact opposite outside it and yet go scot-free. The Judgement running in to 2,300 pages then goes at length to say that there was no active conspiracy, it’s a mockery of the rule of law.

The verdict does nothing to remedy the illegality of the demolition, which was recognized by the Supreme Court in its Ayodhya Verdict on November 9, 2019, but on the other hand has encouraged claims for demolition of other mosques, leading inevitably to increasing discord, hate and violence in society. Further, the verdict trivializes Supreme Court’s comment that the Babri masjid demolition was “an egregious violation of rule of law”.

Prima facie, it appears that the Prosecution not only failed to do its job but also willfully worked in favour of pleasing its political masters, since on record, in front of Liberhan Commission, Uma Bharti, one of the co-accused had taken responsibility for her role in the demolition of the mosque. There is enough evidence visual and written in public domain from the times where their speeches, actions and everything has been recorded.  Photographs of leading lights who were leading the Ramjanmabhoomi movement and were on stage near the site of the demolition celebrating the fall of the mosque are a case in point. All right thinking citizens are therefore dismayed at the decision that they had no role in the demolition of the Babri Masjid.  NAPM condemns this decision of the CBI court and demands that this be challenged in the High court.

The verdict has shocked everyone, though given the state of affairs and continued miscarriage of justice in recent times, it has not come as a surprise to many. This completely falls in the current pattern where students activists, professors, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and critics of the regime are being arrested on false charges, and conspiracies are being established on WhatsApp chats and social media posts, case being Bhima Koregaon Conspiracy and Delhi Riots Conspiracy. The judicial system has always been seen as the last recourse of common people in the face of a rapacious executive and a complicit legislature, which are destroying the social fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, judiciary is abdicating its responsibility.

We urge that the Supreme Court takes suo moto note of this verdict and brings the perpetrators to justice. The demolition of Babri mosque was a body blow to the secular fabric of the nation and a criminal act. And it is with deep sorrow that we note that the Ram Mandir will be built on the back of demolition, violence and miscarriage of justice.

We the People, who have faith in the Constitution of India, are being constantly failed by its three pillars, and all public servants. In the face of failing democracy, we still believe and trust that the Judiciary at all levels will yet rise above the political pressures that it faces, and display its independence. We expect it to stand tall with courage and belief in the power of truth, to uphold justice without fear or favour, and honour their Constitutional oath to serve the People of India.

Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM); Dr. Sunilam, Adv. Aradhna Bhargava, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti; Rajkumar Sinha, Chutka Parmaanu Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, NAPM, Madhya Pradesh;

Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), National Campaign for People’s Right to Information; Kavita Srivastava, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL); Kailash Meena NAPM Rajasthan;

Prafulla Samantara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan; Lingraj Azad, Samajwadi Jan Parishad & Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti, Manorama, Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti; Lingaraj Pradhan, Satya banchor, Anant, Kalyan Anand, Arun Jena, Trilochan Punji, Lakshimipriya Mohanty and Balakrishna Sand, Manas Patnaik, NAPM Odisha;

Sandeep Pandey (Socialist Party of India); Richa Singh & Rambeti (Sangatin Kisaan Mazdoor Sangathan, Sitapur); Rajeev Yadav & Masihuddin bhai (Rihai Manch, Lucknow & Azamgadh); Arundhati Dhuru & Zainab Khatun (Mahila Yuva Adhikar Manch, Lucknow), Suresh Rathaur (MNREGA Mazdoor Union, Varanasi);  Arvind Murti & Altamas Ansari (Inquilabi Kamgaar Union, Mau), Jagriti Rahi (Vision Sansthan, Varanasi); Satish Singh (Sarvodayi Vikas Samiti, Varanasi); Nakul Singh Sawney (Chal Chitra Abhiyan, Muzaffarnagar); NAPM Uttar Pradesh

1. Chennaiah,Andhra Pradesh Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union-APVVU, Ramakrishnam Raju,United Forum for RTI and NAPM, Chakri (Samalochana), Balu Gadi, Bapji Juvvala, NAPM Andhra Pradesh;

Jeevan Kumar & Syed Bilal (Human Rights Forum), P. Shankar (Dalit Bahujan Front), Vissa Kiran Kumar & Kondal (Rythu Swarajya Vedika), Ravi Kanneganti (Rythu JAC), Ashalatha (MAKAAM), Krishna (Telangana Vidyavantula Vedika-TVV), M. Venkatayya (Telangana Vyavasaya Vruttidarula Union-TVVU), Meera Sanghamitra, Rajesh Serupally, NAPM Telangana;

Sister Celia, Domestic Workers Union; Maj Gen (Retd) S.G.Vombatkere, NAPM, Nawaz, Dwiji, Nalini, Madhu Bhushan and Mamatha Yajaman, NAPM Karnataka

Gabriele Dietrich, Penn Urimay Iyakkam, Madurai; Geetha Ramakrishnan, Unorganised Sector Workers Federation; Suthanthiran, Suthanthiran, Lenin & Arul Doss, NAPM Tamilnadu;

Vilayodi Venugopal, CR Neelakandan, Prof. Kusumam Joseph, Sharath Cheloor, Vijayaraghavan Cheliya, Majeendran, Magline, NAPM, Kerala;

Dayamani Barla, Aadivasi-Moolnivasi Astivtva Raksha Samiti; Basant Hetamsaria, Aloka Kujur, Dr. Leo A. Singh, Afzal Anish, Sushma Biruli, Durga Nayak, Jipal Murmu, Priti Ranjan Dash, Ashok Verma, NAPM Jharkhand;

Anand Mazgaonkar, Swati Desai, Krishnakant, Parth, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti; Nita Mahadev, Mudita, Lok Samiti; Dev Desai, Mujahid Nafees, Ramesh Tadvi, Aziz Minat and Bharat Jambucha, NAPM Gujarat;

Vimal Bhai, Matu Jan sangathan; Jabar Singh, Uma, NAPM, Uttarakhand;

Manshi Asher and Himshi Singh, Himdhara, NAPM Himachal Pradesh

Eric Pinto, Abhijeet, Tania Devaiah and Francesca, NAPM Goa

Gautam Bandopadhyay, Nadi Ghati Morcha; Kaladas Dahariya, RELAA, Alok Shukla, Shalini Gera, NAPM Chhattisgarh;

Samar Bagchi, Amitava Mitra, Binayak Sen, Sujato Bhadro, Pradip Chatterjee, Pasarul Alam, Amitava Mitra, Tapas Das, Tahomina Mandal, Pabitra Mandal, Kazi Md. Sherif, Biswajit Basak, Ayesha Khatun, Rupak Mukherjee, Milan Das, Asit Roy, Mita Bhatta, Yasin, Matiur Rahman, Baiwajit Basa, NAPM West Bengal;

Suniti SR, Sanjay M G, Suhas Kolhekar, Prasad Bagwe, Mukta Srivastava, Yuvraj Gatkal, Geetanjali Chavan, Bilal Khan, Jameela, Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan; Chetan Salve, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Pervin Jehangir, NAPM Maharashtra;

Faisal Khan, Khudai Khidmatgar, J S Walia, NAPM Haryana;

Guruwant Singh, Narbinder Singh, NAPM Punjab;

Kamayani Swami, Ashish Ranjan, Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan; Mahendra Yadav, Kosi Navnirman Manch; Sister Dorothy, Aashray Abhiyan, NAPM Bihar;

Rajendra Ravi, NAPM; Bhupender Singh Rawat, Jan Sangharsh Vahini; Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, Satark Nagrik Sangathan;  Sanjeev Kumar, Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch; Anita Kapoor, Delhi Shahri Mahila Kaamgaar Union; Sunita Rani, National Domestic Workers Union; Nanhu Prasad, National Cyclist Union; Madhuresh Kumar, Priya Pillai, Aryaman Jain, Divyansh Khurana, Evita Das; Anil TV, Delhi Solidarity Group, MJ Vijayan (PIPFPD)        

Articulating an inclusive vision for the world and India’s role in manifesting it, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) how long India would be kept out of the top UN decision-making bodies. He assured the world of the adequate supply of vaccines and highlighted India’s contribution to UN peacekeeping mission and its non-exclusive foreign policy, making the case for India playing a leading role in the UN.

In his address to the 75th United Nations General Assembly on September 26, 2020, the Indian Prime Minister said the problems and solutions of the world in 1945 were quite different from today. “Today we are in a completely different era,” he said, asking if the character of an institution from those times is even relevant today. He said the UN enjoyed “unparalleled” respect in India but Indians were concerned whether the reform process would “ever reach its logical conclusion.”

Modi questioned the relevance of the United Nations to meet 21st Century challenges with a 19th Century structure that did not include India as a permanent member of the Security Council, and made a call to arms for nations to work for all humanity in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic. Modi posed the question of “Whether the character of the institution, constituted in the prevailing circumstances of 1945, is relevant even today?”

Despite several “stellar achievements” Modi in effect, argued that the UN had failed to stem the tide of terrorism and civil wars despite avoiding a ‘third world war’. And as for the pandemic, Modi slammed the international institution, asking, “Where is the United Nations in this joint fight against the pandemic? Where is its effective response?”

His answer: “Reform in the responses, in the processes, and in the very character of the United Nations is the need of the hour.” India has been waiting for the long-pending promised reforms which are supported by the United States and virtually all nations. “For how long will India be kept out of the decision-making structures of the United Nations?” Modi demanded, noting that this is the largest democracy in the world with more than 18% of its population, “which was a leading global economy for centuries and also one which has endured hundreds of years of foreign rule.”

In his speech, Modi noted that even during these very difficult times of the raging pandemic, the pharmaceutical industry of India has sent essential medicines to more than 150 countries. As the largest vaccine producing country of the world, “I want to give one more assurance to the global community today. India’s vaccine production and delivery capacity will be used to help all humanity in fighting this crisis.”

India is now in phase 3 of clinical trials and Modi promised to help all the countries trying to enhance their cold chain and storage capacities for the delivery of the vaccines. Modi contended that India had never been a power-hungry nation through history. “When we were strong, we were never a threat to the world, when we were weak, we never become a burden on the world. Your Excellency, How long would a country have to wait particularly when the transformational changes happening in that country affect a large part of the world?” Modi questioned.

Drawing attention to India’s standard view of the world as one (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam), Modi detailed the contributions his country had made in the last 75 years of the UN, including 50 peacekeeping missions where India has lost the most number of peacekeeping personnel.

He attributed numerous initiatives India jumpstarted and which were adopted by the UN including ‘International Day of Non-Violence,’ ‘International Day of Yoga,’ the initiatives of the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the International Solar Alliance, among them.

He articulated India’s strategic priorities like ‘Neighbourhood First Policy’ and the ‘Act East Policy’, taking a swipe at China’s power moves in the region including in the South China Sea, he mentioned the Indo-Pacific region’s security and growth, going on to say that India helped nations not with a “malafide intent” at the cost of making a partner “dependent or hapless.”

“We must congratulate him for his firm, decisive approach to China,” Parikh said referring to Modi’s comments on following the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region. India’s experiences at development, Modi said, would help many countries who are trying to progress.

He claimed that during his administration over the last 4 years, India had succeeded in bringing more than 400 million people into the formal financial sector, provided toilet facilities to 600 million people; and within 2-3 years, provided more than 500 million people access to free health care services. He also dwelt on progress toward a ‘digital’ India, mentioned the water supply initiative as well as the goal to achieve a tuberculosis-free nation, empowerment of women, and ensuring the rights of transgender people.

“Prime Minister Modi has eloquently made a case for India’s inclusion (in the Security Council),” said Anju Bhargava, a management consultant, formerly in the Obama administration’s inaugural Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnership, as well as founder of Hindu American Seva Communities. “He has presented India’s strength from the ancient past to the present as well as pointed to the future. Despite its challenges India has tremendous strength and can play a significant role on the world stage in the future,” Bhargava added.

“In the changed circumstances of the post-pandemic era, we are moving forward with the vision of a “Self-reliant India”. A Self-reliant India will also be a Force Multiplier for the Global Economy,” Modi declared, concluding with a poignant hope that the UN would remain relevant in the brave new world.

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)