'Protests can't be created by international funding'

Greenpeace India has faced the government’s wrath. The government says it obstructs the country’s economic development and has questioned its finances and other activities. Samit Aich, Executive Director of Greenpeace India, shares his views on the government action with Deccan Herald's Shemin Joy. Excerpts:

There are so many NGOs operating in India. Why is Greenpeace being targeted?

It is for the government to say. It could possibly be because we have asked the right questions at the right level. Some of the campaigns we run had asked fundamental questions and this, perhaps, had them worried. So, they started targeting us. Greenpeace is made out to be an ideologue or icon of what is wrong the way they see it. It will also send a chill factor or fear factor to many other NGOs and the civil society. Therefore, in one stroke, they will get the message across. But I do not think this is the right way to address the issue. It is a bad step.

The government argues that foreign-funded NGOs are hindering economic development. What is your take on that?

These are all arguments that are not substantiated. We should debate what we mean by national security, economic security and stuff like that. Merely repeating those lines would not mean that they are right or true. Several IB reports and other documents keep coming out from time to time, which the media gets, incidentally, much before we get to see it. The issue of development needs to be debated. Greenpeace clearly works on clean air, we talk about forests, food and sustainable environment. Every organisation and individual has the right to have a definition on what is development. Trusting one line on development and terming everyone differing with it as anti-national is wrong. It needs to be contested.

One of the gravest allegations is that Greenpeace uses foreign funds for pro-test-creation. How do you respond to it?

First, let me clarify that in the last financial year, over 70 per cent of the funding came from Indian citizens in India. Second, there is no such thing called protest-creation. Protests cannot be created. Situations lead organisations and people to come together to defend their democratic rights. It is wrong to assume that protest-creation can happen only through international funds. It has to be completely debunked as a myth. India has a history of protests.

It is also wrong to assume that people of India do not have brains of their own and need money and international brains to decide whether to protest some wrong done to them. This is a crude statement. The government clearly has a different definition of development, which is heavily pro-corporate instead of being pro-people, and is seeking to dismiss any criticism of its actions as protest-creation.

The notice to you says there are discrepancies in accounts, foreign funds were misused.
We will respond to every point raised by the government. We believe that the government allegation is not right at all. As an organisation, we believe in a high level of transparency. Our auditors have assured us that we have not violated any FCRA rules. All the foreign grants have been deposited into the designated bank account and transfers for utilisation are made into the FCRA-approved account only. Payments listed by the FCRA division in their show cause notice are to third parties or reimbursements to local accounts, which is within the law.

The government report says salary of some Greenpeace employees is very high and it is against the spirit of charity.

The FCRA has no right to decide whether the salary is high or low. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has no mandate on what salary we should take. As an organisation, we believe that our people need to be paid reasonably well. When we decide the salary of people in India, it needs to be viable. In fact, Greenpeace India’s secretariat staff’s salary is the lowest among international NGOs operating in India. That is a deliberate attempt. We believe that as an organisation, we have to be responsible.

The MHA response seems to make us believe that those working in NGOs need to lead their lives like destitutes, and creep and crawl to make a living. That is wrong. What is high or low is subjective and the MHA has no right to contest it. Greenpeace believes that the issues the MHA raised on salaries and consultancies are absurd, as it does not substantiate how this is a violation of the FCRA. If the donors have no problem, then nobody else should have a problem.

Has the FCRA become a weapon in the hands of the government to tame NGOs?

Absolutely. The law itself is quite draconian. It is used in the most arbitrary manner. What we are facing currently is an example.