<div>A series of actions against Greenpeace, beginning with the offloading of its activist Priya Pillai from a London flight, has reached a stage where the international NGO’s licence has been suspended forcing its functioning to a halt. The action has drawn a huge outcry against the government by the civil society, among others. The move has also been described as one against freedom of speech and expression. Is the government sending a message to all the NGOs involved in civic actions?<br /><br /> Journalists were swamping the offices of Foreigners Division in the Union Home Ministry as the action against Greenpeace India poured in on the afternoon of April 9, first on TV channels. The confirmation came fast and the details were on the ministry website. Aided by a dossier they prepared after a six-month “painstaking investigation”, officials explained where all Greenpeace erred.<br /><br />Officials wondered how someone can be allowed to function when they “prejudicially” affected “national interest”, “public interest” and “economic interest” of the State. Citing its over half-a-dozen actions, the government suspended the permission granted to Greenpeace to take foreign donations and asked it to explain in 30 days why its registration should not be cancelled. Reasons ranged from maintaining accounts in a “non-professional manner”, “protest-creation” in localities where there were none, paying high salaries against the “spirit” of charitable work and “depriving” the country of energy through protests in the coal sector.<br /><br />The move surprised not only journalists but a section of officials too as it came after the government tasted defeat twice in courts against Greenpeace in a span of three months. The Delhi High Court cited insufficient documentation and reasoning, besides questioning how one could infringe upon the right to dissent in cases related to freezing Greenpeace’s accounts and preventing activist Priya Pillai from going to London to appear before the British MPs in January.<br /><br />Conspiracy theories were also abound with some even linking the presence of a senior Intelligence Bureau official, known for his watch on NGOs, in the ministry corridors to the action against Greenpeace. Some questioned the rationale and feared the move would not stand judicial scrutiny. “This may not serve the purpose. Wait for an international backlash now,” a top official told Deccan Herald. However, the Foreigners Division is confident. They believe they have done their homework as they checked the account books to find a “lot of discrepancies”. The NGO, however, is certain of showing the government its place once again in courts.<br /><br />The action against Greenpeace is not the first as governments love to hate NGOs. Indira Gandhi brought in a stringent Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 1976 during the Emergency to squeeze the Jayaprakash Narayan-led Opposition, which she believed was aided by the “foreign-funded” civil society. She did not leave three NGOs, including the Gandhi Peace Foundation. Almost 30 years later, one of her successors, Manmohan Singh, questioned the ‘dollar-funded’ protests as he “lamented” that NGOs, “often funded” from the US and the Scandinavian countries, are “not fully appreciative” of the development challenges that India faces. Now, the government under Narendra Modi, who also views them with suspicion for their campaign against him on Gujarat riots, has raised the bogey against the NGOs.<br /><br />If the UPA institutionalised a mechanism to engage NGOs through Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council, it fell out with the civil society towards the end of its 10-year rule. The government’s suspicion grew as international NGOs like Greenpeace spearheaded or supported movements against power projects, GM food and cotton, nuclear energy and human rights violations. With its ‘spread and deep pockets’, Greenpeace attracted special attention.<br /><br />Government sources said Greenpeace was on the radar from 2012 onwards specially due to its “anti-coal activism”. An IB report, commissioned by UPA and leaked in June soon after Modi assumed power, said its activists were “focussed on ways to create obstacles” in India’s coal-based energy plans and methods to pressure the country to use only renewable energy.<br /><br />Why is Greenpeace singled out? Officials give a variety of reasons for it, ranging from its ‘reach’ in the country to its ability to ‘strike where it hurts’ and the mobilisation of locals against big projects. By taking on the biggest in the ground, they said, the government wanted to send a message to other NGOs, especially those with international links, not to mess with it.<br /><br />The government is angry with Greenpeace for its “success” in mobilising locals against projects like Mahan Coal Ltd and preventing a 15,000 MW thermal power plant in Singrauli, according to the ministry dossier. The Singrauli protests were to be followed by “protest-creation” in eight other locations, impacting 40,000 MW thermal power generation plants under the “direct guidance of since black-listed foreign activists”. The government, sources said, believes that Greenpeace’s activities on blocking projects are helping foreign governments.<br /><br />In the dossier, it even suggests that Pillai’s “foreign-funded” travel to London to brief British MPs on the Mahan coal block would “advance the foreign policy interests” of the British government only. It goes on to cite a series of protests by Greenpeace, like the mobilisation of 2.5 lakh people from drought affected areas to stop diversion of water supply from agriculture and drinking, establishment of Mahan Sangharsh Samiti to protest against Mahan coal block and anti-GM protest on Parliament Street in Delhi.<br /><br />Its report on pesticides in tea and activists climbing billboards in Mumbai for 50 hours asking Indian tea companies to remove those pesticides was another irritant for the government. Intelligence reports suggested that the NGO also decided to target other “commonly consumed goods”, like rice and wheat, by highlighting the abuse of pesticides in it.<br /><br />The development agenda<br /><br />The government “found out” that Greenpeace selected five ultra mega power projects – Sasan (MP), Krishnapatnam (AP), Giriye (Maharashtra), Sundargarg (Odisha) and Mundra (Gujarat) – and thermal power projects in four coal dependent industrial areas – Korba and Raigarh (Rajasthan), Jabalpur (MP) and Varanasi (UP) – as its targets. It was also apprehensive of “unrest” as Greenpeace organised construction workers in urban areas for “use in agitation”.<br /><br />The detailed notices to Greenpeace and the dossier show the schism between the government and the NGO on what it perceives as development. Activists believe that the government’s fear and opposition to NGOs are “exaggerated” and those sitting in South Block (PMO) and North Block (Finance and Home Ministries) decide what is national interest. The government, on the other hand, feels that it has to work for the welfare of people and it could not compromise national interest at the behest of foreign-funded NGOs that work in the garb of charitable work.<br /><br />You may love or hate NGOs. However, the question remains whether the government can “harass” voices of dissent by selectively using the FCRA, which activists demand should be re-looked at.<br /><br />Will Ford Foundation, one of the main funding sources of Modi-critic Teesta Setalvad’s Gujarat-based NGO, be the next NGO on the block to face trouble for “direct interference in the internal affairs of the country and also of abetting communal disharmony in India?” Home ministry officials are examining the findings of an FCRA team, which inspected the files of Setalvad’s NGO. <br /><br /><br /><br />As per details provided by NGOs to Union Home Ministry. More than half of the NGOs registered under FCRA have not provided details to MHA. As on Feb 18, 2015, 43,050 NGOs are registered under FCRA to receive foreign donations. <br />Source: Union Home Ministry <br /><br />Funding for NGOs in states<br /><br />State 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11<br /> Rs in crore Rs in crore Rs in crore Rs in crore <br />Delhi 2,828.27 2,261.71 2,285.75 2,019.63<br />Tamil Nadu 1,751.93 1,646.29 1,704.91 1.563.17<br />Andhra Pradesh 1,337.93 1,165.64 1,258.52 1.183.65<br />Karnataka 1,322.64 1,132.25 1,104.28 1.002.00<br />Maharashtra 1,292.91 1,062.46 1,104.28 915.40<br /><br />Counter View<br /><br />There is little possibility of FCRA route being used for terror funding as there are other channels of transferring funds meant for creating internal disturbances, terrorism etc. Making the provisions in the FCR Bill stringent may result in stifling the legitimate activities of the NGOs more than their illegitimate activities. It can also impose burden on NGOs dependent on small grants received from abroad.Former RBI Governor Bimal Jalan deposing before Parliamentary Standing Committee on FCRA Bill in 2008<br /><br />Source: Union Home Ministry<br /><br />Donations from abroad<br />Largest donor: The United States<br /><br />Rs 4,491.90 crore 2013-14<br />Rs 3,821.19 crore 2012-13<br />Rs 3,839.96 crore 2011-12<br />Rs 3,268.54 crore 2010-11<br /><br />Donations from Pakistan<br /><br />Rs 48.06 lakh 2013-14<br />Rs 2.20 crore 2012-13<br />Rs 41.66 lakh 2011-12<br />Rs 1.79 crore 2010-11<br /><br />Least donation from countries <br /><br />2010-11 Tonga Rs 300<br />2011-12 Turks and <br /> Caicos Islands Rs 3,200<br />2012-13 Palestine Rs 1,000<br />2013-14 Mauritania Rs 500<br />Source: Union Home Ministry<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>
<div>A series of actions against Greenpeace, beginning with the offloading of its activist Priya Pillai from a London flight, has reached a stage where the international NGO’s licence has been suspended forcing its functioning to a halt. The action has drawn a huge outcry against the government by the civil society, among others. The move has also been described as one against freedom of speech and expression. Is the government sending a message to all the NGOs involved in civic actions?<br /><br /> Journalists were swamping the offices of Foreigners Division in the Union Home Ministry as the action against Greenpeace India poured in on the afternoon of April 9, first on TV channels. The confirmation came fast and the details were on the ministry website. Aided by a dossier they prepared after a six-month “painstaking investigation”, officials explained where all Greenpeace erred.<br /><br />Officials wondered how someone can be allowed to function when they “prejudicially” affected “national interest”, “public interest” and “economic interest” of the State. Citing its over half-a-dozen actions, the government suspended the permission granted to Greenpeace to take foreign donations and asked it to explain in 30 days why its registration should not be cancelled. Reasons ranged from maintaining accounts in a “non-professional manner”, “protest-creation” in localities where there were none, paying high salaries against the “spirit” of charitable work and “depriving” the country of energy through protests in the coal sector.<br /><br />The move surprised not only journalists but a section of officials too as it came after the government tasted defeat twice in courts against Greenpeace in a span of three months. The Delhi High Court cited insufficient documentation and reasoning, besides questioning how one could infringe upon the right to dissent in cases related to freezing Greenpeace’s accounts and preventing activist Priya Pillai from going to London to appear before the British MPs in January.<br /><br />Conspiracy theories were also abound with some even linking the presence of a senior Intelligence Bureau official, known for his watch on NGOs, in the ministry corridors to the action against Greenpeace. Some questioned the rationale and feared the move would not stand judicial scrutiny. “This may not serve the purpose. Wait for an international backlash now,” a top official told Deccan Herald. However, the Foreigners Division is confident. They believe they have done their homework as they checked the account books to find a “lot of discrepancies”. The NGO, however, is certain of showing the government its place once again in courts.<br /><br />The action against Greenpeace is not the first as governments love to hate NGOs. Indira Gandhi brought in a stringent Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in 1976 during the Emergency to squeeze the Jayaprakash Narayan-led Opposition, which she believed was aided by the “foreign-funded” civil society. She did not leave three NGOs, including the Gandhi Peace Foundation. Almost 30 years later, one of her successors, Manmohan Singh, questioned the ‘dollar-funded’ protests as he “lamented” that NGOs, “often funded” from the US and the Scandinavian countries, are “not fully appreciative” of the development challenges that India faces. Now, the government under Narendra Modi, who also views them with suspicion for their campaign against him on Gujarat riots, has raised the bogey against the NGOs.<br /><br />If the UPA institutionalised a mechanism to engage NGOs through Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council, it fell out with the civil society towards the end of its 10-year rule. The government’s suspicion grew as international NGOs like Greenpeace spearheaded or supported movements against power projects, GM food and cotton, nuclear energy and human rights violations. With its ‘spread and deep pockets’, Greenpeace attracted special attention.<br /><br />Government sources said Greenpeace was on the radar from 2012 onwards specially due to its “anti-coal activism”. An IB report, commissioned by UPA and leaked in June soon after Modi assumed power, said its activists were “focussed on ways to create obstacles” in India’s coal-based energy plans and methods to pressure the country to use only renewable energy.<br /><br />Why is Greenpeace singled out? Officials give a variety of reasons for it, ranging from its ‘reach’ in the country to its ability to ‘strike where it hurts’ and the mobilisation of locals against big projects. By taking on the biggest in the ground, they said, the government wanted to send a message to other NGOs, especially those with international links, not to mess with it.<br /><br />The government is angry with Greenpeace for its “success” in mobilising locals against projects like Mahan Coal Ltd and preventing a 15,000 MW thermal power plant in Singrauli, according to the ministry dossier. The Singrauli protests were to be followed by “protest-creation” in eight other locations, impacting 40,000 MW thermal power generation plants under the “direct guidance of since black-listed foreign activists”. The government, sources said, believes that Greenpeace’s activities on blocking projects are helping foreign governments.<br /><br />In the dossier, it even suggests that Pillai’s “foreign-funded” travel to London to brief British MPs on the Mahan coal block would “advance the foreign policy interests” of the British government only. It goes on to cite a series of protests by Greenpeace, like the mobilisation of 2.5 lakh people from drought affected areas to stop diversion of water supply from agriculture and drinking, establishment of Mahan Sangharsh Samiti to protest against Mahan coal block and anti-GM protest on Parliament Street in Delhi.<br /><br />Its report on pesticides in tea and activists climbing billboards in Mumbai for 50 hours asking Indian tea companies to remove those pesticides was another irritant for the government. Intelligence reports suggested that the NGO also decided to target other “commonly consumed goods”, like rice and wheat, by highlighting the abuse of pesticides in it.<br /><br />The development agenda<br /><br />The government “found out” that Greenpeace selected five ultra mega power projects – Sasan (MP), Krishnapatnam (AP), Giriye (Maharashtra), Sundargarg (Odisha) and Mundra (Gujarat) – and thermal power projects in four coal dependent industrial areas – Korba and Raigarh (Rajasthan), Jabalpur (MP) and Varanasi (UP) – as its targets. It was also apprehensive of “unrest” as Greenpeace organised construction workers in urban areas for “use in agitation”.<br /><br />The detailed notices to Greenpeace and the dossier show the schism between the government and the NGO on what it perceives as development. Activists believe that the government’s fear and opposition to NGOs are “exaggerated” and those sitting in South Block (PMO) and North Block (Finance and Home Ministries) decide what is national interest. The government, on the other hand, feels that it has to work for the welfare of people and it could not compromise national interest at the behest of foreign-funded NGOs that work in the garb of charitable work.<br /><br />You may love or hate NGOs. However, the question remains whether the government can “harass” voices of dissent by selectively using the FCRA, which activists demand should be re-looked at.<br /><br />Will Ford Foundation, one of the main funding sources of Modi-critic Teesta Setalvad’s Gujarat-based NGO, be the next NGO on the block to face trouble for “direct interference in the internal affairs of the country and also of abetting communal disharmony in India?” Home ministry officials are examining the findings of an FCRA team, which inspected the files of Setalvad’s NGO. <br /><br /><br /><br />As per details provided by NGOs to Union Home Ministry. More than half of the NGOs registered under FCRA have not provided details to MHA. As on Feb 18, 2015, 43,050 NGOs are registered under FCRA to receive foreign donations. <br />Source: Union Home Ministry <br /><br />Funding for NGOs in states<br /><br />State 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11<br /> Rs in crore Rs in crore Rs in crore Rs in crore <br />Delhi 2,828.27 2,261.71 2,285.75 2,019.63<br />Tamil Nadu 1,751.93 1,646.29 1,704.91 1.563.17<br />Andhra Pradesh 1,337.93 1,165.64 1,258.52 1.183.65<br />Karnataka 1,322.64 1,132.25 1,104.28 1.002.00<br />Maharashtra 1,292.91 1,062.46 1,104.28 915.40<br /><br />Counter View<br /><br />There is little possibility of FCRA route being used for terror funding as there are other channels of transferring funds meant for creating internal disturbances, terrorism etc. Making the provisions in the FCR Bill stringent may result in stifling the legitimate activities of the NGOs more than their illegitimate activities. It can also impose burden on NGOs dependent on small grants received from abroad.Former RBI Governor Bimal Jalan deposing before Parliamentary Standing Committee on FCRA Bill in 2008<br /><br />Source: Union Home Ministry<br /><br />Donations from abroad<br />Largest donor: The United States<br /><br />Rs 4,491.90 crore 2013-14<br />Rs 3,821.19 crore 2012-13<br />Rs 3,839.96 crore 2011-12<br />Rs 3,268.54 crore 2010-11<br /><br />Donations from Pakistan<br /><br />Rs 48.06 lakh 2013-14<br />Rs 2.20 crore 2012-13<br />Rs 41.66 lakh 2011-12<br />Rs 1.79 crore 2010-11<br /><br />Least donation from countries <br /><br />2010-11 Tonga Rs 300<br />2011-12 Turks and <br /> Caicos Islands Rs 3,200<br />2012-13 Palestine Rs 1,000<br />2013-14 Mauritania Rs 500<br />Source: Union Home Ministry<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>
