Dear friends,

Happy New Year! Many of you have wished us, at People’s Watch, the Tiphagnes and we haven’t had the opportunity to respond until now. We are going through a tough time for a second consecutive time in the past 4 years. What started with the UPA II government is now continuing with the BJP. Those presently in governance are happy that the total number of NGOs with an active FCRA registration has reduced now to about 13,000 from what was 35,000 a few years ago. It needed the SC to assure this country that the right to dissent was an essential part of our right to speech and expression includes the right to criticize and dissent in 2015. If our democracy has to be vibrant, then participation is what it urgently requires. It has been established since the last general elections, in 2014, that even political parties cannot establish this participation in our democracy. Now that NGOs have also been done away with – initiated by the UPA II through the amendment to the FCRA 2010 and using it to silence NGOs since 2011 – 2012 and opposition parties in Parliament, as recent as last month, have continued to exhibit their incompetency in opposing policies of the government that threaten the state of our democracy.

Please consider this email a call to all those interested in preserving democracy, from peoples movements to civil society movements, from media to the judiciary, from political parties to national and state human rights organizations, to come together and oppose this attack on foreign funding for NGOs. It is no longer an issue of using foreign funds but a deeper issue of the right to association.

This year, we at People’s Watch, have decided to be more loud and assertive, not just to fight for human rights in general but to fight for the right to association, assembly and dissent. We would like to share the details of our case so far, our progress, the good news and the bad. We at CPSC, the board, staff, partners, our beneficiaries and to all our close friends and collaborators, feel that our fight is no longer ours but one that involves all of us. This is our patriotic expression to ensure that Art 51A of the Constitution is respected and protected.

Our work though at People’s Watch has remained the same – promoting the teaching of human rights education – with particular reference to teaching in schools in 10 states as of now through our Institution of Human Rights Education [IHRE] ; working at capacitating SHRIs and civil society on international standards that govern the functioning of National / State Human Rights Institutions through our All India Network of Individuals and NGOs working with National and State Human Rights Institutions [AiNNI] ; protection and capacitating of human rights defenders’ all over the country through Human Rights Defenders’ Alert – India [ HRDA] and human rights monitoring. Intervention, campaigning and rehabilitation leading access to justice in Tamilnadu. Is this not what NGOs are supposed to do in the field of human rights in the country ?

There have been many events that took place between 15th October .Let me do it in parts then.

1. Recalling the past actions by the UPA Government from February 2012 – February 2016:
Three FCRA suspensions in the year 2012 and 2013 . This was challenged by CPSC [ People’s Watch] in the Delhi High Court and we received several orders in our favor. See all of them here https://goo.gl/bHdUVJ. The final order in this case was made on 02.02.2016. The same can be seen at : https://goo.gl/81VQyB

2. Non response of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Govt of India to our application for re – registration of our FCRA & consequent WP filed and orders obtaine :
CPSC had made our application f0r re-registration in the month of April 2015 and also made our payment of Rs 500 as the prescribed fees. The Government then changed this application to be made on line and it was made in March 2016. The last date for response from the MHA was 31st October, 2016. Since there was no response we addressed a letter to the MHA and since there was as always no response we filed a writ petition in W.P. No 10191 of 2016 before the Delhi High Court. The copy of the WP filed is to be seen here : https://goo.gl/

3. The order of the Delhi High Court in WP No 10191/2016 & C.M. No 40253 / 2016 dated 26.10.2016 after the MHA assured the Court that orders would be passed before 31st October, 2016 is to be seen at: https://goo.gl/TXYprs

4. Response of the MHA to our application for re-registration of FCRA after the Delhi HC order dated 26.10.2016:
The MHA responded to our FCRA re-registration application after giving an undertaking in court, on the 29th October as follows : “On the basis of a field agency report, the competent authority has decided to refuse your application for renewal”.

5. Challenging this order of the MHA by CPSC in the Delhi High Court:
CPSC responded to this refusal of the MHA to register CPSC under FCRA with another writ petition in W.P. No 10257 of 2016 before the Delhi High Court . The copy of the W.P. can be seen here : https://goo.gl/ehpfw9 The two orders that have so far been passed on 7th November can be seen here as : https://goo.gl/yRFVsW The order of the Court dated 18th November, 2016 can be seen here as : https://goo.gl/REIhg9 The case before the Delhi HC is now posted for the next hearing on 10th January, 2016. What is most important is that during the hearing of the case on 18th November, the counsel for the MHA handed over in a sealed cover the ‘reasons’ for the refusal of FCRA registration to CPSC. The judge read the 4 or 5 pages of materials handed over to him, his face changed as he read what was handed over to him and finally he handed back to the Counsel for MHA in the same cover what was handed over to him containing ‘ reasons ‘ for the refusal of the MHA. !!

6. The MHA’s order dated 29.10.2016 has also been challenged before the NHRC in Delhi: Mr. Mathews Philips, one of the NGO Core Group Members of the NHRC and a National Convenor of Human Rights Defenders’ Alert- India [ HRDA] challenged this before the NHRC. The petition filed before the NHRC can be found at : https://goo.gl/eVvCxV

7. The MHA’s order dated 29.10.2016 has also been challenged before the NHRC in Delhi by the 7th Asian Regional Human Rights Forum that was meeting in Colombo on 14th November: The 7th Asian Regional Human Rights Forum that was meeting in Colombo on 14th November sent the following petition to the NHRC as seen here: https://goo.gl/fjed1i
The order of the NHRC dated 16th November, 2016 requires to be reproduced here as follows :

To
THE HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW
DELHI

WHEREAS the complaint/intimation dated 14/11/2016 received from E-MAIL SENT BY 7TH ASIAN HRDS FORUM COLOMBO SRILANKA in respect of CENTRE FOR PROMOTION OF SOCIAL CONCERNS, NGO ( CPSC) was placed before the Commission on 16/11/2016 .

AND WHEREAS upon perusing the complaint the Commission has passed the following order.

The 7th Human Rights Defender Forum Colombo, Sri Lanka has informed the Commission to intervene in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) license non-renewal of Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns (CPSC). Such systematic attack on rights of the Human Rights Defenders and on fundamental rights of the association and assembly as
enshrined in the Article 19 of the Constitution of India has also been brought to notice of the Commission.

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association and Assembly in his local analysis of FCRA 2010 has submitted a report of the Government of India in 2016 arguing that FCRA in not conformity with international law, principles and standards as access to resources including the foreign funding is a fundamental part of the right to freedom of association under the international laws, standards and principles. Moreover, limitations placed on

1. access to foreign funding will have to pass the litmus tests of the following;
i) Prescribed by law
ii) Imposed solely to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.
iii) Necessary in a democratic society such as rights and freedoms of others.
Prima-facie it appears FCRA license non-renewal is neither legal nor objective and thereby impinging on the rights of the human rights defenders both in access to funding including foreign funding.
The Commission takes suo-motu cognizance of the present case and directs Secretary
(Home) to inform within a period of six weeks the following :-
a) Number of NGOs of Human Rights Defenders who have not been allowed renewal of the license and the amount received by them from foreign funding during last three years and the reason for non-renewal.
b) To point out in case of Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns (more publically known through its programme namely People’s Watch) how the litmus test laid down by the UN Special Rapporteur is applied in the adjudication by the Central Government.
c) How the generic aspect of access to foreign funding and continuance of the same is not the right to form association and is not against international law, standards and principles.
After perusing submission of Secretary (Home), Government of India the Commission may decide to hear the oral presentation, if necessary, about the present allegation of the draconian approach and the correctives the Government of India is contemplating.
The Commission directs the Government u/s 12(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to furnish the above information to help the Commission in taking up the hearing of the matter and to arrive at whether the review of the law can be recommended.
NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that you are required to submit the requisite information/Report within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this notice.
2. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in default the Commission may proceed to take such action as it deems proper.
Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this the day of 16

8. The historic 4th Order of FCRA suspension of the MHA against CPSC dated 9th December, 2016: The MHA has after both these actions were initiated by and on behalf of CPSC before the Delhi HC and the NHRC passed the following order of FCRA suspension. https://goo.gl/rz3dRX It has also issued the same questionnaire that is normally sent to NGOs by the MHA. CPSC was already sent this in the year 2012 and the same details were updated in the year 2014 and a fresh questionnaire issued now with the same questions asking for details from the inception of the organization. The same can be seen at : https://goo.gl/0RyFPn

May we all wish you a very Happy, challenging and successful New Year 2017. These wishes come from all our colleagues in People’s Watch who have been and their families who are paying the cost for this attack on CPSC. We shall rely on you for your continued support and solidarity.

Warm and affectionate regards,
Henri Tiphagne
People’s Watch
 

The post Modi Govt’s curbs on NGOs funding must be collectively resisted: Henri Tiphagne appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"Whoever,

a) By words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, promotes, or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions, racial, language or regional groups, caste or communities or,

b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or caste or communities and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity,

c) …shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both." (Sec. 153 IPC).

In the first week of August 2003, People’s Watch – Tamil Nadu, a human rights monitoring initiative engaged in human rights education, got wind of the probable visit of Praveen Togadia, international general secretary of the VHP to the temple city of Madurai on August 30. Having witnessed from far the orgy of violence that has taken place in several states in west and north India, and the deep enmity and ill-will that has been promoted among communities which were otherwise living in peace, People’s Watch decided to undertake the onerous responsibility of initiating action for public awareness.

I wish to share this experience with you, not as a great achievement, not because it is something unique, but because we would like to be a part of the larger community of victims who have lost their lives, lost all their possessions and who will now almost never be able to go back to their ancestral homes because of "communal violence".

The first opportunity that came our way was a public meeting held on August 14, 2003, as part of the campaign against POTO in Tamil Nadu. While speaking from that stage, I urged the city’s police administration to play their role in maintaining law and order and ensuring that the proposed visit of Togadia to Madurai city on August 30 would not even border on any incitement as defined in the IPC. The message did reach the government through their intelligence units which covered that meeting. But the visit did not take place.

The next occasion to once again raise the issue was in September, when the Indian Lawyers’ Association of Madurai held its district conference. During my felicitation at this conference, I mentioned Togadia’s proposed visit and not only got the conference to pass a resolution calling upon the district administration to initiate action, but also got functionaries of several civil society organisations in Madurai to come together to form a Joint Action Platform.

In all such initiatives, there is always a problem about who gives the initial call. Being an organisation working to uphold the rule of law and to put in practice and actualise the constitutional mandate, especially those contained in the Preamble of the Constitution, People’s Watch initiated the first discussion meeting in Madurai city, urging that civil society organisations in Madurai come together to tackle a visit to the city by a notorious person.

The meeting, in which several district secretaries of political parties, trade unions, Dalit organisations, women’s organisations, concerned citizens, NGOs and human rights organisations participated, was held in September. The meeting unanimously resolved to constitute a Joint Action Council Against Communalism (JACAC) in Madurai city and agreed on a common action plan in the backdrop of Togadia’s visit to Madurai, rumoured to take place on September 21.

The meeting unanimously elected as its president, Dr. B Parthasarathy, a former college principal and college teachers’ unionist, who had also served as the vice-president of the AIFUCTO. The actions planned were:

a) To present a petition to the commissioner of police anticipating Togadia’s visit and requesting that the distribution of trishuls be prohibited at any of his public functions;

b) Planning of black flag demonstration in the city on September 21;

c) In case Togadia did not visit Madurai as expected on September 21, to conduct a series of eight street corner meetings, starting with the first one opposite the district court buildings on September 22 and thereafter two meetings every day from September 22 to 25, culminating with a grand human chain in which all political parties, students, trade unions and NGOs in the city participated on September 26.

This was the quiet resistance that civil society organisations were valiantly putting together. The JACAC in Madurai city had hardly been able to consolidate its initial efforts when, towards the second week of October, the city was ripe with announcements followed by press releases that Togadia was to participate in the ‘Thevar Guru Pooja’ on October 30. This is the birth anniversary of Pasumpon Thiru Muthuramalinga Thevar, the leader of the Thevar community, a very powerful backward community in the state, which now enjoys the unbridled support of the ruling Jayalalitha government. This is the community which has in the past and again recently exhibited, particularly in south Tamil Nadu, a deep animosity to our Dalit brothers, leading to very serious caste clashes in the years 1995–97.

The culmination of this hatred has been successful efforts by these community leaders to ensure that since 1996 the seats of presidents and ward members in Keeripatti, Pappatti and Nattarmangalam in Madurai district were either not contested, or if they were contested and won, they were not occupied by Dalit presidents at all, thus shaming the 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Constitution which our country boasts about.

Realising the frenzy and the deep sensitivities that would prevail on Guru Pooja with lakhs of members of the Thevar community observing the day, the JACAC decided to oppose any attempt by Togadia to communalise Madurai using the Guru Pooja as an occasion and further communalise the Thevar community as well. At the same time, we did not wish to hurt the deep cultural sensitivities of the Thevar community by opposing the visit of a person coming to the city to pay homage to their leader and to participate in the Guru Pooja at Pasumpon, 100 km away from Madurai and thereafter address a public meeting in Madurai city.

The JACAC met the leaders of all political parties to convince them of the need to speak out. Simultaneously, JACAC urged political parties led by Thevars to publicly issue statements distancing themselves from Togadia and also urged representatives of the Thevar community observing the Guru Pooja not to be carried away by the VHP’s designs.

The JACAC also addressed a public meeting on October 27 in which leaders of all political parties and civil society organisations in the city participated. They condemned Togadia’s proposed visit while making clear that the protest must not be seen as having anything to do with his proposed participation in the Guru Pooja celebrations on October 30. The police, too, was informed accordingly.

On the morning of October 27, all local newspapers carried news of Togadia’s proposed plan to distribute trishuls to young children during the public meeting that he was to address in Madurai city at a ground belonging to the civic corporation of Madurai. Sensing extreme danger, the JACAC immediately decided to approach the officials for legal redress. They addressed a joint petition to the commissioner of police, the district collector, the municipal commissioner and also the governor of Tamil Nadu.

The petition referred to provisions of Sections 153(a), 153(b), 295(a), 298 and 505(1) & (2) IPC and prayed the following:

a) that any public meeting at Tamukkam ground which Togadia addresses should not at any point of time violate the provisions of the IPC and the organisers of the said meeting should give an undertaking to the effect that no distribution of trishuls shall take place at the meeting;

b) that on his arrival in the city Togadia should give a personal undertaking that he will not address any meeting inciting violence in any form and specifically that he will not engage in the distribution of trishuls anywhere in the city;

c) the petition also sought police protection for the public meeting organised by the JACAC on the night of October 27.

Representatives of political parties and trade unions and I personally met the police commissioner, the district collector and the municipal commissioner and presented our petition to them. It is pertinent to mention the reaction of the police commissioner when members of the JACAC met him as it reveals the mindset of our police. It shows how in our fight against communalism and our effort to uphold the promises of the Preamble of the Constitution, law enforcement officials are very often the greatest block to our efforts.

The commissioner of police (COP) was struck by a sentence in the first para of the petition which stated, "the JACAC strives to preserve communal harmony and peace within the city and to this end wishes to strengthen the hands of the district administration as well as the commissioner of police". His immediate response was that the police did not need anybody’s support to maintain communal harmony and peace. He emphasised that the police was capable of doing this on their own.

Thereafter, looking directly at me, he asked whether the offer to strengthen the hands of the police was a permanent gesture or a temporary one. To this I responded saying that the all of us present before him were people who would stand by the police whenever they upheld the rule of law!

On reading the petition further and the provisions of section 153, he once again remarked, "Nobody can promote anything u/s 153." Saying this, he looked at me again and I responded by saying, "That is what the IPC states." Adopting a who-are-you-to-tell-me-what-to-do attitude, the commissioner finally assured us that he would take a balanced view since there were several parties involved in the Guru Pooja on October 30. To this, we said, "Sir, there may be several parties and perhaps you consider us only one among them, but what we are focussing on is the question of the rule of law."

The public meeting on the night of October 27 was addressed by various leaders of the JACAC, asking the COP, who is statutorily responsible for law and order in the city of Madurai, either to perform the duties expected from him and which in the present context had specifically been brought to his attention by the JACAC, or else provide the JACAC an opportunity to move the Madras High Court for suitable remedies.

On the morning of October 27, on behalf of the JACAC, I requested Communalism Combat to share with us their collection of news clippings concerning efforts in different parts of the country to deal with the issue of hate speech and the distribution of trishuls. By the next morning, over 200 pages of news clippings were down-loaded and these were also presented, along with our petitions, to the concerned authorities. Thus, a clear message was given to the law enforcement officials that the JACAC meant serious business.

On the morning of October 28, the COP passed orders under Section 41(a) of the Madras City Police Act banning the distribution of trishuls in the city on October 30 and the same was served on Muruganji, the organiser of the public meeting that Togadia was to address. The collective effort by civil society organisations who believe in upholding the rule of law thus bore fruit and the distribution of trishuls was averted. The meeting which Togadia finally addressed, numbering around 2,000 people in the city, was devoid of his usual venom and spite.

Activists of the JACAC attended the meeting and recorded the communal venom spewed by Muruganji, who addressed the meeting prior to Togadia. The JACAC has put the COP on notice to register a criminal case against him, failing which we shall be forced to move the Madras High Court to obtain an order directing the COP to register a case.

It is such legal efforts in different parts of the country which could ultimately challenge the powers that be to put a check on hate speech and the militarisation of society. But we have to be prepared to pay the necessary costs.

The COP, Madurai, participated on October 28 in a Public Hearing on ‘Violence Against Women’ in which People’s Watch – Tamil Nadu was instrumental in presenting several cases of gross instances of violence against women in custody (domestic as well as police), cases involving oral sex by police, custodial rape, murder, various forms of torture. As the DIG of Police, Madurai, a position that he additionally holds, the COP engineered a police raid on our premises at 7.30 a.m. on November 5 that lasted for about 1½ hours. The raid was ostensibly to search for two accused in a case of dacoity!

Of course, the police went back empty-handed. Now it is the turn of human rights organisations from all over the country to petition the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women, urging them to intervene against injustice to human rights defenders. Fighting against communalism in Jayalalitha’s land is not without its attendant costs.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2003 Year 10   No. 93, Grassroots

The post Togadia checkmated appeared first on SabrangIndia.