Washington, D.C. (October 30, 2023) – The American Bar Association Center for Human Rights has, in a recently released report, examined the misuse of counter-terrorism financing legislation by India’s ruling Hindutva supremacist government, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This misuse has primarily targeted non-profit organisations (NPOs) and human rights defenders. 

Titled “The Adverse Impact of Counter Terrorism Laws on Human Rights Defenders and FATF Compliance in India,” the report finds that India is contravening the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) basic requirements and guidelines by targeting the human rights defenders and civil society actors. 

“India, upon its membership to the FATF in 2010, embarked on a series of amendments to its anti-terrorism and money laundering legislation, ostensibly aimed at aligning itself with FATF requirements. However, this process has led to sweeping adverse consequences for non-profit organisations (NPOs) and human rights defenders who have been subject to prosecution, often for the sole reason of exercising their civic freedoms and expressing criticism of the government,” the report notes. 

The report examines three draconian anti-terrorism laws: the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). 

Furthermore, it inquiries into specific cases involving NPOs and human rights defenders in India, including the bogus case against journalist Siddique Kappan, the application of terror funding charges against protestors of the citizenship bill, the arrest of Kashmiri political leader Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra, the Bhima Koregaon case, and the suppression of democratic rights activists in Telangana. 

The report reveals that Indian investigating authorities often employ vague accusations and inconsistent evidence in their attempts to penalise human rights defenders and NPOs critical of India’s government. Moreover, it notes that anti-terror laws have expanded over time, becoming increasingly ambiguous and frequently undermining fundamental procedural protections for defendants. 

The report has recommended the Indian government amend the UAPA, PMLA, and FCRA laws to prevent its abuse. It also advises that during investigations or prosecutions involving individuals engaged in legal, journalistic, or activist activities, authorities should prioritize objective risk assessments to ensure compliance with FATF recommendations.

Read and download the full report here

Related:

Diverse Nation Needs Diverse Battles to Save it, Say Civil Society Activists

Violation of rights due to PM visit can’t be tolerated: Civil society to PM

HRD & lawyer Mohammed Shoaib among two other activists in Varanasi picked up: UP

The post American Bar Association flags India’s contravention of FATF guidelines in targeting civil society and HRDs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) called out India for its “discriminatory policies, inflammatory rhetoric, tolerance for violence against minorities”, several international human rights groups, especially those working in the field of protecting rights of religious minorities, have come out in support of the report.

Hindus for Human Rights, a US-based advocacy organization dedicated to advocating for the human rights of all communities in India, US, and beyond, welcomed USCIRF’s report saying, “As an organization with strong personal roots in both India and the US, this step taken by USCIRF to place the world’s largest democracy in the company of several authoritarian regimes is particularly painful to us. However, we feel that it is an important and necessary step that is consistent with our own assessment from our ground reports from India – which also confirm rising attacks on the media and the targeting of activists critical of the government. The recent arrest of Dr. Ambedkar’s grand son-in-law Dr. Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha on trumped up charges are a case in point.”

They further said, “The report is sure to elicit more than the usual push-back from the Modi government and its supporters. As one of the only Hindu-based organizations in the US ever to condemn the rising violence against India’s minorities, we sincerely hope that the government of India will refrain from ‘shooting the messenger.’ The time is now for the government to take immediate steps to condemn all religious incitement and punish those guilty of fomenting violence or subjecting the minorities to social boycotts.”

The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) welcomed the report as well. Ahsan Khan, President of IAMC said, “As a part of the Indian diaspora that only wishes well for the country of our birth, we view international criticism of India’s religious freedom record as distressing but painfully necessary, given the escalating level of persecution of minorities.” He added, “India being categorized as a top violator of religious freedoms while unfortunate, is expected and justified. We hope this report as well as recent concerns expressed by other countries, mark a turning point in the treatment of religious minorities as well as the caste oppressed in India.”

Meanwhile the Federation of Indian American Christian Organisations also released a statement saying, “The Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations (FIACONA) thanks the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) for recognizing the grave downward spiral of affairs in India despite India being a democratic nation.” Koshy George, President of FIACONA said, “I am worried that the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities continues even during the Coronavirus lockdown and I am very disappointed with Prime Minister Modi for not condemning such behaviour of his party cadre forcefully.”

Related:

Designate India as ‘Country of Particular Concern’, impose sanctions: USCIRF
Delhi Police have not intervened in attacks against Muslims: USCIRF
USCIRF raises concerns about CAB, seeks sanctions against Amit Shah

The post Minority groups, human rights organisations welcome USCIRF report on India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
On June 22, 2018, Arun Jaitley shared a post on his official Facebook account deriding People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and using military force to crush dissent.
 
“In the post titled ‘Who is threatening Human Rights,’ he said “Govt’s Kashmir policy not muscular, fidayeens can’t be dealt with satyagrah,” which is an attempt to justify the free hand given to the armed forces in Kashmir to take liberty with the life and liberty of the Kashmiris in a bid to fight the militants,” said Prabhakar Sinha, former President, National PUCL and Founding Member, PUCL since 1976, in a rejoinder to Jaitley, the current Finance and Corporate Minister.
 

Full text of rejoinder:

 
He justifies the use of unrestrained force even against a suspected terrorist who is not fighting but is just hiding. The article deals in detail with the author’s version of the attack on the human rights of the Kashmiris by the insurgents and concludes that the use of unrestrained force by the security forces is not ‘muscular ‘but the ‘rule of law’. Anticipating opposition from the rights organisations against human rights violations, he launches an attack on human rights organisations to erode their credibility and mislead the people. But the most deplorable part is his knowingly resorting to distortion and lies about the PUCL with which he had been associated for several years before he chose to pursue his political career. Referring to the PUCL, he writes:
 
“In the early 70s, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) was formed by constitutional liberals led by Shri Jai Prakash Narayan. This timed with the supersession of judges, the misuse of Preventive Detention law and the beginning of dynastic rule. Its relevance increased during the Emergency and immediately after. In 1977, the Janata Government headed by Morarji Desai reversed most of the autocratic steps which Indira Gandhi had taken and thereafter, the comfort level of the liberals on civil liberties increased. In the early 80s, the ultraleft seized the opportunity and started infiltrating into organisations like the PUCL and PUDR. The liberals got disillusioned with the Maoist takeover of the civil liberties movement. A few were too gullible to understand this”.
 
It is incredible that a lawyer of his stature would not consult records and verify facts before launching an attack on a reputed organisation with which he had been associated from its second birth in 1980. The only conclusion can be that he has deliberately resorted to the distortion of facts and lies to justify the human rights violations in Kashmir following the Modi government’s muscular policy and discredit the PUCL and other rights organisations.
 
To put the record straight, Jaitley’s distortions have to be contradicted and lies nailed with facts.
 
The PUCL was not formed in the early 70s but early 1980’s. Originally, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights (PUCL&DR) was founded by Jai Prakash Narayan in October 1976. A seminar was held on 17th October 1976, which was inaugurated by J.B. Kripalani. Mr. V.M. Tarkunde was elected President and Mr. Krishna Kant as its General Secretary.
 
The PUCL&DR was deliberately kept free from political ideologies so that people belonging to various political parties may come together on one platform for the defence of civil liberties and human rights. However, only seven months later the Emergency was lifted in March 1977 following Indira Gandhi’s defeat at the 1977 Parliamentary elections. Once the fear of Indira Gandhi disappeared, the members of the political parties lost interest in the PUCL &DR, and it became much less active.
 
It was Indira Gandhi’s return to power in 1980, which revived the fear of the opposition parties and also their interest in the revival of the PUCL&DR. A conference was held in November 1980 for the purpose. The 1980 Conference was attended by eminent persons from all walks of life and by the members of most political parties including the Congress. However, a section of the PUCL&DR was not willing to include the members of the RSS and did not join the conference. Thus, out of the PUCL&DR were born two organisations: the PUCL and the PUDR. The PUCL adopted its Constitution and elected V.M. Tarkunde as President and Arun Shourie as General Secretary.
 
Arun Jaitley, who was very closely associated with the formation of the PUCL, resorts to a downright lie when he alleges that in the early 80s the ultra-left infiltrated into the PUCL. The PUCL constitution adopted at the 1980 conference mandated that the PUCL should bring together all who were committed to the defence and promotion of civil liberties in India, regardless of their political ideology. Thus, the so-called ultra-left were not barred from joining the PUCL in their personal capacity if they signed the pledge that they ‘subscribed to the aims and objects of the organisation and agreed to abide by its constitution’. Where was the question of infiltrating when the door was kept open for all? In fact, the first item in the list of PUCL’s aims and objects provides that “the Peoples Union for Civil liberties will try to bring together all those who are committed to the defence and promotion of civil liberties in India irrespective of any differences they may have in regard to political and economic institution suitable for the country”.
 
There were two conditions for a person joining the PUCL. They must subscribe to its aims and objects and must abide by its constitution. The aims and objects of the PUCL confine themselves to the issues of civil liberties and democratic rights and strictly exclude political issues or political ideologies. Thus, the question of the PUCL promoting the interest of the left or ultra-left or any other political party does not arise. It is kept outside the ambit of its constitution. The PUCL is also committed to the use of peaceful means and the rule of law. Thus, it can neither support the use of violence nor armed struggle.
 
Keeping the distant future in mind, when some section of the organisation may try to change the character of the PUCL and exploit it to promote its interest, its Constitution provides that the criteria of membership and aims and objects of the PUCL cannot be amended.
 
All the liberals and the members of the political parties including Arun Jaitley, who joined the PUCL were fully aware of the constitution they had framed and adopted and were fully conscious that no person was an untouchable or an outcast for the PUCL, if the person subscribed to its aims and objects and pledged to abide by its Constitution.
 
The PUCL members, including the Naxals, also did not discriminate against members on the basis of their ideology. For example, Ravi Shankar Prasad, an ABVP member, was elected as a Secretary, Bihar PUCL in 1981 and held that post till 1988. He was elected as the General Secretary in 1988. He resigned from the post only after he joined the BJP, as the members of political parties are not eligible to hold an office in the PUCL. He eventually left the organisation later because he felt that the PUCL had not acted impartially when it did not send a Fact-Finding Team to Ayodhya following the police firing on Kar Sevaks in 1990 in which a large number were killed. While he remained in the PUCL, he enjoyed the members’ support on the basis of his performance. No other consideration influenced the members, including the Naxals.
 
The political elements (members of political parties) of the PUCL left the organisation only towards late 80’s when Indira Gandhi was dead, Rajiv on the backfoot and the prospect of coming to power looked promising. However, the veteran socialist leaders, Surendra Mohan and Karpoori Thakur remained with the PUCL till their end. George Fernandes, too, remained with the organisation, and the PUCL sent Observers’ team to monitor his elections for Lok Sabha from Banka (Bihar) in 1986 and Muzaffarpur in 1989. I remember to have met Yashwant Sinha, who was his election agent, at Banka (I was President, Bihar PUCL). A few others remained but the bulk went for a greener pasture. There were many others.
 
The fact is that the political elements left the PUCL when they came close to coming to power and later turned oppressors and violators of human rights and civil liberties when they became rulers. They could not remain in the PUCL in their new Avatar as an oppressor.
 
Jaitley has not referred to a single meeting of the PUCL where the question of the takeover by the Maoists was raised by the ‘liberals’ who allegedly left. In fact, there could be no question of a takeover by the Maoists in the early 80s as Jaitley alleges, because the CPI (Maoist) was formed only in 2004 with the merger of the People’s War Group, the Maoist Communist Centre and a few others.
 
A few liberals led by Cho Ramaswamy did part ways with the PUCL in Madras Convention of the PUCL in 1982, but the issue was entirely different. They were of the view that those who did not believe in the Indian Constitution and resorted to violent means, were not entitled to the protection of the Constitution and the law. The PUCL rejected this view. The Convention appealed to all to use the agencies and methods available in an open society but “affirmed that even those who have taken to violence are entitled to the due process of law. We believe that this commitment is the very faith of an open society and also that adhering to this commitment is an effective way of converting all to the democratic and peaceful way of transforming our society”.
 
The PUCL continues to disapprove of violence as a means of resolving political problems and issues, but holds that even those who resort to violence must be dealt with according to the law of the land. The rulers mislead the people into believing that the human rights organisations which stand for the protection of human rights of the alleged Maoists or terrorists are supporters of their ideologies or causes.
 
Arun Jaitley’s gullible liberals who remained with the PUCL till the end include V.M. Tarkunde, Rajindar Sachar, Rajani Kothari, Prof. Amrik Singh, H.M. Seervai, Asghar Ali Engineer, Nayantara Sehgal, Hemlata Prabhu, Aloo Dastoor, M.A.Rane , Baba Adhav , R.B. Mehrotra (Justice ), Dev Brat N Pathak, Yashpal Chhibbar, to name only a few. It is not easy to accept that they were so gullible and blind as Jaitley suggests.
 
Jaitley, an old PUCL member, is aware that the PUCL has been publishing a monthly bulletin since 1981, which publishes its stand on various issues. He does not support his allegations from our publications because he cannot find anything to substantiate his allegations.
 
His write up appears to be an attempt to discredit the PUCL and other rights organisations with a view to destroy their credibility and also to criminalise and victimise them if they oppose the human rights violations, inevitable under the so-called ‘muscular ‘approach. It is a case of giving a bad name to a dog if one has decided to shoot him.

Signed by- Prof. Prabhakar Sinha, Former President, PUCL

Released by- Ravi Kiran Jain, National President, PUCL, Dr. V Suresh, National Gen Secy, PUCL.
 

The post PUCL responds to Arun Jaitley’s jibes against human rights networks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCPalestine) have issued a Press Release yesterday:

More than 300 human rights and aid organisations, church groups, trade unions and political parties from across Europe have called on the EU to uphold its legal responsibilities and hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law and to defend the right of individuals and institutions to take part in the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for justice and equality.

Signatories to the letter called on the EU commission to “introduce the human rights guidelines guaranteeing freedom of speech and right to boycott and to use all other means you have in your disposal to support European citizens in their struggle to uphold basic human rights.”

Having failed to stop the growth of the BDS movement, Israel has launched an unprecedented attack against the BDS movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality.

The 354 strong list of signatories includes: Transform! Europe – a European network of 28 European organisations from 19 countries, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, The Norwegian United Federation of Trade Unions, Parti de Gauche in France, Podemos in Spain, Norwegian Church Aid, the Flemish branch of Oxfam in Belgium, major Belgian NGO coalition CNCD 11.11.11, Defence for Children in Belgium, Greenpeace in Germany, the international catholic peace movement Pax Christi International in Belgium and major French Catholic NGO Terre Solidaire. See here for letter and full list of signatories.

At Israel’s request, European governments including the UK and France are introducing anti-democratic legislation and taking other repressive measures to undermine the BDS movement. In France, one activist was arrested simply for wearing a BDS t-shirt.

The EU envoy to Israel was criticised recently for participating in an anti-BDS conference in Jerusalem at which Israeli government ministers threatened BDS activists.

Israel has also imposed an effective travel ban on BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti, following thinly-veiled threats of physical violence against him by Israeli government ministers that prompted Amnesty International to express concern “for the safety and liberty of Palestinian human rights defender Omar Barghouti”.

Israeli state repression against human rights defenders and the BDS movement is designed to shield it from being held accountable for its violations of international law. Israel has openly boasted that it is spying on international BDS activists.

Riya Hassan, Europe Campaigns Officer for the Palestinian BDS National Committee, the broadest coalition of Palestinian organisations that leads and supports the BDS movement, said:

“Rather than helping Israel to repress the BDS movement, it is time for the EU to meet its obligations under international law and hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. The EU must uphold the right of European, Palestinian and Israeli citizens to uphold human rights and take part in the nonviolent BDS movement.”

Aneta Jerska, the coordinator of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP), one of the organisations that has signed the statement, said:

“It is empowering to see so many European civil society organisations and representative bodies publicly declaring their support for the right to participate in the BDS movement that aims to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law and human rights.

“This is a powerful sign that European public opinion is increasingly viewing BDS as an act of free speech. We will continue to fight to bring an end to Israel’s unjust system of oppression over the Palestinian people.”
 

The post 354 pro-Palestine human rights and church groups, trade union and political parties mount pressure on EU appeared first on SabrangIndia.