Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for Civil Society

'NGOs are not anti-national just because they differ with government on some matters'

by

ngos

Here is the full text of the letter, which has been signed by members of civil society urging Narendra Modi to “review all orders placing restraints on organisations, and revoke such orders where due process has not been followed by the government, no redress mechanism is clearly stated, and grounds are vague, subjective or flimsy”.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

We write to you today as members and representatives of Indian civil society organizations and, most importantly as Indian citizens, to express our deep concern at how civil society organizations in general and their support systems, including donors, are being labeled and targeted.

Funds are being frozen, intelligence reports are being selectively released to paint NGOs in poor light, disbursal of funds are being subjected to case-by-case clearance, and their activities are reportedly being placed on ‘watch lists.’ As a result several NGO projects have shut down, donors are unable to support work, and there is an overall atmosphere of State coercion and intimidation in India’s civil society space.

Today, standing in solidarity with India’s most marginalized communities, with the NGO sector and donors who support us, affirmed by the guiding principles of our Constitution – justice, equality and liberty – we address you through an open letter.

As you are aware, NGOs work both in the welfare sector and in empowering people to be aware of and enforce their rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Such action may include questioning and protesting decisions taken by government in many areas. This work is both our right and our responsibility as civil society actors in a democratic nation. Indeed the Indian government acknowledged this. At the Universal Periodic Review of India at the UN Human Rights Council in 2012, the Government spoke of “…the Government’s active association with civil society and the increasing and important role that civil society and human rights defenders are playing in the area of human rights.’”Government of India further said that, “The media, civil society and other activists have helped the Government to be vigilant against transgressions.”

Many of us receive both Indian and foreign donations in compliance with laws and carry out activities intended to help those marginalized in India’s development. Many of us have partnered with Government, both at State and Central levels, towards many goals – achieving universal education, access to health care, women’s empowerment, and providing humanitarian relief in times of tragedy such as the recent earthquake. We have also worked in pilot projects – some over the years have been scaled up, and others have richly contributed to the policy framework of the Government of India. It should be a matter of pride for any government and a sign of robust people-centric engagement that NGOs and citizens have impacted State policy.

On other issues, your government and indeed previous governments may or may not agree with some of our views. These may include the issue of nuclear power plants, acquiring tribal and other lands, upholding Dalit rights, protecting rights of minorities against the scourge of communalism, protecting rights of sexual minorities, or campaigning for the universal right to food. Yet, we expect that Government protect our right to work and express our views.  It does not behoove the Government to label any and every conflicting voice on these issues as “anti-national”,”‘against national security” or “donor driven” and seek to create a public atmosphere that justifies “a crack down on NGOs.” These very words shame any society. “Watch lists” and “crack-downs” belong in another age and have no place in a modern democracy.

Your government has raised the issue that some NGOs may not have complied with the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, the law governing receipt of foreign donations in India. We state categorically that we stand fully for transparency and accountability in both government and NGO practice, and it is in fact civil society actors who have fought hard for these principles to be enshrined in all areas of public life. So let us constructively ensure transparency and legal compliance across the vast NGO sector, including societies, trusts and a range of public and private institutions. However, such efforts cannot be capricious, selective or based on flimsy grounds. At the moment it seems that ‘compliance’ is serving as a garb to actually target those organizations and individuals whose views the government disagrees with, and indeed to monitor and stifle disagreement itself.

There is irrefutable documentary evidence that State action against select organizations has been arbitrary, non-transparent, and without any course of administrative redress. The effect has been to harm important work being done by NGOs at the grassroots and send a signal of threat to civil society. Our concern includes the manner in which many Indian NGOs and  international partners have been targeted for different reasons. Thus, civil society organizations in India today find themselves in a situation where the only avenue of redress appears to be through the judiciary. Mr. Prime Minister, this kind of coercive domestic environment being created under your watch does not augur well for the worlds largest democracy that professes aspirations to being a global leader in promoting freedoms and democratic values.

Further, in an increasingly globalized world, where even business interests freely collaborate across national boundaries, to label any individual or NGO that engages with international forums or any donor who supports such NGOs, as “anti-national” is illogical. India is signatory to international conventions and treaties and seeks to adhere to the highest international standards of democracy, liberty, justice and human rights. The Government of India regularly reports at these forums. It is accepted practice that NGOs and civil society actors also present their views at these forums, often disagreeing with the views of their respective governments. Many of us, signatories to this letter, engage in active advocacy at international forums. This upholds the best traditions of global democratic debate, and the right to seek a more just nation and more just world. It is not anti-national to do so. We do not believe that any government can claim that it alone has the prerogative to define what is ‘national interest’. The citizens of this country, who elect the Government into power, are the ultimate stakeholders, and must be allowed to define, articulate and work towards their idea of ‘national interest’ too, whether or not it concurs with the views of the Government.

Mr. Prime Minister, it does your Government no credit to use its power to stifle the rights of individuals or NGOs to legally and freely associate, to work with communities, to receive donations to do such work, and to express their views on a range of issues that directly affect our country and its people. An atmosphere of hostility against civil society actors in a democracy, and the uncertainty and insecurity created among communities across the country, can only be to the detriment of our society and the Government.

We therefore ask the Government to:

1. Put an end to coercive actions against NGOs and donors, without reasonable cause or due process, or seek to cripple the ability of these organisations to carry on their legitimate and sanctioned work.

2. Urgently review all orders placing restraints on organizations, and revoke such orders where due process has not been followed by the government, no redress mechanism is clearly stated, and grounds are vague, subjective or flimsy. Those we are currently aware of include, among others, INSAF, Peoples Watch, Sabrang Trust, Greenpeace India, Ford Foundation, HIVOS and ICCO.

3. Initiate an immediate dialogue between the NGO sector and Government to address our concerns going forward. Amend the presently opaque FCRA rules and regulations; ensure complete clarity and transparency on provisions and processes, as well as forums and mechanisms of redress; remove all provisions that are amenable to subjective interpretation; ensure their uniform application to all NGOs, trusts, foundations, and societies.

We look forward to your response and action on these vital issues of national interest.

Maputo Declaration of African Civil Society on Climate Justice

by

Climate Justice

Climate justice advocates, community peoples and mass movements’ representatives met in Maputo, Mozambique from 21-23 April 2015 to consider the roots, manifestations and impacts of climate change on Africa and to consider needed responses to the crises.

At the end of the deliberations it was agreed that Africa is disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis although she has not significantly contributed to the problem. The conference also noted that the climate crisis is systemic in nature and is a result of defective economic and political systems that require urgent overhaul. In particular, the meeting considered that Africa has been massively plundered over the centuries and continues to suffer severe impacts from resource exploitation and related conflicts.

The meeting noted that the Africa Rising narrative is based on the faulty premises of neoliberalism using tools like discredited measures of GDP and is presented as a bait to draw the continent deeper into extractivism and to promote consumerism.

The meeting further noted human and environmental rights abuses on the continent, as well as the ecological, economic, financial crises, all adversely affect her peoples and impair their capacity to adapt to, mitigate impacts and build collective resilience to climate change.

The meeting frowned at the widening gap between our governments and the grassroots and the increasing corporate capture of African governments and public institutions. These constitute obstacles to the securing climate justice for our peoples.

The long walk to climate justice requires mass education of our populace, as well as our policy makers, on the underpinnings of the climate crisis, the vigorous assertion of our rights and the forging ahead with real alternatives including those of social and political structures and systems. It also demands collective and popular struggles to resist neo-colonialism, new forms of oppression and new manifestations of violence including criminalisation of activists and social movements, and xenophobia. We recognise that as climate change worsens, it will increase the resource crunch and migrations and will lead to more conflicts between people. We also recognise that the exploitation of migrant labour by corporations often leads to conflicts between neighbouring countries.

With justice and equality as the irreducible minimum, the conference further noted and declared as follows:

  1. All nations must act together to ensure that global average temperature rise does not go beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as anything beyond that will mean a burning of Africa.
  1. In Paris COP21, we demand that African governments defend positions that benefit Africans not the World Bank or corporations.
  1. We reject carbon markets, financialisation of land and natural resources, consumerism and commodification of nature, and all forms of carbon slavery.
  1. We reject all false solutions to climate change including, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), industrial tree plantations, genetic engineering, agrofuels and geoengineering, noting, for example, that clean coal does not exist.
  1. We reject the false notion of “green economy” that is nothing but a ploy to commodify and hasten the destruction of nature.
  1. Renewable energy that is socially controlled must be promoted across the continent.
  1. We call for the creation of financial systems that promote and facilitate clean energy options including by supporting subsidies, facilitated loans, research and development.
  1. We demand an end to financial systems built on extensive subsidies, externalisation of costs, over-optimistic projections, and corruption.
  1. We resolve to work towards reclaiming energy as a public good that is not for profit and reject corporations-driven energy systems.
  1. We say no to mining as we lived better without extreme extractive activities.
  1. Our land is our present and our future livelihood and we reject land grabbing in all its forms including particularly for so-called “investment” projects that are setting the path beyond land grabbing to a full continent grab.
  1. There must be full, transparent and prior informed consent of communities before the use of their lands for any sort of projects.
  1. In all cases the welfare of local communities and our environment must come be prioritised over the profits of investment companies.

In line with the above and through other considerations, the conference demands as follows:

  1. Governments must ensure that the energy needs and priorities of local households, local producers and women – including with regard to social services, transport, health, education and childcare – should be privileged over those of corporations and the rich.
  1. We demand that no new oil exploration permits or coal mines should be granted in order to preserve our environment and to keep in line with demands by science that fossil fuels be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.
  1. We call for and support public and social control of the transition to renewable energy, including by community-based cooperatives, civil society collectives and the provision of local level infrastructure.
  1. Governments must dismantle the barriers of privilege and power including those created and reinforced by financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
  1. We demand urgent technology transfer for clean energy production, the abolishment of intellectual property and increased research and development funds to tackle climate change.
  1. We demand full recognition of local community knowledge of forests, food production, medicinal and cultural uses of land and forests; funding of research in this area and use as part of the public education system.
  1. We demand an urgent transition from dirty energy forms to clean energy systems while ensuring that workers are properly equipped and provided with new healthy jobs created by this shift.
  1. Governments must support agro-ecological food production in the hands of small scale producers, prioritise food production over cash crops in order to promote food security in the context of food sovereignty.
  1. Governments to ensure the protection and recognition of farmers’ rights to save, sell and exchange their seeds while rejecting genetic engineering and synthetic biology, including of those seeds manipulated and presented as being climate smart.
  1. Ensure access, security, control, and right to use land for women. We recognise land as a common good.
  1. Tree plantations must not be misrepresented as forests and trees must not be seen simply as carbon stocks, sinks or banks.
  1. Community forest management systems should be adopted across the continent as communities have a genuine stake in preserving the health of forests.
  1. The right to clean water should be enshrined in the constitutions of all African countries.
  1. Governments must halt the privatisation of water and restore public control in already privatised ones.
  1. Governments should halt the building of big dams, other mega structures and unnecessary infrastructure.
  1. Governments should be responsible for holding corporations accountable for all environments degraded by ongoing or historical extractive and other polluting activities. Corporations who have created this contamination must pay to clean it up, but their payment does not constitute ownership of these environments.
  1. Governments to ensure the cost of social and health ills by using energy derived from fossil fuels are not externalised to the people and the environment.
  1. Governments must take up the responsibility of providing hospitals, schools and other social services and not leave these for corporations to provide as corporate social responsibility or other green washing acts.

Conference participants resolved to work with other movements in Africa and globally for the overturning of the capitalist patriarchal system promoted and protected by the global financial institutions, corporations and the global elite to secure the survival of humans and the rights of Mother Earth to maintain her natural cycles.

Signed by: All the civil society organisations, representatives of social movements and communities from Mozambique and southern Africa, and students present at the meeting.

Merely expressing dissent is not anti-national: 180 activists defend Greenpeace in letter to Rajnath

by

greenpeace

Here is the full text of their letter:

“The move by the central government to freeze Greenpeace India’s bank accounts and block sources of funds, is a blatant violation of the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association. It also seems to be an attempt to warn civil society that dissent regarding development policies and priorities will not be tolerated, even when these are proving to be ecologically unsustainable and socially unjust. These are dangerous signs for the future of democracy in India.

Specific allegations of legal violation contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ notice are aspects Greenpeace India needs to respond to. However, the notice also charges the organisation with adversely affecting ‘public interest’ and the ‘economic interest of the State’. These charges give the impression that Greenpeace India is indulging in anti-national activities, using foreign funds. However, dissenting from the government’s development policies, helping communities who are going to be displaced by these policies to mobilise themselves, and generating public opinion for the protection of the environment can by no stretch of imagination be considered anti-national, or against public interest. Quite the contrary, any reasonable policy of sustainable development (which the government claims to adhere to) will itself put into question quite a few of the mining, power, and other projects currently being promoted.

Civil society organisations in India have a long and credible history of standing up for social justice, ecological sustainability, and the rights of the poor. When certain government policies threaten these causes, civil society has a justified ground to resist, and help affected communities fight for their rights. This is in fact part of the fundamental duties enjoined upon citizens by the Constitution of India.

In two recent court judgments involving previous attempts by the government to muzzle Greenpeace India, the democratic principle of dissent has been upheld. In January 2015, the Delhi High Court observed: ‘Non-Governmental Organizations often take positions, which are contrary to the policies formulated by the Government of the day. That by itself…cannot be used to portray petitioner’s action as being detrimental to national interest.’ In March, the Delhi High court observed that ‘contrarian views held by a section of people…cannot be used to describe such section or class of people as anti-national.’ The court also observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that Greenpeace India’s activities ‘have the potentiality of degrading the economic interest of the country’.

It is shocking that despite these clear judicial pronouncements, the government has for a third time acted against Greenpeace India. We cannot but conclude that this is an attempt to divert attention from the serious issues that Greenpeace India and many peoples’ movements and NGOs are raising, regarding the need to respect the rights of adivasis and others who depend on the forests, wetlands, coastal areas, and other ecosystems, and the need to move towards policies that are ecologically sustainable and do not cause further climate change. Large-scale mining, such as in the areas that peoples’ movements are active, are a threat to forests and other natural ecosystems, to communities that depend on them including tribal peoples. These and other issues are highlighted by organisations such as Greenpeace India, which also generate significant information on the environment, crucial for taking the right decisions regarding sustainable well-being.

It is also shocking that while alleging violations regarding FCRA, the government ordered the blocking of even those accounts where Greenpeace India uses its domestic funding (and it is relevant here to note that the majority of its funds according to its audited accounts are from thousands of Indian individuals). It has even blocked its online donation facility.

The government should immediately take back these illegitimate, unfair, and repressive moves, and provide  Greenpeace India a fair opportunity to respond. More generally, it must respect the freedom of speech that all Indian citizens have a constitutional right to, including the right to dissent, upheld by court judgments. The government’s attempts to browbeat civil society will not make the issues of social and environmental injustice disappear. We assert that long as these issues remain unresolved, civil society actors will continue to do all that is necessary towards a just and sustainable society.”

5-Star activism, too, is democracy. If we deny it, we may be in for a new totalitarianism

by

totalitarianism-modi

by T J S George

Forget the beef ban and the Good Friday controversy in the Supreme Court. More important is the fact that we seem to have reached a stage where we cannot debate issues like water and air pollution, forests and wildlife, the death of rivers and the enormity of pesticide abuse that is killing citizens in tens of thousands. We cannot discuss them because discussion means criticism as well—and we have a new India where criticism is considered “anti-development”.

Which Indian in his senses would want to be anti-development? The question, therefore, is about the nature of development and what we mean by that term. Is it development to cut down mountain ranges in the Western Ghats for putting up industrial plants? Is it development to take tribal lands away without giving the tribals either a say in the matter or meaningful rehabilitation plans? Is it development to have in India 13 of the world’s most polluted 20 cities, with New Delhi ranking as the most polluted city in the world (WHO report, 2014)? Is it anti-development to raise such issues, engage in debate, even criticise official policies?

There are frauds in this field. There are also many dedicated organisations doing good work, especially on issues related to development without destruction. The Development Alternatives Group, the India Development Alternatives Foundation, Environment Support Group and the Centre for Development Alternatives are examples of organisations engaged in the vital task of discussing and researching different types of development paradigms. There are other organisations such as Greenpeace that campaign aggressively for environment protection. Their activism does not mean that they are a danger to India; they are a warning to those whose blinkered view of development is a danger to India.

Actually, the kind of development-for-the-sake-of-development philosophy adopted by the Narendra Modi government has attracted criticism from within the Sangh Parivar itself. No one will question either the integrity or the nationalistic credentials of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. What makes it different from other Parivar followers is its intellectual honesty. It has openly questioned the Modi government’s position on foreign investment, especially in e-commerce, insurance and defence. It criticised the Modi-Jaitley budget as “pro-corporate” and the government’s “hazardous flirtation with US” on subjects such as intellectual property rights. Certainly the Prime Minister would not dare include the Jagran Manch in his list of “five-star activists?” There are large segments of independent citizens who agree with the Jagran Manch’s views even when they have no truck with the Parivar line of thinking. They are not “five-star liberals” or “pseudo-seculars”; they are just Indians who care for India.

In our system, unfortunately, the value of opposition is diminished because opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing; the BJP did the same when not in power. But there are legitimate organisations, groups and individuals who criticise one government policy or another out of conviction and concern for the country. Maligning them would be a sign of intolerance at worst, of confusion at best. Our government seems to have developed some sort of difficulty in separating what is good for all from what is good for a few. Perhaps this is related to its apparent inability to distinguish between rhetoric and governance, between election campaign mode and performance mode. So it ends up doing things it should not be doing, like robbing the Peter of agricultural India to pay the Paul of industrial India. Farmers greet this policy the only way they know—by committing suicide. Even then, the foreign investor, earnestly wooed to make in India, is in no hurry. Something is amiss.

We have only two alternatives. Either listen to the advice of our ancient rishis or succumb to the warning of modern rishis. The first course was spelt out in Arthashastra which specified punishments for those who destroyed nature: “For cutting the tender sprouts of fruit trees and shade trees, a fine of six panas. For cutting the minor branches of the same trees, 12 panas, and for cutting the big branches, 24 panas.”

If we fail to heed that advice, what awaits us is what a modern rishi, Aldous Huxley, predicted in his Brave New World as far back as 1958. “By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms —elections, parliaments, supreme courts and all the rest will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.”

Let no one say we had no choice.

This article first appeared in the The New Indian Express.

Stop harassment of social activists

by

Arun Ferreira

On 1 September 2014, officials of ATS, Pune arrested two social activists viz. Arun Bhelake and Kanchan Nanavare as suspected naxalites in Pune. They were given third degree treatment and made to issue a statement.

This statement, according to civil rights groups and social activists, was used by ATS to “implicate other progressive social activists in this alleged arrest case.” And based on this statements, the activists say, the Bharatiya Republican Paksha Bahujan Mahasangha’s Govandi Corporator Hon. Shri. Arun Kamble, Republican Panther’s Jaatiant Movement’s State President Sharad Gaikwad, Rahul Seva Mandal’s President Shankar Patil, Kabir Kalamach’s Rupali Jadhav from Pune and mass movement’s key members from Pune are being summoned to the ATS office in Pune for “enquiry”.

“They are made to sit at the office for the entire day after which their statements are recorded. They are being called to the ATS office multiple times for interrogation and the same questions are repeated, again and again. While a person is expected to cooperate with the authorities for an enquiry for a legitimate case, but ordering them to come to Pune every now and then, under the pretext of enquiry and making them confess as per incorrect statements under coercion can be considered as mental harassment of activists in Maharashtra.”

“These activists are being asked to disclose name, address and contact details of other members from the above mentioned organisations. Some of persons are names who are not even remotely connected with this case nor have any summons been issued or pending against them. This act of ATS is an attempt to intimidate the members of these organisations and members of civil society.”

Harassment of Sudhir Dhawale

“On 15 May 2014, after 40 months, Gondia Session Court acquitted Sudhir Dhawale, the Editor of Vidrohi (a bimonthly magazine) and member of Republic Panthers, however, the police continues to harass him. On the 28 September, the police entered his Govandi residence and conducted a search without any warrant nor summons. After which they interrogated him. The police bundled him into a van and escorted him to Deonar police station; they confiscated his mobile phone. After which Dhawale was made to give a written statement and mentally harassed him.”

“This constant harassment of members of these organisations and senior social activists by the police, under the pretext of alleged enquiry must be vehemently protested by all progressive thinkers, intellectuals, artists and social organisations,” say the activists.

“Elections are conducted regularly, and our votes are meant to change governments. This gives us the illusion of a democratic country. However, we can see an invisible emergency-like situation which is prevalent. It is an absurd situation where our country’s Constitution confers the freedom of expression on us but the reality is, there is suppression of expression. Not just that citizens are systematically harassed by the police for adhering to a particular ideology.”

The undersigned activists have demanded that the:

  • Definition of Terrorism should be clarified post 9/11
  • Intimidation of social activists by the police should cease, immediately
  • Mental harassment of members must be stopped, immediately
  • We must have the right to raise our voice against anti-democratic elements

Signed by:

Retired Supreme Court Judge Hon. Shri P B Savant, Retired Bombay High Court Judge Hon. Shri B G Kolse Patil, Former Home State Minister Bhai Vaidya, Prof N D Patil, Senior Leader, Prof. Pushpa Bhave, Writer, Hon. Shri. Balasaheb aka Prakash Ambedkar, Prof. Anand Teltumbade, Writer, Com.Govind Pansare, CPI-Leader, Ramu Ramanathan, Playwright, J V Pawar, Writer, Urmila Pawar, Writer, Jatin Desai, Journalist, Hon. Shri .Suresh Hosbet (Retired Bombay High Court Judge), Suresh Khopade, Ex-Police Officer, Bri. Sudhir Sawant, Usha Umbhore, Shahir Sambhaji Bhagat, Sushama Deshpande, Theatre practitioner, Sumedh Jadhav, Social Activist, Teesta Setalvad, Human Rights Activist, Sudhanva Deshpande, Actor, Manisha Gupte, Prof. Ramesh Kamble, Mumbai University, Medha Patkar, Leader, NAPM.

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives