Home Blog Page 20

From pellet guns, lathicharge, to media intimidation, everything dubbed wrong during Delhi’s CJP protest becomes ‘normal’ during Jharkhand student protest: The Left-Liberal hypocrisy

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
From pellet guns, lathicharge, to media intimidation, everything dubbed wrong during Delhi’s CJP protest becomes ‘normal’ during Jharkhand student protest: The Left-Liberal hypocrisy

Thousands of students are taking a “Vidhan Sabha Gherao” march to the Jharkhand state assembly in Ranchi on 10th August. The students are protesting against irregularities in various recruitment exams. As the student protest intensifies in Jharkhand, the Ranchi Police has said that it will use pellet guns against student protestors in case of “emergency”.

Ranchi City SP Paras Rana told the media that a large police force has been deployed as a precautionary measure and said that the protestors will not face inconvenience. However, if anyone resorts to violence, appropriate legal action will be taken.

“There will be a large number of students. Instructions have been issued to all Ranchi Police personnel that if the protesters conduct themselves peacefully, no inconvenience will be caused to anyone. However, if anyone attempts to resort to violence, appropriate legal action will be taken against them,” he said.

In a response to the question about a viral video wherein police personnel were seen carrying pellet guns as a weapon, SP Rana said that it was not a pellet gun but a paintball gun used to throw colored balls to mark and identify troublemakers. However, the officer said that pellet guns are being carried strictly for use during emergency situations.

“If a pellet gun is being carried, it is strictly for emergency situations. Regarding the viral video—what is being mistaken for a pellet gun is actually a paintball gun; it fires soft, colored balls used to mark and identify troublemakers. It is not a pellet gun,” the officer added.

Notably, pellet guns are 12-bore pump-action shotguns that fire cartridges loaded with pellets. Pellet guns are classified as less-lethal or non-lethal crowd-control equipment. These are a part of the standard equipment of specialised riot-control units.

Interestingly, the reaction of the Left-Liberal cabal to the apathy of the Jharkhand Mukta Morcha and Congress alliance Government towards the weeks-long students’ protest stands in sharp contrast to their fury during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in Delhi in July.

Anti-BJP cabal that villainised Delhi Police over rumours of pellet guns use against protestors during CJP protests goes silent during Jharkhand student protest

Not too long ago, when the CJP protests turned violent during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on 20th July, the Delhi Police was forced to respond with lathicharge and other strict measures.

The Left-Liberal cabal had claimed that the Delhi Police used pellet guns against innocent protesting students, although the march was replete with supporters of anti-BJP political parties.

From Congress, Samajwadi Party and other INDI Alliance parties, to their ideological supporters, all of them vilified the Delhi Police over alleged use of pellet guns when the 20th July protest turned violent.

Back then, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das had claimed that Delhi Police had used pellet guns against “peaceful protesters”. He shared a video showing marks on a protester’s body.

The villainization of the Delhi Police continued despite them publicly denying the use of pellet guns on peaceful protesters. The Delhi Police said, “Claims of pellet guns being used against peaceful protesters by Delhi Police on Monday are completely false and misleading. Delhi Police neither possesses pellet guns nor were they used during the ongoing protest. The public is requested not to share or circulate any unverified or misleading information.”

The CJP supporters had even attempted to mob lynch Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel and circulated their videos and pictures online for identification and later targeting. The anti-BJP cabal framed the police response to CJP protestors pelting stones at police personnel as ‘state repression’ of students, their right to protest, crushing of dissent by brute force and whatnot.

However, the same cabal has gone completely silent over the Ranchi Police’s admission of readiness to use pellet guns on student protests during ‘emergency’ in the Congress-JMM alliance-ruled Jharkhand.

Apparently, pellet guns are bad only when the police use them against protestors in BJP-ruled states. Even the leftist media has no problem with the Ranchi Police carrying pellet guns for ‘emergency’ use. Their maximal response to ‘crackdown on peaceful dissent’ is reserved only for the BJP governments.

While the Delhi Police has denied pellet guns use, the official SOPs and Supreme Court observations allow their use in exceptional circumstances after other softer measures. However, when the police in non-BJP states openly boast readiness to use the same pellet guns to suppress the protests if it turns violent, the same left-liberal ecosystem largely remains silent. Even the Delhi Police had not resorted to strict measures for fun.

The CJP protest continued for over a month, and the police did not forcefully remove even a single ‘cockroach’ from Jantar Mantar; even climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on indefinite hunger strike, was shifted to a hospital only on the court’s order. It was only when the protest turned violent on 20th July that the Delhi Police and RAF acted in accordance with the SOP, and did a lathicharge against violent CJP protestors, essentially in a proportionate emergency.

However, given the political utility of the so-called ‘excesses’ by the Delhi Police during the CJP protest, the Congress-led Opposition has continued protests outside Parliament. It is not letting the House function properly until Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the issue. It’s been more than three weeks since the CJP protests were called off, and yet the domestic and foreign Leftist media continues to frame the Delhi Police-CJP episode as ‘brutal suppression of peaceful dissent’. Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court to seek a ban or stricter SOPs on the use of pellet guns.

Everything wrong during CJP protest became right during Jharkhand student protest: The Liberal hypocrisy

Collectively, the same left-liberal cabal that has stayed quiet on Jharkhand student protests is still devoted to portraying the Delhi Police’s response to CJP’s violent protests as emblematic of fear-driven authoritarian overreach by the BJP-led Central government.

Now, when the JMM-Congress-led administration in Jharkhand has unleashed lathis and water cannons and even expressed readiness to use pellet guns against students protesting against corruption in JPSC and JSSC, all the opposition parties and their media lackeys have turned a blind eye.

This is not only about the use of pellet guns; the liberal cabal has maintained a hypocritical silence over the Jharkhand student protests. Even their limited commentary is performative, just as CJP’s support to Jharkhand student protestors was. Clearly, the anti-BJP ecosystem delivers moral lectures on democracy, dissent, and constitutional rights, etc, only when the BJP leads the ruling dispensation.

Jharkhand Police have put up barbed wire, have lathi-charged students in Ranchi, police personnel are carrying pellet guns, and even intimidated journalists, including Aman Chopra and OpIndia’s Keshav Malan, that too when the students are peacefully protesting while the liberals were accusing the Central government of police action against the CJP mob that indulged in stone pelting.

On 9th August, an OpIndia reporter was removed by Jharkhand Police after questioning CM Hemant Soren about JPSC reforms. The police also stopped him from going near the stage where CM Soren was seated during an event just a few kilometres away from the protest site.

Journalist Aman Chopra has been booked for covering student protests in Jharkhand. He was detained and questioned by the police. Chopra has said that he has been restricted from covering the ongoing protest in Ranchi.

Apparently, democracy and press freedom come under threat, rather collapse in real or in rhetoric, only when the ruling dispensation is helmed by the BJP. In contrast to the police action against journalists in Ranchi, Delhi Police did not book any media person in connection with the CJP protests despite there being a section of leftist reporters on the ground peddling sheer disinformation.

In fact, neutral reporters were labelled ‘Godi media’ and heckled by CJP protestors, and the same degeneracy was celebrated online by leftists. As per the liberal logic, when non-BJP governments use pellet guns, book and intimidate journalists, peaceful students are lathi-charged, and the sitting chief minister dodges accountability, it is all for the ‘greater good’ of maintaining law and order

The human cost of India’s paper leak crisis

Raju Das
-
0
The human cost of India’s paper leak crisis

Paper leaks have become a recurring national crisis that strikes at the heart of Indian meritocracy, even as protests over the cancelled NEET-UG 2026 examination begin to fade. While medical aspirants have moved on to counselling after the re-test, agitation continues in Jharkhand over recruitment exams and in Punjab over cheating scandals, showing that compromised public tests have become a stubborn affliction.

The human cost falls hardest on middle-class and lower-middle-class families. For them, education is often the single largest investment of a lifetime. Parents sell jewellery, take loans and spend ₹1–3.5 lakh a year on coaching in places such as Kota and Sikar, treating competitive exams as the only reliable path to social mobility. A leak shreds that unwritten contract. Years of dawn-to-dusk study and family sacrifice are rendered worthless when better-connected candidates buy the questions. Affluent families can fall back on foreign education or private-college quotas; ordinary families cannot. Delays, re-tests and extra years of coaching push many into deeper debt, and despair has in some cases led to suicide.

The problem is long-standing. From the cancelled AIPMT of 2015 through SSC, CBSE and state recruitment scandals, organised networks of middlemen, coaching intermediaries and solver gangs have exploited every weak link. Convictions of senior organisers remain rare.

NEET-UG is uniquely vulnerable. More than two million candidates compete for about 1.1 lakh medical seats, many of them low-fee government places that can change a family’s fortunes for a generation. The pen-and-paper model remains a logistical nightmare. Papers travel from setting and translation through printing, packing, long-distance transport and storage in vaults or school strong rooms. NTA’s thin permanent staff and heavy outsourcing fragment accountability. Encrypted apps then spread a leaked paper nationwide in minutes.

The government has responded with the Public Examinations Act 2024, a 2026 amendment that raised penalties and imposed fast-track timelines, the Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations for encrypted just-in-time printing and secure centres, and a new Nilekani task force. Lasting reform requires shortening the physical chain of custody, insulating paper-setters from coaching networks, regulating the coaching industry, and expanding affordable medical seats so that a single exam is no longer a life-changing lottery worth the crime. Until then, every leak will continue to cancel not just an examination but years of honest sacrifice.

You can read the full article on Chapter 1 Magazine.

For the left ecosystem, rape now ‘exists on a spectrum’ and rapists need care: Read why this should worry women and children

Aditi
-
0
For the left ecosystem, rape now ‘exists on a spectrum’ and rapists need care: Read why this should worry women and children

An Indian-origin transgender, non-binary Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for the Edinburgh and Lothians East region, Q Manivannan, is facing huge backlash after he called a heinous crime like rape ” existing on a spectrum”. Manivannan, who was elected to the Scottish Parliament in May, made the controversial remarks about rape during an episode of The Subjective Space, a podcast hosted by Dr Sindhu Rajasekaran. The episode was recorded in February last year, a clip from which went viral, attracting widespread criticism and stirring a debate.

During the podcast, which was titled “On care, grief and words”, Manivannan argued against “demonisation of rape” and advocated for expressing care towards rapists. He began by explaining how, in his opinion, a rapist should not be viewed through a stereotypical lens as “a monster rapist” and that anyone, including a person like himself, was capable of committing rape. He further claimed that such extreme portrayals of rapists take the attention away from the discussion on why such crimes happen.

“I think this idea that the rapist is the ‘big burly man’ is not necessarily unfounded, because that’s the individual I’m most scared of on a day-to-day basis, but it’s also an entity that is misconstrued simply because I think any individual is capable of it: including yourself (podcast host Dr Rajasekaran) and me,” the MSP said.

He claimed that an offence like rape is just a question of “circumstances” that lead a person to such an act. And, therefore, perpetrators of crimes like rape also deserve sufficient care. Manivannan believes that it is the act of rape which should be condemned and not the person who commits it because, according to him, rape exists on a spectrum, and no act on the spectrum is “less or more worse”.

After his insensitive remarks drew widespread criticism, Manivannan defended himself by claiming that his words were taken out of context and misconstrued.

Manivannan’s statement, initially, appears to be a sophisticated observation about a crime like rape. But a closer look unravels the underlying attempt at blurring the lines between traditional categories of a victim and a perpetrator. His statement reflects an insidious effort at interchanging empathy and the burden of proof between the victim and the perpetrator. This is a classic manoeuvre of the subscribers and propagators of the leftist and trans ideologies, aimed at creating a society that runs on the whims of individuals rather than on the foundation of justice and morality.

Their distorted worldview, emerging from their sense of insecurity and victimhood, is focused on eliminating the distinctions between a victim and a perpetrator, a man and a woman, and even a right and a wrong. The worldview prioritises feelings over facts, emotions over biology and subjective opinions over reality. In this worldview, a person with a penis can be a woman, and an individual with a uterus can be a man; a child can be adult enough to be sexualised, and a criminal could be a victim if he/she identifies as one.

The blurring of foundational categories of a society is a classic trait of the identitarian left, of which the trans ideology is a sub-part. The ideology treats all categorical boundaries such as man-woman, adult-child and even victim-perpetrator as an artificial construct imposed by a repressive society. The goal is to break free from all societal moulds and be guided by emotions instead of sanity and reason.

The underlying principle of the ideology is that self-determination trumps observable reality. Manivannan applies the same principle to a crime like rape, where a rapist could be a self-determined victim of his circumstances.

The subscribers of this ideology want to convince the entire society that womanhood is an emotional state and not a biological fact. Its dangerous implications became visible in the West, where biological males identifying as ‘women’ competed with biological females in various sports and won medals. After decades of struggle, women were able to create spaces for themselves in areas traditionally dominated by men. But with the growing influence of trans ideology, these spaces are being threatened by a self-determined class of victims.

With the increasing appeal of these distorted ideologies, one wonders how feasible it is to give birth to and raise children among people who normalise paedophilia and justify sexual crimes against children by blurring the lines between the victim and the perpetrator? The troubling impact of this ideology is that the costs are borne by women and children. Removing basic safeguards that protect privacy and bodily autonomy leaves women and children vulnerable. This is a striking contrast to the ideology’s purported aim of protecting and empowering the weaker and marginalised sections of society.

As Modi govt cracks down on illegal foreign funding through FCRA Amendment Bill, read about 13 organisations whose licences were cancelled

Shriti Sagar
-
0
As Modi govt cracks down on illegal foreign funding through FCRA Amendment Bill, read about 13 organisations whose licences were cancelled

The proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, has brought the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA, back into focus. The proposed changes aim to strengthen transparency and accountability in the way foreign donations are received and used in India. The need for such a law becomes clearer when cases of misuse of foreign contributions, diversion of funds and activities beyond the declared objectives of organisations come to light.

Foreign funding plays an important role in India. Thousands of organisations receive money from overseas for healthcare, education, disaster relief, scientific research, environmental protection and other social work. Such international cooperation can provide much-needed resources to communities. However, foreign contributions also involve money moving across national borders, making transparency and financial oversight important.

The FCRA is the legal framework that regulates how Indian individuals, associations, NGOs, trusts and other eligible organisations receive and use foreign contributions. It is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The law does not prohibit foreign donations. Instead, it lays down conditions for receiving, using and reporting such funds.

The proposed FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026, therefore seeks to further strengthen a system that is based on transparency and accountability. While thousands of organisations continue to use foreign contributions for legitimate charitable purposes, investigations into some organisations have raised questions about whether foreign funds were being used for purposes other than those for which they were received.

Why did the Modi government suspend or cancel FCRA licences of 13 organisations?

Over the years, the government has taken action against several organisations after investigations or inspections raised allegations of financial irregularities, misuse of foreign contributions, violation of FCRA rules or activities beyond their declared objectives. The following cases show why the government argues that stronger monitoring of foreign-funded organisations is necessary.

  1. Satat Sampada Pvt Ltd

One of the recent cases concerns Delhi-NCR-based environmental and climate organisation Satat Sampada Pvt Ltd, whose FCRA licence was revoked in January 2026.

The Enforcement Directorate conducted searches at the organisation’s office premises, a business store and two residences in Delhi and Ghaziabad under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). According to official sources cited in reports, the agency was investigating the end use of foreign exchange received by the organisation from offshore NGOs and other groups.

The funds were received in the name of consultancy charges. Investigators were examining whether the foreign money was ultimately being used to influence government policies. The allegations are significant because foreign contributions are required to be used for the purposes permitted under the law and properly accounted for.

The case also highlights the wider concern around foreign-funded organisations working in sensitive policy areas such as climate, environment and development. The issue is not whether an organisation can work on such subjects, but whether foreign funds received for one purpose are being used transparently and within the limits of Indian law.

2. Advantage India and diversion of funds

Another major case involves Advantage India, a non-profit organisation associated with corporate lobbyist Deepak Talwar. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against Talwar and the organisation for violations of the FCRA.

According to the CBI, Advantage India received around ₹90.72 crore in foreign contributions between 2012 and 2016. The organisation also received donations from defence companies Airbus and MBDA.

The investigation revealed that foreign contributions meant for non-profit activities were diverted towards personal and business activities. One example cited by the investigation was foreign travel expenses of Talwar. The organisation spent ₹30.37 lakh between May 2015 and January 2016 on his foreign travel.

Investigators also said that Advantage India used its fixed deposits as security for overdraft facilities obtained by Wave Impex, a company controlled by Talwar and his family. The money was subsequently used for business operations.

Another allegation concerned medical camps. The organisation reportedly showed bills claiming that medicines worth ₹26.97 crore had been purchased from Aastha Pharma and Hind Pharma. However, the two entities told investigators that they had not dealt with the association.

The CBI also pointed that that Advantage India operated from Talwar’s premises and paid him ₹80 lakh as rent between 2012 and 2015. The agency considered this another instance of foreign contributions being used for personal benefit.

3. Operation Mobilisation India

The Operation Mobilisation (OM) India group of charities also faced allegations involving foreign contributions. The Economic Offences Wing of the Telangana Crime Investigation Department froze 26 bank accounts belonging to seven related charity organisations associated with the group.

The investigation followed a complaint by Albert Lael, a former Chief Finance Officer of OM India’s group of charities. A criminal case was registered against Christian evangelist Joseph D’Souza, his son Josh D’Souza and others.

According to the allegations, the organisations received large amounts of foreign donations for charitable activities. Investigators found that some of the money was placed in fixed deposits and subsequently diverted or misappropriated.

The freezing of the bank accounts was intended to prevent further movement of funds while the investigation continued. The authorities were also examining possible violations of the FCRA.

4. New Hope Foundation

The Home Ministry cancelled the FCRA registrations of two Christian evangelist organisations, New Hope Foundation in Tamil Nadu and Holy Spirit Ministries in Karnataka, over violations of the FCRA.

Both organisations had received foreign funding from Gospel For Asia and related entities. New Hope Foundation received more than ₹42 crore in foreign contributions between 2017-18 and 2019-20, while Holy Spirit Ministries received more than ₹49 crore during the same period.

The case came against the backdrop of earlier action against Gospel For Asia’s Indian arm and affiliates over FCRA violations. The foreign donors associated with the organisations included entities based in the US, Canada, South Africa and Finland.

The case raised questions about how large foreign contributions received by religious and charitable organisations were being utilised and whether the funds remained within the activities declared to the authorities.

5. India Rural Evangelical Fellowship

In August 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs suspended the FCRA licence of the India Rural Evangelical Fellowship (IREF), an Andhra Pradesh-based church-linked organisation.

According to the allegations cited in the reference material, IREF received around ₹28.6 crore from its US and UK branches between 2019 and 2024. Investigators revealed that money meant for welfare activities was diverted to personal accounts.

The organisation, founded in 1972, described its work as including education, children’s hostels, evangelism and distribution of Christian literature. However, complaints submitted to the MHA coercive religious conversions, misuse of children’s photographs for overseas fundraising and violations involving foreign missionaries.

The allegations also included the use of foreign funding for political mobilisation. The Legal Rights Protection Forum had submitted a complaint to the MHA containing documentary and multimedia material relating to the allegations.

These remain serious allegations, and the action demonstrates why authorities seek to establish whether organisations are using foreign contributions strictly for their declared purposes.

6. Harvest India

The MHA also cancelled the FCRA registration of missionary organisation Harvest India over violations of the FCRA.

The organisation was accused by the Legal Rights Protection Forum of using foreign funds for missionary activities. According to the allegations, Harvest India’s foreign contributions between 2017-18 and 2019-20 amounted to around ₹19.6 crore.

Reports also said that the organisation had a large network of community centres and pastors involved in evangelisation activities. The complaint raised questions about the use of foreign funds for salaries of pastors, church maintenance and other missionary activities.

The organisation’s chief functionary, Suresh Kumar, was also accused of making political and anti-Hindu remarks during a conference in the US. In one speech, he said, “Right now, we are under Hindu rule. Our Prime Minister is a bad guy.”

He also appealed for prayers ahead of an election, saying, “I don’t want this party to come back.”

The allegations against Harvest India therefore involved not only financial questions but also the use of foreign-funded organisational activities for religious and political purposes.

7. Centre for Equity Studies (CES)

The Centre for Equity Studies (CES), associated with human rights activist Harsh Mander, also faced scrutiny following allegations concerning children’s homes run in association with organisations linked to CES.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) inspected two homes, Umeed Aman Home for Boys and Khushi Rainbow Home for Girls, in October 2020.

The NCPCR reportedly found serious irregularities, including allegations of sexual abuse at the boys’ home and failures in reporting such incidents. The Commission observed that the “non-reporting of POCSO offences” could endanger the welfare of children.

The inspection also raised concerns about children being made to participate in anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests. The Commission further questioned the presence of foreign nationals providing voluntary services at the homes.

The Delhi Police subsequently registered an FIR against CES officials and others over financial irregularities and other violations.

8. Socio Legal Information Centre (SLIC)

The Home Ministry also cancelled the FCRA registration of the Socio Legal Information Centre (SLIC), whose chairperson was former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma.

SLIC is the parent organisation of the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), founded by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves. The organisation describes its mission as making the justice system “accessible, efficient, accountable, affordable, and pro poor.”

It works on public interest litigation, legal awareness and investigations into human rights violations.

However, the organisation and its associated network have faced allegations concerning foreign funding and involvement in campaigns on politically sensitive issues. The cancellation of SLIC’s FCRA registration therefore brought attention to the need for organisations engaged in advocacy and litigation to maintain strict compliance with foreign funding rules.

9. CARE India Solutions for Sustainable Development

CARE India, whose legal name is CARE India Solutions for Sustainable Development (CISSD), also came under scrutiny over its foreign funding and activities.

The organisation had received substantial foreign contributions. Its FCRA submissions showed foreign donations of more than ₹157 crore during the financial year mentioned in the reference material, with major donors including CARE organisations abroad, USAID and Amazon Development Centre India.

The organisation was also accused of using its association with government projects while soliciting donations. Its functionary Neera Saggi separately came under scrutiny in connection with the IL&FS financial fraud.

The reference material also alleges that CARE India transferred money to the Evangelical Social Action Forum, which received more than ₹52 lakh from CARE India in 2018-19.

The case raises a broader question: when organisations receive large foreign contributions and work closely with government programmes, their financial dealings need to remain transparent and clearly separated from activities not covered by their declared objectives.

10. Centre for Policy Research

The Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a Delhi-based public policy think tank, had its FCRA licence suspended in 2023 and later cancelled.

The action followed Income Tax Department surveys conducted in September 2022. The government also sought explanations and documents concerning CPR’s foreign contributions.

CPR’s filings showed that it received around ₹10.1 crore between October and December 2022 from foreign sources including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania, the World Resources Institute and Duke University.

The government non-compliance with FCRA provisions, including concerns over the transfer of foreign contributions to other entities and the use of non-designated accounts.

CPR later challenged the action and said it would consider legal options. Its case illustrates that FCRA compliance also applies to think tanks and research organisations receiving foreign funds, particularly when those funds are used for policy research and public affairs.

11. Oxfam India

Oxfam India is another organisation that faced action over FCRA violations. The MHA recommended a CBI inquiry into the organisation over violations of foreign funding rules.

According to the allegations, Oxfam India continued transferring foreign contributions to other entities even after the 2020 amendment that restricted such transfers.

Authorities also said that Oxfam India planned to route funds through other FCRA-registered organisations or through a for-profit consultancy structure. The government further revealed that Oxfam India transferred funds to CPR through associates and employees in the form of commission. It also received around ₹1.50 crore directly into its FCRA utilisation account rather than the designated FCRA account.

The organisation’s FCRA registration ceased in January 2022 after it failed to obtain renewal.

Another controversy involved a report on Assam’s tea industry. Investigators said that the report relied heavily on volunteer-collected data and did not include sufficient field research or the views of tea garden managements, workers’ unions and the state government. The report was later cited in connection with the US Department of Labor’s list concerning goods produced using child or forced labour.

The case raised concerns over whether foreign-funded advocacy and research could potentially affect India’s economic interests and exports.

12. Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment

The FCRA registration of environmental organisation Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE Trust), associated with environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta, was suspended in March 2023 and cancelled in February 2024.

The CBI that LIFE received foreign funds from US-based environmental law organisation Earthjustice and used them for legal action against coal and other infrastructure projects in India.

According to the investigation, Dutta received ₹41 lakh in foreign contributions from Earthjustice in 2013-14, while a related proprietorship received around ₹22 crore between 2016 and 2021 as professional receipts.

The government said that foreign funds were being used to support litigation intended to delay or stop development projects.

The investigation examined cases involving thermal power and coal projects in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and other parts of the country. The government argued that such funding arrangements could affect India’s energy infrastructure and economic interests.

LIFE, however, has described its work as being aimed at environmental democracy and improving access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters.

13. Environics Trust

The last case is that of Environics Trust, whose FCRA registration was cancelled on 4th March, 2024.

The CBI filed a chargesheet against the organisation and its officials over violations involving foreign-funded transactions. The agency also revealed that the organisation used two forged invoices worth ₹6.50 lakh and ₹4 lakh from a company called MAA Plasto in its FCRA returns.

According to the allegations, the invoices had not been issued by the company, but were shown as expenses in returns filed for foreign fund utilisation.

The organisation was also examined over its activities relating to campaigns against coal mining and coal-fired power projects. Investigators found that foreign contributions were used to support protests against development projects.

The case highlights another important aspect of FCRA compliance: organisations must maintain genuine records and provide accurate accounts of how foreign contributions are spent.

Why the FCRA Amendement is needed

These cases are different from one another. Some involve diversion of money for personal or business purposes, while others concern political, religious, advocacy or environmental activities. The cases show why a regulatory framework for foreign contributions is necessary. Foreign funding can support genuine social work, but it can also create accountability challenges when money is moved across borders and used for purposes that are difficult to monitor.

The FCRA amendement is intended to create a traceable chain between the foreign donor, the recipient organisation and the final use of the money. Organisations receiving foreign contributions are required to register, maintain designated banking arrangements, maintain accounts and submit returns.

The law is therefore not meant to stop legitimate charitable work. Education, healthcare, disaster relief, poverty alleviation, scientific research, environmental conservation and humanitarian activities can continue through foreign funding as long as organisations follow the rules.

The core objectives of the FCRA

At its heart, the FCRA rests on five broad objectives: transparency, accountability, protection of sovereignty, enabling genuine social work and maintaining public confidence.

Transparency means that foreign contributions should be properly recorded and their source and use should be identifiable. Accountability requires organisations to maintain accounts and submit returns so that authorities can examine how the money was utilised.

The sovereignty aspect is equally important. Foreign contributions that could adversely affect India’s sovereignty, security, democratic institutions, electoral processes or public order need to be regulated. This does not mean that every foreign-funded organisation is a threat. It means that the government has a responsibility to ensure that foreign financial influence does not undermine national interests.

At the same time, the purpose of regulation should not be to obstruct genuine international cooperation. Thousands of organisations continue to receive foreign funds for legitimate humanitarian and development work. Stronger oversight can actually help such organisations by improving public confidence in the voluntary sector.

The cases discussed above show why the proposed FCRA Bill, 2026, is being presented as a measure to strengthen transparency and accountability. Foreign contributions can play a valuable role in India’s development, but the money must reach the people and causes for which it was intended.

Ultimately, the need for the FCRA is not based on the existence of foreign funding itself. It is based on the need to ensure that such funding remains transparent, traceable and accountable. A strong regulatory system can protect legitimate NGOs while making it harder for organisations to divert foreign money for personal gain, unauthorised activities or purposes that go beyond their declared objectives.

OpIndia had earlier reported that the proposed FCRA Amendment Bill is not an anti-Christian measure, but is aimed at strengthening transparency and accountability in the use of foreign contributions. 

While the US has raised concerns over the treatment of Christians in India, it is important to note that the United States itself has laws regulating foreign influence and funding. The US enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires certain individuals and organisations representing foreign interests to disclose their relationship with foreign principals and provide information about their activities and funding. The same principle of transparency applies to India’s FCRA framework. 

How did the FCRA come into existence?

OpIndia had also previously reported on the history of the FCRA and argued that the Congress party, which is now criticising the Modi government’s proposed amendments, played an important role in bringing the legislation into existence.

The statutory framework used by governments to monitor, audit, suspend or cancel FCRA registrations was not created by the present government. The regulation of foreign contributions has evolved over several decades through successive laws and amendments.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, was enacted during the Congress-led government headed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The foundation stone of the FCRA was laid during the height of the Emergency in 1976. The objective was to regulate the inflow and utilisation of foreign funds.

Newslaundry and Abhinandan Sekhri are sick and twisted: For hours after conviction of Tarun Tejpal, their article and tweet shaming his victim was live – why their ‘apology’ is a sham

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Newslaundry and Abhinandan Sekhri are sick and twisted: For hours after conviction of Tarun Tejpal, their article and tweet shaming his victim was live – why their ‘apology’ is a sham

The conviction of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case has once again brought back questions about how sections of the media ecosystem treated the survivor when the allegations first surfaced. More than 12 years after the assault, the Bombay High Court at Goa overturned Tejpal’s 2021 acquittal and convicted him in the case, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

When Newslaundry and Abhinandan Sekhri came to defence of Tarun Tejpal

It is in this context that an old piece published by Newslaundry has come under renewed scrutiny. In February 2014, only months after the allegations against Tejpal emerged, Newslaundry published an open letter [archive] by Nirupama Sekhri, the sister of Newslaundry founder Abhinandan Sekhri, addressed to “Ms Tehelka-Assault-Victim”.

The tone of the letter was not one of sympathy towards the woman who had accused Tejpal. Instead, Sekhri questioned whether she should be considered a victim at all. “To begin with, I would like to establish quite clearly that I do not see you as a victim, unless it is of bubblegum feminism which I will speak in detail of later,” she wrote.

The letter went on to frame the controversy around what it described as “bubblegum feminism” and questioned the survivor’s actions before and after the alleged assault. It asked why she had entered the elevator with Tejpal and questioned the delay in making an official complaint. At one point, the letter said that Tejpal had become “the victim” of the media frenzy surrounding the case.

The questions raised in the piece reflected the kind of “perfect victim” expectations that have repeatedly been criticised in discussions around sexual violence. Why did she go with him? Why did she not immediately report it? Why did she not fight back? Why did she behave in a particular way after the incident? Such questions have long been criticised for shifting attention from the alleged conduct of the accused to the behaviour of the survivor.

Nirupama Sekhri’s letter also described the survivor as “irresponsible” and accused her of damaging Tejpal’s reputation. The piece therefore did not merely raise questions about the case; it placed a substantial part of the burden of explanation on the woman who had made the allegation. The original Newslaundry page itself confirms that the letter was published by Nirupama Sekhri on February 14, 2014.

The controversy did not end there. Abhinandan Sekhri himself amplified the article. In a 2014 post, he shared the link and wrote: “The counter perspective on the Tehelka case. For those asking, yup my sister. Letter to Ms Tehelka assault victim.” He also appeared in a 2014 interview with the former Tehelka editor. This made the issue more than simply an opinion piece written by an individual contributor; Sekhri had publicly associated himself with the article and its framing.

A letter that remained online for 12 years

This article, which resorts to victim-blaming, scarred the rape survivor for 12 years. Newslaundry never bothered to apologise to her.

For twelve long years, this article remained live on Newslaundry, serving as a persistent public record that demeaned the survivor’s experience. Throughout more than a decade of legal proceedings, as the survivor fought a gruelling battle for justice across multiple courtrooms, Newslaundry never reached out or offered a formal apology to her for hosting and promoting content that attacked her integrity.

It was only after the Bombay High Court’s landmark conviction of Tarun Tejpal, and the intense public outcry that followed regarding the media’s past conduct, that Newslaundry finally took action. Following the renewed controversy, Newslaundry removed Nirupama Sekhri’s original article and replaced it with an editor’s clarification. The publication acknowledged that the piece was originally published in 2014 and said it had since “reflected deeply on workplace sexual harassment, consent, trauma, and the responsibility of those in positions of power.”

The clarification further said that, in light of “legal developments, evolving public understanding, the #MeToo movement, and the experiences of countless survivors who have come forward”, Newslaundry no longer believed the piece met the values guiding its journalism. The publication therefore decided to take it down.

Newslaundry also said it was leaving the note at the original URL so that the article’s existence and its removal would remain part of its public record.

But the timing of the decision has itself become a point of criticism. The question being asked is simple: if the article was so clearly inconsistent with the publication’s present-day values, why did it take the conviction of Tejpal and a fresh wave of public criticism for the article to finally disappear?

In fact, the question we must ask is this – at what point was shaming a rape victim culturally acceptable? At what point was it the societal “understanding” that a rape victim should be shamed publicly. Did Newslaundry 12 years ago believe that rape was the fault of the woman? Did Newslaundry 12 years ago believe that rape was acceptable? What “evolving understanding” was required for Newslaundry to understand that victim shaming was, is and will continue to be wrong?

Abhinandan Sekhri’s so called apology

On Saturday, August 8th, Abhinandan Sekhri posted a message on his X account acknowledging the decision to remove the 2014 post:

“I have taken down my 2014 tweet. I don’t think there’s anything to say other than I take full responsibility for the piece that was published. It was wrong and should not have been online for this long on newslaundry, if at all. This is on me and me alone. It took a judgement to take this call, which should not have been the case. I apologise to all the people who support newslaundry and my fantastic team. I’ll try and do better.”

The post was presented as an acknowledgement of responsibility. But in the same sequence, Sekhri also posted another message aimed at critics. “And as for the prime time studio turnips (this is only for you) who made the most of this with your hollow lectures & outpouring of pent up angst for us calling out your hate, bile and venom that you serve as news. We will continue to call you out. Enjoy your weekend. Read a book, play a sport – do better.”

However, any sense of genuine remorse was quickly undercut by a second tweet posted shortly thereafter. Rather than maintaining a tone of solemn accountability, Abhinandan Sekhri shifted into a defensive and combative stance aimed at his media critics, “And as for the prime time studio turnips (this is only for you) who made the most of this with your hollow lectures & outpouring of pent up angst for us calling out your hate, bile and venom that you serve as news. We will continue to call you out. Enjoy your weekend. Read a book, play a sport – do better.”

This casual dismissal highlighted a sharp contrast between the formal words of reflection and the immediate urge to settle scores with rival journalists. By brushing off criticism as mere outrage from “prime time studio turnips,” the gravity of the decade-long victim-blaming was brushed aside in favour of social media bravado.

Was it an apology or forced accountability and social media tokenism

For over 36 hours after the conviction of Tarun Tejpal, the article and Sekhri’s tweet remained available without any modification. Only after the issue gained wider public attention did Newslaundry remove the article and Sekhri delete his old tweet. That timeline has led that the apology was not spontaneous accountability but a response to public backlash.

Calling the response a genuine apology is therefore difficult because the apology did not come when the article was first questioned, nor when the publication’s own understanding of sexual harassment changed after the #MeToo movement. It came after the Bombay High Court overturned Tejpal’s acquittal and the old article suddenly became a major subject of public discussion.

At the very least, the episode raises questions about institutional accountability. An apology is not simply an admission that something was “wrong”. It also requires recognising who was harmed, what exactly was wrong, and why the mistake was allowed to continue for so long.

In this case, the wording of Sekhri’s post focused heavily on taking responsibility for the publication decision and apologising to “all the people who support newslaundry and my fantastic team”. It did not centre the woman who had been targeted by the 2014 article. That omission is significant because the original piece itself had placed the survivor under scrutiny.

The phrase that Newslaundry has “reflected deeply” and that the piece no longer represents its values also invites another question: when did that reflection actually begin? If the publication had already recognised the problems surrounding consent, trauma and workplace power, why was the article allowed to remain online until the present controversy?

The response was social media posturing rather than a meaningful apology, and, at best, tokenism. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the chronology is difficult to ignore: Tejpal was convicted, the old article resurfaced, public criticism followed, and only then did Newslaundry remove it and Sekhri delete his old tweet.

The larger issue goes beyond Newslaundry or one old article. The Tejpal case has once again shown how powerful men accused of sexual misconduct can remain at the centre of public sympathy, while the survivor’s behaviour is examined in extraordinary detail. The Bombay High Court’s decision has rejected several of the stereotypes that shaped the earlier trial court approach.

The Tarun Tejpal case

The case dates back to November 2013. Before November 2013, Tarun Tejpal was regarded as one of the most prominent figures in spreading propaganda under the name of journalism. At that time, Tejpal was not an unknown journalist. He was a prominent figure in far-left journalism and the founder-editor of Tehelka. 

In November 2013, a young woman working with Tehelka accused him of sexually assaulting her inside an elevator at the Grand Hyatt in Bambolim, Goa, during the magazine’s THiNK event; the allegations concerned incidents on 7th and 8th November. Tejpal subsequently stepped down as Tehelka’s editor-in-chief, saying he wanted to “recuse” himself from the organisation. He was arrested on 30th November, 2013, and was later released on bail in 2014.

The legal battle then continued for years. The Goa Crime Branch filed a chargesheet, and Tejpal faced charges including rape, sexual harassment, assault with intent to disrobe, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. Among the provisions invoked were Section 376(2)(f), dealing with rape by a person in a position of trust or authority, and Section 376(2)(k), dealing with rape by a person in a position of control or dominance.

In May 2021, a Goa sessions court acquitted Tejpal of all charges. The judgment attracted widespread criticism, particularly for its treatment of the survivor’s behaviour. The court examined her conduct, including her reactions and communications after the assault, while assessing whether they matched what it considered “normative behaviour” for a sexual assault survivor. The Bombay High Court later criticised this approach, with the lower court’s reasoning having been described as resembling a “manual for rape victims.”

The Bombay High Court has now reversed that acquittal. The court found Tejpal guilty and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The verdict has once again put the spotlight not only on the legal history of the case but also on the treatment the survivor received in the public discourse surrounding it.

JNUSU, girlfriend Banojyotsana Lahiri and Harsh Mandar lied in the name of Adivasi Divas to glorify Umar Khalid? Why JNU cancelled the event

Aditi
-
0
JNUSU, girlfriend Banojyotsana Lahiri and Harsh Mandar lied in the name of Adivasi Divas to glorify Umar Khalid? Why JNU cancelled the event

Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on Sunday (9th August) cancelled the booking of its SSS-1 auditorium by the JNU’s Students Union (JNUSU) for a “book discussion” event, organised to discuss a book by Umar Khalid, that was slated to take place on 10th August. According to the notice issued by JNU Joint Registrar MK Pachauri, the booking was cancelled because of non-disclosure of full details of the proposed event in the request form submitted to the university.

“The booking of the auditorium SSS-1 stands cancelled because of non-disclosure of the full facts about the program which is going to take place on 10th August 2026 from 3 pm to 6 pm,” the university administration stated.

The request form shared by the university in a post on X cited “Public Talk for Adivasi Diwas (Book Discussion)” to mark Adivasi Diwas (Tribal Day) as the purpose of the booking. The auditorium was booked by Dr Avinash Kumar of the Centre for International Legal Studies (CISLS).

The proposed discussion was scheduled to take place on August 10 from 3 pm to 6 pm and was to be attended by the likes of Prof. Prabhu Mohapatra, Prof. Uma Chakravarti, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, and Harsh Mander. The permission for the stated event was granted by the Dean, SSS, who later cancelled it a day before the scheduled discussion.

The JNU notice of cancellation of the event did not cite what facts related to the event were not disclosed. However, a poster of the event shared by the university showed that the discussion was on a book titled ‘Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power’. As visible in the poster, the book was a work of Delhi anti-Hindu riots accused Umar Khalid, whose name was printed all over its cover page.

The request for the booking submitted to the university omitted to mention that the proposed discussion was about Khalid’s book. According to India Today, this was the reason that the university cancelled the event.

Essentially, JNUSU along with those like Harsh Mandar and Banojyotsna Lahiri (Umar Khalid’s girlfriend) told the university that they need to hall to conduct a program for Adivadi Divas. They completely ommitted the fact that actually, they wanted to hall to conduct a discussion on Umar Khalid’s book. For context, Umar Khalid is accused under the UAPA and is currently in jail for being the mastermind of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.

According to an Instagram post by Umar Khalid’s girlfriend Banojyotsana Lahiri, the book was actually Khalid’s PhD thesis published in the form of a book by Juggernaut Books. Lahiri wrote an emotional message celebrating her UAPA-accused boyfriend’s ‘achievement’ and portraying the Delhi anti-Hindu riots conspirator as a victim of state atrocities.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader and co-founder of ‘United Against Hate’, was arrested in September 2020 over the anti-Hindu riots that broke out in north-east Delhi in February that year. The riots erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and led to the killing of 53 people and injured more than 700. According to the Delhi Police case, Khalid helped plan the violence, as part of what police call a ‘larger conspiracy,’ carried out through speeches, WhatsApp groups and planned road blockades timed for maximum disruption. The case against Khalid runs under the stringent anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Khalid’s had made multiple bail applications before various courts since his arrest. His bail applications have repeatedly been dismissed by the courts, citing a prima facie case against him.

How the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots conspiracy started: A short chronology

Most chargesheets filed in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots case so far have a detailed chronology of events attached to them which starts from the events of December. One has to recall that on the 15th of December, violence broke out in Jamia Millia Islamia. The chargesheet says that some students, ex-students of Jamia and people associated with political parties congregated to protest the CAA and NRC and wanted to march towards the Parliament House and Presidents House. When stopped, they started pelting stones and indulging in violence. 

In the process, busses were burnt, cars were damaged, 2 public persons got injured and 10 police personnel also suffered injuries. 

It is interesting to note that while the violence broke out on the 15th of December, on the 14th of December, Sharjeel Imam had delivered his provocative speech at the very site. He had urged Muslims to protest against CAA and NRC by doing ‘chakka jam’ on the 14th of December. On the 15th of December, protestors tried to block Mathura road and violence ensued. 

Following this, the dispersing crowd retreated inside Jamia and a fresh cycle of violence started. The usual suspects had proceeded to blame the police was trying to enter a college campus and brutalising students, however, the truth was far from it. It was in fact these ‘students’ who had started the violence and the police were merely trying to control the violence. 

The chargesheet mentions that right after the violence of 15th December, Jamia Coordination Committee was coordinating protests and blockages of roads. They had called several leaders to speak to the protesting Muslims as well. The chargesheet mentions Harsh Mandar who had instigated people on the 16th of December (though he has not been named as an accused so far). 

The Shaheen Bagh protest then started, on cue, from the 15th of December. While the Shaheen Bagh protest raged on, on the 17th of December, violent mobs started pelting stones in the Jaffrabad area. 

Thereafter, from the 15th of January, Muslim protestors blocked roads in 7 different areas in the name of protests. Provocative slogans were raised and incalculable inconvenience was caused to commuters. 

Here are the 7 roads that were blocked: 

  1. Seelampur – Opposite Medina Masjid (from the 15th of January) 
  2. Dayalpur – Brijpuri Pulia near Farrukhia Masjid (from the 17th of January) 
  3. Dayalpur – Chand Bagh Majar on Bhajanpura (from 17th of January)
  4. Jyoti Nagar – Kardam Puri Pulia near Ashharfia masjid (from 17th of January) 
  5. Khajuri Khas – A block main road, Shri Ram Colony (from 17th of January)
  6. Bhajanpura – Noor-e-Lahi near petrol pump (from 18th January) 
  7. Shastri Park – Near Wahid Jama Masjid (from 26th of January)

It is pertinent to note that people from the Chand Bagh Mazar protest site had also tried to block the main Wazirabad Road. 

The chargesheet categorically states that the riots were pre-planned and not spontaneous. On the 22nd of January night, woman, children and several Muslims protestors blocked the Jaffrabad metro station after Chandrashekhar Azad’s call for Bharat Bandh. It is pertinent to note that is also said that Pinjra Tod and JCC were instrumental in the instigation and implementation of blockage of Jaffrabad metro station. On the 23rd, there was a counter rally which demanded the opening of the road that had been blocked by anti-CAA crowds. The Muslim side started pelting stones first, as even mentioned in the chargesheets. On the 24th, full-fledged riots began with the first life being claimed being that of constable Ratan Lal after being attacked by a Muslim mob. 

Where does Umar Khalid fit into the chronology of events – Analysing his role 

The first evidence of Umar Khalid’s role in the Delhi Riots came when a speech made by him surfaced. The speech was allegedly made on the 20th of February in Amravati. In the speech, he was clearly heard saying that on the 24th of February, when President Donald Trump visits India, Muslims should ‘show’ the visiting US president that the people of India are fighting against the ruling party of India.

The entire speech was about 17 minutes long where Khalid invoked the false narratives of ‘targeted mob lynching’ against Muslims and then went on to say that when the Muslims did not revolt against the Ayodhya judgement by Supreme Court, the government took it for granted that they can bring any law against Muslims.

Inciting the crowd further, saying the CAA has been brought to harm Muslims, Khalid says that the people should show the government its ‘Aukaad’, and take to the streets to throw it out. He further says that if enough people take to the streets, first the CAA will go, then the NPR and then NRC, eventually the government will also go.

It was 4 days after this speech, on the 24th of February, as Umar Khalid had predicted, that riots broke out. Ankit Sharma was stabbed over 50 times by the mobs of Tahir Hussain. Dilbar Negi’s arms and legs were chopped off and he was burnt alive by Muslims. Amidst chants of Allahu Abkar and Nara e Taqbeer, Hindus were specifically targeted. 

The Left and Islamist cabal found nothing wrong with this speech. They, in fact, called it a peaceful speech and said there was nothing in it that incited violence. They find nothing wrong with the fact that Umar Khalid, only 4 days before riots broke out, had specifically mentioned the date 24th of February and said that on that day, they will “show” how they fight with the government. 

But was Umar Khalid’s role limited to just this speech? 

By insinuating that the speech was the only thing for which Umar Khalid was arrested, is a gross misrepresentation of facts. In several chargesheets, Umar Khalid’s role in the larger conspiracy has been mentioned in details. The Special Cell has 180 days to file a chargesheet against Umar Khalid specifically, however, his role has been hinted in abundance in the other chargesheets and FIRs filed. 

In the chargesheet filed in FIR 114, the role of Umar Khalid in the conspiracy hatched is mentioned clearly. It says that Tahir Hussain was connected to Khalid Saifi of United Against Hate Group and through Saifi, he was also in touch with Umar Khalid. Khalid Saifi, it says, had arranged a meeting between Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain on the 8th of January at Shaheen Bagh. In that meeting, it was decided to take ‘big action’ so the government gets shaken up on the issue of CAA and NRC and also, ensure that the international community takes notice of that action. 

In the chargesheet, it is also mentioned that Umar Khalid had told Tahir Hussain not to be concerned about the funding for the riots as Popular Front of India (PFI) would provide the funding as well logistic support. It was categorically mentioned that the riots were to take place when President Donald Trump would visit India. 

In the chargesheet, as reported, here is a flowchart of the coordination between Umar Khalid, Pinjra Tod ‘activists’, Khalid Saifi and Tahir Hussain. 

Flow Chart from the Chargesheet 

From everything that is alleged in the chargesheet, it is clear that Umar Khalid was perhaps one of the masterminds who was also constantly in touch with Pinjra Tod activists who are also accused of grave sections. Khalid Saifi of UAH, who is also a close associate of Umar Khalid was coordinating with Tahir Hussain after their initial meeting in Shaheen Bagh on the 8th of January. Further, Tahir Hussain was coordinating with other rioters and instigators. Tahir Hussain has now been convicted in the murder of Ankit Sharma, an IB officer stabbed and tortured to death brutally by a Jihadi mob.

Congress loved rapist Tarun Tejpal: How Kapil Sibal donated 5 lakh to help Tehelka launch its print edition, Sonia Gandhi wanted to shield him

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Congress loved rapist Tarun Tejpal: How Kapil Sibal donated 5 lakh to help Tehelka launch its print edition, Sonia Gandhi wanted to shield him

The conviction of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape case has once again brought attention to his long association with influential figures in politics especially from Congress, journalism and public life. More than 12 years after the assault, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court overturned his 2021 acquittal and convicted him in the case. The court sentenced Tejpal to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and gave him time to surrender. Tejpal has said he will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court.

The case dates back to November 2013, when a young woman working with Tehelka accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her inside an elevator at the Grand Hyatt in Bambolim, Goa, during the magazine’s THiNK event; the allegations related to incidents on 7th and 8th November. Tejpal stepped down as Tehelka’s editor-in-chief after the allegations surfaced, saying that he wanted to “recuse” himself from the organisation. He was arrested on 30th November, 2013, and was later released on bail.

The legal battle continued for years. Tejpal faced charges including rape, sexual harassment and assault with intent to disrobe. In May 2021, a Goa sessions court acquitted him of all charges. The judgment was criticised for the way it examined the survivor’s conduct and reactions. The Bombay High Court has now reversed that acquittal and convicted Tejpal. The court’s verdict has again brought the former Tehelka chief’s career and the ecosystem around the magazine under scrutiny.

Kapil Sibal’s Rs 5 lakh donation to propaganda outlet Tehelka

As public scrutiny around Tehelka intensified over the years, political connections backing the far-left media outlet also came under intense scrutiny. One name that has resurfaced in the context of Tehelka is former Union law minister and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal. In November 2013, when the sexual assault case against Tejpal was dominating headlines, Sibal told The Sunday Express that he had donated Rs 5 lakh to Tejpal in 2003, when Tehelka was starting its print edition.

Sibal was responding to questions about his financial connection with Tehelka. According to documents available with the Registrar of Companies, Sibal held 80 shares in Anant Media Private Ltd, the company that published Tehelka, amounting to a 0.04 per cent stake at the time. Sibal, however, said he did not consider himself a stakeholder in the publication, despite holding a stake in Tehelka and paying them to start their print edition.

“I don’t have any stake in Tehelka,” Sibal said.

Explaining the Rs 5 lakh payment, he said: “When Tarun approached me for help in 2003, I was a lawyer at that time… I helped him. I gave a donation of Rs 5 lakh in 2003. I did not apply for shares, nor am I given any share allotment.”

Sibal said the donation was linked to his belief in press freedom. “The donation was my commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of press… After they lost everything following the witch hunt of the BJP-led government for exposing corruption,” he said.

The donation came after Tehelka’s website had carried out its controversial Operation West End sting against then BJP president Bangaru Laxman and the NDA government. The operation brought Tehelka national attention and also triggered a political storm over alleged corruption in defence deals.

The corporate records also showed that Sibal continued to hold 80 shares. His stake was 0.08 per cent until 2010-11 and fell to 0.04 per cent after fresh equity was infused into the company in 2011-12. Sibal also rejected speculation about a family relationship with Tejpal, saying, “The misinformation doing the rounds is both false and motivated. Tarun Tejpal is not my nephew.”

According to the same report, Tejpal and his family members held around 19% in Tehelka, while industrialist and Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member K D Singh held around 65% through direct and indirect holdings at the time.

Thus, while Sibal denied having a substantial stake in Tehelka, his own statement confirmed that he had financially supported Tejpal when the magazine was entering the print business.

Tehelka and the controversial Operation West End

Long before the assault case, Tehelka had built its reputation through controversial and defamatory sting operations. It was March 2001. Tehelka, the far-left media organisation, decided to ‘uncover’ corruption within the defence establishments and political circles.  One of its most infamous investigations was Operation West End, launched to expose alleged corruption in defence procurement.

They floated a fake company by the name of ‘West End International’ and set out to sell hand-held thermal cameras/ imagers to the Government of India. ‘Journalists’ Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel posed as ‘arms dealers’ and tried to secure defence contracts as part of their sting dubbed ‘Operation West End.’ Tehelka’s team employed hidden cameras and audio recording devices to capture conversations with high-ranking officials and politicians involved in defence deals.

The undercover investigation spanned several months. Some prominent politicians, bureaucrats, and army personnel were caught on camera accepting bribes and discussing kickbacks in defence deals. Tehelka was soon in the dock over entrapment charges, the missing ‘authenticity’ in its evidence, and lack of ethics as displayed through its bribing of officials to create sensationalism.

As per reports, Tehelka journalists extended their sting operation, much beyond exposing corruption. Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel arranged for call girls and even filmed explicit encounters involving three defence officials. The revelation caused an uproar and turned public sentiment against Tehelka, as it raised ethical questions and challenged the moral high ground that the news portal once took. Tehelka was criticised by politicians such as Madhavrao Scindia and Chandra Shekhar.

Reports at the time also alleged that Tehelka journalists used women and liquor during parts of the operation. The methods drew criticism from political leaders and raised questions about whether the magazine had crossed the line between exposing the alleged corruption and creating situations designed to produce sensational footage.

The Major General Ahluwalia defamation case

One of the most serious controversies surrounding Operation West End involved Major General M S Ahluwalia. Tehelka had accused the Army officer of involvement in corruption in defence deals. Ahluwalia denied the allegations and later filed a defamation case against Tehelka and those associated with the report.

The case continued for more than two decades. In July 2023, the Delhi High Court directed Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal and two of its journalists to pay Rs 2 crore in damages to Ahluwalia for the loss of reputation he suffered. The court noted that the officer had lived with “ill fame for more than 23 years” and said that the serious allegations of corruption had damaged his reputation.

The court observed that Ahluwalia’s reputation had suffered because his character was maligned with serious corruption allegations and said that “apology at this stage is not only inadequate but is meaningless.”

The controversy became even more significant because the allegations made by Tehelka about Ahluwalia’s demand for money were disputed. According to reports on the case, Tehelka’s initial claim regarding the alleged demand changed during the proceedings. In an Army court of inquiry, journalist Mathew Samuel also reportedly acknowledged that Ahluwalia had not demanded money or expensive whisky. The Delhi High Court subsequently dismissed Tehelka’s review plea against the damages order.

While Tehelka set out to expose the dark realities of corruption within the Indian defence establishment, it uncovered its own lack of journalistic ethics and integrity in framing Major General MS Ahluwalia. 

Fake sting? Why did Congress shut down inquiry commission: How Sonia Gandhi wanted to shield Tehelka and Tarun Tejpal

After the Tehelka sting operation, a Commission was set up by the Atal Bihar Vajpayee government to inquire not only into the alleged corruption but also the authenticity of the sting operation conducted by Tehelka, headed by Tarun Tejpal. Justice Phukan was appointed to the committee for the continuation of the probe. By February 2013, Tehelka had already refused to participate in the inquiry claiming that they had no resources to continue their participation. Tejpal had claimed that Tehelka had “devoted” two years for the inquiry, and would not participate further. He had also said that all the tapes and evidence had been submitted, with nothing more to add. When asked about Tehelka participating in the financial irregularities part of the investigation, he claimed that Tehelka’s financier could participate if they wanted to, but the portal itself would not.

Interstingly, as soon as the Congress came to power in 2004, Sonia Gandhi who was the then Super PM and Manmohan Singh, who was the paper PM, disbanded the Justice Phukan Commission, inquiring into the authenticity of the sting operation by Tehelka. It was later revealed in a book that Sonia Gandhi had written a long letter to P Chidambaram while the inquiry commission was still working and instructed that the financier of Tehelka, First Global, should not be troubled and be treated “fairly”.

“Justice Phukan meant business and did not allow anyone to delay matters. He took calmly the fact that the Tehelka team decided to walk out of the Commission’s proceedings as soon he announced the tapes were being sent for checking,” writes Jaitly.”… When the Commission was still at work, Sonia Gandhi, as head of the UPA and the National Advisory Council, wrote an official letter to finance minister P Chidambaram, dated 25/27 September 2004 – a copy of which was provided to me by a highly placed source in the Opposition – asking him to ensure that First Global, Tehelka’s financiers, are not meted out ‘unjust or unfair treatment’. “She was, in fact, saying the very same thing I was trying to explain to the Tehelka person asking me a favour for the purpose of entrapment. Here again, irony was visiting…,” the book, written by Samata Party president Jaya Jaitly, claimed.

The Phukan Commission report was handed over to the Vajpayee government, but before it could be tabled in the parliament, Congress was in power. The report had found that George Fernandes, who had resigned as the defence minister after the sting operation, had no role to play in any corruption and gave him a clean chit.

The Congress government did not want to table the report. But under mounting pressure, it decided to table only a 41 page summary of the report which was submitted, finding Fernandes innocent.

Why did the Congress government not want the commission report to be tabled in full and rejected it forthright, and why did they disband the inquiry commission? Because at that time, Kapil Sibal had prematurely declared that the Tehelka tapes were authentic according to forensic reports before the reports were officially opened. However, the forensic analysis actually revealed several cuts and edits, proving that the Tehelka tapes were tampered with. This detail would have been revealed had the commission report been tabled in full – which is why – Congress’ hitman, Kapil Sibal, ensured it wasn’t. In this entire ordeal, Tehelka’s lawyer was none other than Prashant Bhushan.

Essentially, if one is to truly evaluate the facts from the time, it would become rather apparent that Tarun Tejpal, now convicted of rape, was the media henchman of Congress – funded, shielded and goaded by the Congress to tarnish and bring down a BJP government.

Gujarat HC refuses to grant relief to Christian woman who forced ASHA workers to convert: Here is what the court said

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Gujarat HC refuses to grant relief to Christian woman who forced ASHA workers to convert: Here is what the court said

The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that while a person has the right to propagate their religion, activities involving force, inducement, fraud or pressure for religious conversion can amount to an offence under the law. The court was hearing a plea filed by a female health worker accused of pressuring ASHA workers working under her to convert to Christianity. The High Court refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet and allowed the case to proceed before the trial court.

What was the case

The case relates to allegations made by an ASHA facilitator and four other ASHA workers against a female health worker working at the Bamanva Primary Health Centre in Anand, Gujarat.

According to the complaint, for around three years, the ASHA workers were asked to stay back after government work and official health-related meetings were over. They were then spoken to about Christianity, encouraged to read the Bible and told that idol worship practised in Hinduism was wrong.

The complaint further said that the woman used to make the ASHA workers watch Christian videos on YouTube on her mobile phone. The videos discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the creation of a new world after the end of the present world, and various teachings of Christianity.

The women said that when Hindu employees refused to watch the videos or listen to such discussions, they were threatened with consequences at work. According to the complaint, they were told that their monthly allowance or salary could be cut and that they could lose their jobs. The complaint said this kept the women under constant mental pressure.

One incident mentioned in the case took place in Vadodara. The women were told that they were being taken there for a government health department meeting. However, after reaching Vadodara, they found that it was a large Christian religious programme.

According to the complaint, the women had been taken there in the name of a government meeting, where plays and speeches were held as part of an attempt to influence them towards Christianity.

Accused woman moved High Court

The accused woman later approached the Gujarat High Court seeking cancellation of the FIR and chargesheet.

Her lawyer told the court that she was a follower of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that spreading the teachings of the Bible was part of her religious belief. The lawyer argued that Article 25 of the Constitution gives every person the fundamental right to profess, practise and propagate their religion.

The defence said there had been no force or inducement to convert anyone. It argued that the woman had only given religious literature to the workers and shown them material available in the public domain. The lawyer also said that the Vadodara programme was voluntary.

The defence further claimed that the complaint was filed because of personal enmity. It also questioned whether the complainant could file a complaint on behalf of the other employees.

Another argument was that the chargesheet had been filed without taking prior permission from the District Magistrate and, therefore, the proceedings should be cancelled.

Police investigation and bank transactions

The government lawyer opposed the petition and told the court about the evidence collected during the investigation.

According to the government, the police found that copies of a Bible titled What the Holy Bible Teaches had been given to the complainant and other women. The accused woman’s mobile phone and laptop have also been sent to the FSL for examination.

The government lawyer said the accused woman was directly connected with an organisation called Jehovah’s Witnesses of India (JWI). The investigation into her links with the organisation and the financial transactions had also revealed transactions involving crores of rupees, the government said.

According to the details placed before the court, more than Rs 10 crore was deposited from a JWI account into the accused woman’s ICICI Bank account. More than Rs 7 crore was later withdrawn from the account.

Similarly, more than Rs 20 crore was deposited into her HDFC Bank account from JWI, of which more than Rs 19 crore was withdrawn.

Police also recovered a large quantity of Christian and Bible-related literature during a search at the accused woman’s house.

The material included Gujarati and Hindi-language Bible books, books on Bible study and Jehovah’s Witnesses, along with pamphlets related to the 2025 Great Convention– Devotion to Jehovah. Police also recovered several books, diaries and notebooks.

What did the Gujarat High Court say?

After hearing both sides, the Gujarat High Court said that Article 25 of the Constitution gives people the right to follow and propagate their religion. However, this right is subject to public order, morality and health.

The court said there is no restriction on voluntarily propagating one’s religion. But when force, fraud, inducement, threats or misuse of authority are involved, such activities do not get protection under the Constitution and can amount to an offence.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the High Court also observed that showing one’s own sect as superior while criticising another religion or idol worship goes against the principles of Indian secularism.

The court also rejected the argument that the complainant did not have the authority to file the case. It said that in serious cases involving illegal religious conversion, the meaning of an ‘aggrieved person’ has to be understood broadly. Any aggrieved person or organisation can approach the police to maintain law and order, the court said.

Macwan-v_s-State-of-GujaratDownload

The High Court also rejected the argument regarding prior permission from the District Magistrate. The state government produced documents showing that the Anand District Magistrate had given the required legal approval on March 6, 2026.

The court also noted that although the accused woman did not have direct control over the salaries of the ASHA workers, she was their supervisor. Whether she used her position to influence or pressure the workers will be examined by the trial court.

The High Court said the evidence collected during the investigation prima facie showed that an offence had been made out. Therefore, the FIR and chargesheet could not be cancelled at this stage under the principles laid down in the Bhajan Lal case.

The court dismissed the woman’s petition and directed the trial court to hear the case independently and according to law.

How India is countering expansionist Chinese plan to ‘rename and claim’ strategic locations in Arunachal Pradesh

सौम्या सिंह
-
0
How India is countering expansionist Chinese plan to ‘rename and claim’ strategic locations in Arunachal Pradesh

The Government of India has taken a major and historic step regarding border security, administrative identity, and national sovereignty. Under the supervision of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and after extensive consultations with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, India’s official mapping agency, the ‘Survey of India’, has included 27 highly crucial and strategic locations of the state in the country’s official national map.

All these places have been recorded with their real, local, and authentic names. This decision comes at a time when neighboring China has been trying for a long time to assert false claims over various places in Arunachal Pradesh by assigning fabricated and fake Chinese names to them.

This step by India is not merely a routine task of entering names on paper, but a highly fitting, institutional, and permanent response to China’s ‘cartographic aggression’ or map-gimmickry.

This move not only grants legal and constitutional strength to the true identity of our remote border areas, but also permanently establishes accurate and correct information among ordinary citizens, the military, and the local administration regarding these regions.

Now let us understand this entire matter in detail, the reasons behind India’s move, the history of these 27 places, and its impact on the international stage.

New updated official map of Arunachal Pradesh released by the Survey of India (Image credit: Survey of India)

China’s ‘Rename and Claim’ Agenda and India’s Fitting Counteroffensive

Under a calculated strategy, China has been playing the drama of renaming various areas of Arunachal Pradesh for the past several years by calling it ‘Zangnan’ or ‘South Tibet’.

China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs first released its first list of so-called Chinese names for 6 places in Arunachal in the year 2017. Furthering this sinister plot, it declared fake names for 15 places in 2021, 11 places in 2023, and 30 places in March 2024.

In international affairs, this action of China is referred to as ‘salami slicing’ and ‘cartographic aggression’. Under this, China attempts to prove to the world through paper-based confusion that these areas have historically been under its control.

The Government of India has outright rejected these actions of China every time, clearly stating that writing fake names on paper by another country will not alter the ground reality of Arunachal.

From the Pages of History: The First Clash of 1959 and the Main Centers of the 1962 War

Among the 27 places included in the Survey of India’s new map, several have a deep connection with the history of the India-China border dispute. The most prominent and historic name among these is ‘Longju’, located right near the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Longju is the very historical site that became the first major military clash point between the two countries in 1959- three years before the 1962 India-China War- when the Chinese military attempted to intrude into Indian territory. Near Longju, the village of ‘Maja’, located in the Upper Subansiri district, has also been prominently featured on the official map.

Additionally, the ‘Thag La’ pass located in the western sector is another highly sensitive part of this entire list. The Thag La pass and the nearby Namka Chu valley are the areas from where China launched a large-scale attack on India on October 20, 1962.

Along with these two historic places, extremely rugged and high-altitude passes such as ‘Dzo La’, ‘Riza La’, and ‘Pukur La’ have also been given a place on the map. These passes are considered vital for movement, surveillance, and patrolling by the Indian security forces.

However, India has now moved beyond mere statements and diplomatic protests to take proactive action. By recording these 27 places in the Survey of India’s map with their real Indian names, India has completely deflated China’s fabricated claims.

Symbols of Valor: The Heroic Tales of Jaswant Singh and Trilok Singh Thapa

The list issued by the Government of India includes not just mountains, rivers, and passes, but also the memorials of those brave sons of Mother India who sacrificed everything while protecting the country’s borders. ‘Jaswant Garh’, located en route to Tawang, has been officially recorded in this list.

Jaswant Garh serves as a reminder of the unmatched bravery of Rifleman Jaswant Singh Rawat (Maha Vir Chakra), the immortal hero of the 1962 war. He single-handedly held off an entire detachment of the Chinese army for 72 hours, attaining martyrdom only after neutralizing dozens of enemies.

Even today, the Indian Army and locals revere Jaswant Garh like a sacred temple. Similarly, the ‘Sher-e-Thapa Memorial’ built in the upper region has been given formal placement on the Survey of India map.

This memorial symbolizes the extraordinary valor of Subedar Trilok Singh Thapa and his brave unit, who gave a fitting reply to the Chinese army near the Subansiri sector in the 1962 war. Including these war memorials in the country’s map sends a direct message that India honors every inch of its border and the sacred land of its martyrs.

Army Supply Routes and Protection of Local Settlements

Several places added to the map serve as the backbone for the administrative functioning of Arunachal Pradesh, the lives of the local tribes living there, and the logistics management of our military. For instance, the name ‘Jairampur’, located in Changlang district, is specially included in this list.

Jairampur is a major strategic hub for the movement of security forces, as well as the supply of rations and military equipment towards eastern Arunachal Pradesh and the Myanmar border.

Similarly, administrative areas like ‘Kamlang Nagar’ in Lohit district, situated near the famous Kamlang Wildlife Sanctuary, and ‘Sunpura’ have been given firm recognition on the official map. Apart from this, a breathtaking and high-altitude natural lake named ‘Sambho Sarovar’ has been included in this list.

Furthermore, inhabited villages such as Bisa, Bara Kundan, Chota Kundan, Dhan Bari, Preetnagar, Bauddhamandir, Teritnagar, Ramnagar, Sagar, Padma, Jyotinagar, Baisakhi, Chota Ropuk, Bara Ropuk and Shivaji Nagar have been marked with their authentic names.

Adding all these villages to the map accords both security and honor to the local tribal communities and their traditional identity.

Legal Power: India’s Strongest Shield Against Paper Claims

For any independent and sovereign nation, its official map is not merely lines of geography, but the strongest proof of its constitutional sovereignty, administrative control, and legal rights.

When the agency responsible for preparing India’s official map- the Survey of India- records a place in its map with an authentic name, it gains legal recognition at both national and international levels.

The first major benefit will be that in all official documents of India, land records, development plans, revenue accounts, and military operations, only these genuine names will be used, leaving no room for any future confusion.

The second major benefit will be that whenever China attempts to make false claims on international platforms or at multilateral meetings based on its fabricated maps, India will possess concrete proof in the form of its official, gazetted, and scientifically surveyed maps.

Experts note that this move demonstrates that India, rather than remaining purely defensive, is now asserting its borders and rights with great strength.

Complete Account of the 27 Places: Passes, Lake, Memorial, and 21 Villages

In this new and updated map released by the Survey of India, a total of 27 important geographical sites have been featured, which can be understood by dividing them into four main categories.

The first category includes four major mountain passes: Dzo La, Riza La, Pukur La, and Thag La. The second category features a natural water body- the high-altitude sacred lake, Sambho Sarovar.

The third category includes the historic Sher-e-Thapa Memorial, reminding us of the bravery of our courageous soldiers.

The fourth and largest category comprises 21 different inhabited villages, administrative areas, and settlements, including Longju, Maja, Bisa, Bara Kundan, Chota Kundan, Dhan Bari, Preetnagar, Bauddhamandir, Jairampur, Teritnagar, Ramnagar, Jaswant Garh, Sagar, Padma, Jyotinagar, Baisakhi, Chota Ropuk, Bara Ropuk, Shivaji Nagar, Sunpura, and Kamlang Nagar.

All these 27 locations have been registered in the national survey network along with their precise latitude-longitude coordinates and authentic Indian names, ensuring that no foreign power can alter their identity in the future.

By adding these 27 locations of Arunachal Pradesh to the country’s official national map, India has delivered a very clear and stern message to China and the entire world.

India has once again made it clear that Arunachal Pradesh was, is, and always will be an integral, indivisible, and inseparable part of India.

Along with the construction of new all-weather roads, tunnels, bridges, and Advanced Landing Grounds in border regions, the ‘Vibrant Villages Programme’, and now this fortification through maps, India’s strong and unambiguous foreign policy is clearly visible.

TheWire peddles, yet again, its interview with foreign-funded scamster bishop Joseph D’Souza: His lies about FCRA Bill debunked

Aditi
-
0
TheWire peddles, yet again, its interview with foreign-funded scamster bishop Joseph D’Souza: His lies about FCRA Bill debunked

On the 7th of August, a clip was shared by leftist propaganda portal The Wire showing Archbishop Joseph D’Souza, president of the All India Christian Council (AICC) and primate of the Good Shepherd Church of India, calling the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 (FCRA Bill 2026), “loot and theft of Christian institutions” and “a Sangh Parivar agenda.”

The podcast where Karan Thapar interviewed Joseph D’Souza was aired 4 months ago, on the 2nd of April 2026. D’Souza, who is a scam accused, foreign funded Christian pastor is being used by TheWire repeatedly to target the Modi government over the FCRA amendments, which would tighten the screws on nefarious and illegal funding, illegal conversions and more.

By sharing the clip, The Wire joined the chorus of allegations and lies being peddled against the FCRA Bill by several vested interests. The clip was from an interview given by D’Souza to ‘journalist‘ Karan Thapar. In the interview, Thapar begins by declaring the FCRA Bill as containing “draconian and seemingly unconstitutional measures”, to which D’Souza adds his own unfounded claims regarding the Bill.

“Loot and theft of Christian institutions”, says scam accused Joseph D’Souza on TheWire

Concurring with Thapar, D’Souza claimed that if the Bill is passed, it would enable what he termed as “the legalised loot of the Indian Christian community and the global Christian community”. Explaining his grave allegation, D’Souza claimed that the Bill is a ruse to grab the properties and assets of Christian institutions. He further claimed that the Designated Authority envisaged under the Bill is given sweeping powers to “take permanent control of the foreign contributions and assets of any organisation whose foreign contribution registration is cancelled, surrendered or lapses.”

Joseph D’Souza further claimed that the Bill violates the principles of natural justice as the decisions of the Designated Authority are not subject to judicial review or judicial scrutiny.

“RSS has historic animosity towards the Christian church”

D’Souza alleged that the provision could be misused by the government by denying or not acting on the renewal application of an organisation on time, which would lead to the seizure of the organisation’s assets. He termed the FCRA Bill a direct assault on minority rights in furtherance of “an RSS agenda to grab the Christian institutions of the nation”.

He attributed ideological motive to the government behind the introduction of the Bill. He claimed that the RSS’s “historic animosity towards Mother Teresa and towards the Christian church” is the reason behind the FCRA Bill. Describing the Bill as a threat to minority rights, the Archbishop equated it with the Office of Jewish Affairs called Referat IV B4 created in Nazi Germany to grab the assets, institutions, synagogues and everything belonging to Jewish people.

“Crippling of Christian community”

The Archbishop alleged that the government’s conspiracy to carry out an “economic loot” and “cripple the Christian community” was disguised as the FCRA Bill. He dismissed the concerns of national security linked with foreign funding and accused the RSS of “terrorism”, claiming that the scrutiny of foreign funding of Christian organisations is unnecessary as Christians are not involved in acts of terrorism.

D’Souza dismissed the argument that the Bill intends to regulate foreign money and proceeds coming to churches which are used for conversion purposes. He went on to claim that Christian organisations in India do indulge in conversion activities and that the government has “no understanding of modern Christianity”.

He threatened that by introducing the Bill, the government would open “a can of worms globally and in the UN”. He said that the action will attract global repercussions and backlash from international organisations. The Archbishop threatened that the Christian organisations will “approach the courts nationally and globally, let the global partners go to their courts” if the bill is passed in the Parliament.

Joseph D’Souza – the man who spearheaded campaign of hate against Hindus and is accused of diverting ₹296.6 crore into private bank accounts

D’Souza, who presents himself as a voice for Dalits and marginalised communities, is not a neutral voice in the discussion about the FCRA Bill. He has faced scrutiny for his foreign funding and financial irregularities in the past. He and his Western associates are notorious for pushing a narrative on international platforms that they belong to oppressed, backward, or untouchable communities in India who later converted to Christianity.

His network of institutions, which includes schools, hospitals and social-service organisations under the Good Shepherd Church and affiliated bodies, receives foreign funding and has, like thousands of other NGOs, faced FCRA compliance checks over the years. Joseph D’Souza co-founded the Dalit Freedom Network, later rechristened as the Dignity Freedom Network (DFN). The network operates major branches in the United States (DFN USA), Australia (DFN Australia), Canada, and the United Kingdom. Its websites and promotional material associated with these organisations present a highly negative picture of India by peddling lies like “Dalits and Christians in India are being killed like insects”.

Joseph D’Souza came under scrutiny after the Telangana CID and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed charges in connection with serious allegations involving money laundering and financial misappropriation. He and his son Josh Lawrence D’Souza were accused of diverting approximately ₹296.6 crore of foreign funds, originally raised for the free education and welfare of poor Dalit children, into private bank accounts, fixed deposits, and luxury real-estate investments through fake invoices and shell companies.

D’Souza is one of the key elements who peddled the “rising hate against Christians” lie to demonise India. OpIndia had conducted a detailed investigation on D’Souza, his scam and his foreign funding.

Debunking the Archbishop’s lies

The fear-mongering regarding the FCRA Bill is coming from the sections which might face legitimate scrutiny under the new law. However, the reality is far from what is being portrayed by certain vested interests. The proposed Bill explicitly protects all Places of Worship from government conversion, secularisation or repurposing.

The falsity of the claims that the government has been given sweeping powers to take over churches and religious institutions can be ascertained by a plain reading of the text. Here is a clause from the proposed Bill:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), the Designated authority shall, where any asset permanently vested in it or portion thereof is a place of worship, entrust the management or operation of such asset or portion thereof to such person, in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed and ensure that the religious character of such place of worship is maintained.”

As is clear from the clause, the Designated Authority cannot dismantle or shut down a physical place of worship of a church even if it loses its foreign contribution license. Under the proposed law, the role of the Designated Authority is restricted to managing foreign-funded commercial or developmental assets when an FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or allowed to expire. The objective is to ensure continuity of public services.

Contrary to what D’Souza claimed, any order passed by the Designated Authority remains subject to administrative review and judicial appeal before a District Judge. Besides, state-level agencies are barred from initiating local prosecutions without prior approval from the Centre. This is a clear safeguard against arbitrary local action.

The FCRA Bill does not prohibit foreign funding for any religion, including Christianity. Places of worship, including churches, temples, mosques and gurudwaras, will continue to receive foreign donations for genuine religious work. The Bill comes into play only when the foreign funds received are not utilised in the manner that was declared. This may lead to the recipient organisation losing its licence or FCRA registration.

The central government has been reaching out to all the stakeholders to address their concerns regarding the Bill. The government has repeatedly clarified that the law is free from any kind of religious bias and is non-discriminatory in nature.

Joseph D’Souza is himself accused by the authorities of violating FCRA rules

According to investigators, even after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suspended and later cancelled the FCRA licenses of key organizations associated with the network for alleged regulatory violations, foreign funds reportedly continued entering India through indirect channels.

The cancellation of FCRA licenses meant that the organizations could no longer directly receive foreign donations. Investigators alleged that D’Souza then used his commercial entity, OMBF (OM Books Foundation), as an alternative route.

According to allegations, inflated and fabricated invoices for printing and publishing services were generated and sent to associated or allegedly affiliated organizations overseas. These transactions were presented as legitimate commercial activities, creating the appearance that foreign organizations had commissioned books and publications. Investigators claim that this mechanism was used to continue routing foreign funds into India despite restrictions on direct foreign contributions.

Investigators alleged that approximately Rs 296.6 crore generated through the above-mentioned activities was laundered through investments in real estate and other assets.

While investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) reportedly found that Joseph D’Souza, his son Josh Lawrence D’Souza, and close associates had acquired expensive land parcels, commercial properties, and luxury villas using funds allegedly linked to these activities. 

As part of its action on what it classified as “proceeds of crime,” the ED reportedly attached and froze 12 major immovable properties whose combined market value was estimated at over Rs 15 crore.

The alleged operational model of this financial network was straightforward but sophisticated: portray India’s poverty and social problems in alarming terms to foreign audiences in order to attract donations, then allegedly divert those funds through paper transactions and fabricated invoices into private assets and an affluent lifestyle rather than using them for the intended beneficiaries.

Political connections, the Indian Left-Liberal ecosystem and ideoligical alignment with Congress

Joseph D’Souza’s critics argue that his influence extends beyond religious activities and that he has maintained close links with sections of India’s political and media ecosystem. They claim that whenever legal action intensifies around financial allegations, political support systems become active in framing such actions as politically or ideologically motivated.

Joseph D’Souza’s association with senior Congress leadership goes back many years.

Following the 2004 general election, when the government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated and the United Progressive Alliance came to power under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, D’Souza reportedly wrote to church networks in the United States describing the outcome as “Divine Justice” and “a great miracle.”

At that time, D’Souza was serving as the global president of the All India Christian Council. According to Breaking India, these claims and related documentation are discussed in Chapter 8 of the book. 

It also point to more recent developments as evidence of continued political alignment. During debates around reforms concerning Waqf administration, Rahul Gandhi echoed concerns raised by some bishops and church groups, stating that after the Waqf Bill the government might potentially target church properties.

Such political statements serve to frame ongoing ED and CID investigations involving figures like Joseph D’Souza as issues of “religious persecution,” thereby creating a protective political narrative. However, this remains a matter of political interpretation and competing viewpoints rather than an established legal conclusion.

Essentially, TheWire not only platformed, but also peddled over and over again the baseless allegations and outright lies of a bishop who spearheaded an anti-India, anti-Hindu campaign lying about Christian persecution, is accused of a scam worth crores and violated FCRA rules himself, to lie about the proposed FCRA amendments which would tighten the screws around scamsters like him.

1...192021...7,651Page 20 of 7,651