WASHINGTON D.C., The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights has unveiled findings on the abuse of counter-terrorism financing legislation by India’s governing Hindu nationalist administration under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The report underscores that this misuse is predominantly directed at non-profit organizations (NPOs) and champions of human rights.
According to Kashmir Media Service, the investigation titled “The Adverse Impact of Counter Terrorism Laws on Human Rights Defenders and FATF Compliance in India” reveals that the Modi administration is sidestepping the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) stipulations and directives, focusing its actions on human rights proponents and members of the civil society.
The analysis indicates that after becoming a FATF member in 2010, India introduced a slew of revisions to its anti-terrorism and money laundering rules, with the purported aim of adhering to FATF standards. The findings, however, suggest that this revision process has inadvertently affected non-profit entities and human rights advocates, leading to legal actions against them for exercising civic rights and voicing dissent against the administration.
Furthermore, the study scrutinized three stringent anti-terrorism laws: the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The document also explores individual incidents pertaining to NPOs and human rights activists in India. Some of the mentioned cases include the unwarranted charges against journalist Siddique Kappan, the label of terror financing on citizenship bill protesters, the detainment of Kashmiri political figure Waheed Parra, and the stifling of democratic rights campaigners in Telangana.
Highlighting the methods of the Indian investigative bodies, the report draws attention to the recurrent use of nebulous allegations and unstable evidence when pursuing legal action against human rights defenders and NPOs that criticize the Modi administration. It also emphasizes that anti-terrorism regulations have gradually broadened in scope, often blurring definitions and compromising the essential legal safeguards for the accused.
The recommendations of the report urge the Indian government to reconsider the UAPA, PMLA, and FCRA regulations to curtail their potential misuse. Additionally, it suggests that in situations where legal, journalistic, or activist individuals are under scrutiny, Indian officials should focus on unbiased risk assessments to guarantee conformity with FATF’s guidelines.
Responding to the report, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) Executive Director, Rasheed Ahmed, stated, “ABA’s report spotlights a troubling trend of targeting human rights defenders and NGOs in India, a matter we have frequently highlighted.”
Ahmed further commented on the importance of India heeding these findings and emphasized the need to make the necessary modifications. “The crafting of anti-terrorism regulations should not undermine the civil society and its advocates. A recommitment to these fundamental tenets and assurance of alignment with FATF’s guidelines is essential,” he concluded.