ISLAMABAD, several international human rights organizations have called on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to press the Indian government to cease its intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, alleging misuse of counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws.
According to Kashmir media service, these organizations accuse the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, of exploiting laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to suppress human rights within the country. This comes despite the Indian government’s initial assessment in 2010, the year it joined the FATF—an intergovernmental organization established to combat threats to the integrity of the international financial system—that the risk of terrorism financing in the non-profit sector was “low”.
The American Bar Association Centre for Human Rights has released a report highlighting the adverse effects of counterterrorism laws on human rights defenders and detailing India’s compliance with FATF recommendations. The report underscores an expanding trend of vague legal provisions and the overturning of procedural safeguards for defendants.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Security Network, in a joint statement, have criticized the Indian state for restricting civic freedoms and violating the rights to free expression, association, and peaceful assembly. They argue that the Modi government’s practices are contrary to both FATF standards and international human rights norms.
Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, the rights groups have observed an increased use of broad domestic laws to silence critics and disrupt their activities, including by revoking foreign funding licenses and leveraging counterterrorism and financial regulations against them.
These findings were presented ahead of the FATF’s Mutual Evaluation Review (MER), which concluded on November 3, assessing India’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures.
The American Bar Association referenced various case studies in its report, including the incarceration of journalist Siddique Kappan, to illustrate the alleged political misuse of terror funding laws. Kappan, after more than two years in detention under the UAPA and PMLA, was released on bail by the Supreme Court, which questioned the strength of the prosecution’s allegations against him.
Similarly, in the Elgar Parishad case, the NIA, under the BJP government, arrested 16 activists and scholars, with the trial yet to begin after five years. The Enforcement Directorate also made moves to interrogate one of the accused for purported involvement in terror financing.
These reports and statements form part of a broader critique of India’s use of legislation ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorism, suggesting they are instead being employed to suppress dissent and civil liberties.