After months of tussle with activists, India suspends Greenpeace

Since it came to power last year, along with legal changes in environmental policy, the Narendra Modi government has restricted grassroots and environmental activism on an unprecedented scale. Just yesterday, the Ministry of Home Affairs blocked Greenpeace India from receiving foreign funding for six months and froze the nonprofit’s bank accounts, allegedly because the organization has “prejudicially affected the public interests and economic interests of the country,” in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, or FCRA. Samit Aich, executive director of Greenpeace India said that the Home Ministry’s repeated moves to restrict the nonprofit’s funding were clear attempts to “silence criticism and dissent.” Divya Raghunandan, the group’s program director, adds, “The real reason is our campaigns that have been irritants for the cozy nexus between government and some companies.”

On May 3, 2014, a report by India’s Intelligence Bureau that accused “foreign-funded” nonprofits of stalling development was leaked to the media. Addressed to the prime minister’s office, it said the nonprofits served as tools for foreign policy interests of Western governments by agitating against nuclear and coal-fired power plants across the country.

The report attacked Greenpeace in particular, but also the Indian environmental and human rights organizations People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Amnesty India. It named certain renowned civil-rights activists as being anti-nationalists and part of a green lobby that had “slowed India’s GDP by two or three percent.” The report called them “threats to national security.” The daily paper The Indian Express stated that much of the report was copied directly from a 2006 speech Modi gave at a book launch when he was the chief minister of the state of Gujarat.

Shortly after the report was leaked, the Home Ministry blocked the flow of overseas funds to Greenpeace India. Raghunandan says this is because Greenpeace’s “campaigns have questioned illegality and harassment in mining areas. … When they don’t like the message, they shoot the messenger.”