On further enquiries, I came to know that P.D. John referred to in the Outlookreport was identical with John Prabhudoss. I was told he calls himself sometimesas John Prabhudoss (when he went to Iraq after the US invasion and occupation,for example) and sometimes as P.D.John (when he visited Gujarat after the riotsin 2002, for example) and that he wears two hats. It is also alleged that heuses other aliases such as J.P. Doss. He is reportedly the Chairman,Governmental Relations Committee of the Federation of Indian AmericanChristian Organizations of North America (FIACONA), Washington DC; and theExecutive Director of the Policy Institute for Religion and State (PIFRAS).
My enquiries and research also indicated that both are Christian organisationsand that, while the FIACONA focusses on lobbying in Washington DC on theissue of the violations of the rights of the religious minorities and the restrictions on the right of the Christians to proselytize in India, thePIFRAS largely concentrates on backing the Bush Administration's policy ofpromoting democracy and good governance, particularly in the Islamic world. Icame across the texts of the reports prepared and disseminated by JohnPrabhudoss on his visits to Iraq and noticed that most of the members of thedelegation, which he had taken to Iraq, were Christians.
My research and enquiries also indicated that while he and hisorganisations have been very vocal in their criticism of the violations of thehuman rights of the Christians and Muslims in India, they have been muted on theviolations of the human rights of the Sunni Muslims of Iraq by the US troops,the alleged brutalities committed by the US troops at the Abu Gharaib prison andthe alleged massacre of the Iraqi Sunnis, particularly at Falluja, by the UStroops. Nor did I find any activism by him and his organisations on thebrutal violations of the human rights of the Muslim detenus at the GuantanamoBay in Cuba. If they have campaigned on these issues as vigorously as they have campaigned on the issue of the violations of the human rights of the Muslims andChristians in India, I would be glad to know the details and would be onlytoo happy to stand corrected.
My research also brought out his acquaintance with and proximity to someof the political leaders in Washington DC, who had played a role in the decisionto deny a visa to Narendra Modi.
After taking all these into consideration, I wrote my article and stand by myassessment as given in that article. Since March, 2002, I have written stronglyagainst Narendra Modi and on the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat. I have writtenequally strongly in Indian and foreign media on the serious violations of thehuman rights of the Muslims by American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and in theGuantanamo Bay detention camp. I find it difficult to accept the arguments andthe allegations against me of those in the community of Indian origin inthe USA, who are vigorous in their denunciation of the human rights of theChristian and Muslim minorities in India and walk the lobbies of theCongress almost every day on this issue, but prefer to remain muted on theserious violations of the human rights of the Muslims by the American troops so well documented by prestigious Human Rights organisations such as the AmnestyInternational and the Human Rights Watch.