What is 'national interest' and who determines it and when? Must it be left to the ruling party or the Government of the day? The questions have agitated me since I was a cub reporter and had attended a press conference addressed by the then union minister for Industrial Production T.A. Pai. The pipe-smoking minister wagged a finger at us and declared that the 'Press' should learn to behave responsibly. It was long before the Emergency was declared, there was no TV of course and the word 'media' was used only in academic discourse.
Pai, it seemed, was trying to seal a deal in a foreign country when he was shown a clutch of newspaper clippings on various problems that plagued the BHEL then. The minister was trying to secure orders for the public sector undertaking but the foreign buyers were not convinced that BHEL would be able to deliver on time. The deal fell through and the Indian newspapers, Pai said dramatically, had played the role of the villain. It was an 'anti-national' act, he said while exhaling smoke.
Youth does make one imperious and I could not resist the temptation of asking Pai whether he actually expected newspapers to black out inconvenient reports. I do not now remember what he said or if he said anything at all. What I do remember is more senior journalists glaring at me and shouting me down while Pai gave me one amused, disdainful look before curling his lips and turning away.
Advertisement
That moment came back to me this morning while reading a report in the Times of India under the headline, "Greenpeace's leaky wallet gets Home Ministry's goat". I had of course read reports earlier in the week that the Government of India had frozen accounts of Greenpeace on the ground that it was engaged in vaguely subversive and anti-national acts by endangering India's development story. It was an old narrative and the 'leaks' directed against Greenpeace India and 'five star NGOs' as the Prime Minister colourfully would have described them, had started immediately after the new NDA Government had swept to power in May last year. And the Government had doggedly pursued its case against the NGO for the past 10 months, leaking 'Intelligence Bureau' reports even before they are 'declassified', one presumes.
Having personally known several senior officers in the IB and having frequented IB offices (in the states they often resemble newspaper offices provided you can gain entry into them), I was not surprised at the tenor of the reports. The Government was clearly determined to make an example of Greenpeace and I wondered if Indian activists had it in them to fight back as Greenpeace has done in many other countries. Till this morning, that is.
It is necessary to look at the grounds cited by the MHA (or IB reports) as claimed by TOI to realize how diabolic or idiotic this Government can possibly get. Let us take them up one by one.
Protest Creation Activity
The Government is apparently peeved at the NGO engineering protests and the 'enormous sums' spent by the NGO in organizing protests. In a democratic society, everybody has a right to organize protests. Of course people, especially poor people, need to be transported, fed, educated and volunteers trained for the purpose. If this is illegal or anti-national, then most protests organized by political parties would be illegal. And since neither BJP nor other political parties are even willing to declare their assets or get them audited or, for that matter, subject themselves to the Right to Information Act, I do not understand what right this Government or any Government has to object to such activities.
Expenditure on securing bail bonds
Greenpeace is accused by the Government of spending huge sums to secure bail for staff, volunteers and people arrested during the course of agitation. Does the Government expect them to do nothing and allow the volunteers, associates and staff to languish in prison? Can someone ask BJP leaders about their legal expenses? How they can afford the services of top lawyers and how much of their legal expenses are paid by the party? If our ruling party is not prepared to disclose such information, isn't it making a fool of itself by demanding the NGOs do not spend money on legal expenses?
Unjustifiably large amounts paid as salary
Unbelievably this is also one of the charges against Greenpeace, that its India head Samit Aich is paid a salary of Rs 1.85 lakh a month. What business is it of the Government to decide how much salary NGOs, newspapers, TV channels or corporations pay their staff? Can anyone ask who funds the foreign trips of former RSS pracharak lent to the BJP, Ram Madhav? But if the law must treat everyone equally, why should there be one set of law for NGOs, another set of laws for political parties and a third set of laws for corporate bodies? Frankly, it makes no sense to me.
Consent of donors
The Government or the IB appears to have made a song and dance about the fact that consent of foreign donors was not obtained by Greenpeace before spending 'huge sums' on litigation, on salary etc. I wonder if the BJP secures consent from its donors before deciding to splurge on political rallies, promoting the Prime Minister and before it pays PR companies for political campaigns? Greenpeace claims to accept no donation from any Government or corporate body. Its donors are individuals and if they have a problem with how their donations are being spent, it is a matter between them and the NGO to settle.
Violation of IPC
The righteous Government appears to be outraged at Greenpeace activists being charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code. The dark hint is that the activists must be involved in violence, fraud or worse. The fact is that this Government has a minister who was charged with rape. The additional fact is that in Parliament there are hundreds of MPs who have cases against them for various offences under the IPC including disturbing public order, preventing public servants from discharging their duty, violating prohibitory orders under section 144 of the CrPC etc. The question is if this is fine for our elected MPs and MLAs, who never tire of saying, "The law will take its own course', why is it not fine with activists ?
Against the spirit of charitable institutions
Both the Government and the IB appear upset at the high consultancy fees, salary and legal fees etc. paid by Greenpeace. If you want to serve the poor, they seem to be suggesting, then remain in far-off, remote areas, lead austere lives, pray daily and do not take on the Government, business and other lobbies. If the Government and Parliament are determined to regulate NGOs, they must legislate and provide a level playing field to political parties, NGOs etc. It does not have the authority to be arbitrary in defining what 'charitable institutions' (aren't political parties also dependent on charity?) can or can't do.
Advertisement
It is a little rich that a Government which does not believe in transparency can be so high handed in determing what NGOs can do, how much they can spend and how they must function. Who will decide how bodies like RSS and VHP must function?
