[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICAN COMPASSION IN INDIA:
GOVERNMENT OBSTACLES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 6, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-241
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-864 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Stephen Oakley, general counsel and vice president of the
General Counsel Office, Compassion International............... 4
Mr. John Sifton, acting deputy Washington director, Asia Advocacy
Director, Human Rights Watch................................... 12
Irfan Nooruddin, Ph.D., Hamad bin Khalifa professor of indian
politics, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown
University..................................................... 17
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Stephen Oakley: Prepared statement........................... 7
Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement.............................. 14
Irfan Nooruddin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 19
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 51
AMERICAN COMPASSION IN INDIA: GOVERNMENT OBSTACLES
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order.
And to put this hearing in perspective, I want to make a
point about India. As chairman and as a leader of the India
Caucus, I helped build that caucus from just 12 members to 160
members. I managed the U.S.-Indian civil nuclear agreement on
the House floor and beat back the anti-India amendments, which
would have killed the agreement.
I carried the original bill to lift sanctions on India in
the 1990s and traveled with President Clinton on his historic
trip to India. I was tasked with briefing President Bush on the
importance of deepening our relationship with India on
counterterrorism and on trade. And I flew into Bhuj with USAID
the day after the Gujarat earthquakes and first met then Chief
Minister Narendra Modi, who was on the ground bringing order
out of chaos. I admired him for the work he had done, and I
admire him today for what he is trying to do in India.
I traveled to Mumbai the day after the terrorist attacks to
meet with Indian intelligence officials and press the
Government of Pakistan to either try the LeT terrorists or turn
them over to The Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity
by the International Criminal Court. I was one of the leading
voices pushing for a U.S. visa for Chief Minister Modi. I
extended the invitation for Prime Minister Modi to address a
joint meeting of Congress, a historic occasion we celebrated
this June, and I also personally hosted the Prime Minister at a
reception in his honor.
My chief of staff, Amy, and her daughter, who is Indian
American, have for years sponsored and built a relationship
with a girl in India. These two 7-year-olds draw and send
pictures to each other. They share what games they like to play
and what food they like to eat. That bonding experience is the
same for the other American families that also send, each of
them, $38 every month to 145,000 children, the poorest of the
poor in India. These are children who would otherwise be
without enough food and without the fees that they need for
their education.
Americans have been sending these checks, through an
organization called Compassion, to India for nearly 50 years.
In India, it is the single largest contributor of aid for
children living in extreme poverty.
Now, Amy and thousands of other American families are being
obstructed from supporting these children. This is despite the
best effort of Secretary of State John Kerry and of myself and
others on the committee. We have spent 9 months and hundreds of
hours dealing with the Indian bureaucracy on this, and it looks
like the bureaucracy is trying to run out the clock.
We as Americans deal with American bureaucracy. It is part
of the job here as members of the House of Representatives. We
work for our constituents, but we don't always win.
Bureaucracies are stubborn, stubborn things in America, let me
tell you.
Presidents can have a vision, but that vision can be
frustrated by the bureaucracy. Prime Minister Modi has a vision
about India. He is self-made. He was never a member of some
elite. He was the son of a poor man. As he says, ``the son of a
poor man standing in front of you today,'' and as he said, ``I
am devoted to the development of all; the Dalit, the oppressed,
the underprivileged, the deprived. A government is one that
thinks and hears the voice of the people. A government must be
for the poor.''
But bureaucracies have their own dynamics, and they can
stifle any President or Prime Minister's dreams. For the past 9
months this committee has had meetings, written letters, made
phone calls, and for that I thank our members.
This isn't a hearing that the committee expected to be
holding. It is my hope that by bringing attention to this
issue, as we are doing here today, the 145,000 children will
not be tragically denied the services they desperately need and
that American families like Amy's can continue to send the $38
a month for food and education fees to the poorest of the poor.
I know the ranking member will be with us momentarily. In
the meantime, I will introduce our panel, and then move to the
ranking member's remarks once he arrives.
This morning, we are pleased to be joined by a
distinguished panel. Mr. Stephen Oakley is the general counsel
and vice president of the General Counsel's Office at
Compassion International. He joined Compassion in 2011 where he
is responsible for overseeing their domestic and international
legal and government affairs.
Mr. John Sifton is acting deputy Washington director and
Asia advisory director at Human Rights Watch. He began working
at Human Rights Watch in 2001 where he has focused on
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, and previously he worked for
the International Rescue Committee.
Dr. Irfan Nooruddin is a professor of Indian politics and
director of the India Initiative at Georgetown University. He
is the author of Coalition Politics and Economic Development
Credibility and the Strength of Weak Governments.
Without objection, by the way, the witnesses' full prepared
statements will be made part of the record. Members are going
to have 5 calendar days to submit statements or questions or
extraneous material for the record.
I am going to go to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel of
New York. But I am going to ask, when we go to the panelists,
if you will summarize your testimony to 5 minutes, and then we
will go to questions.
Mr. Eliot Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing today. I welcome the chance to speak with you
about Compassion International's recent struggles in India, and
I know this is an issue close to your heart.
As you know, I share your concern about challenges some
NGOs are facing in India. My staff and I tried to assist in
resolving the situation, and I hope following this hearing we
can find a way forward on this issue. And I am grateful, as
always, for your leadership.
To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
We are grateful for your time and expertise.
More than 20 years ago, I was one of a handful of Members
of Congress who founded the caucus on India and Indian
Americans. At that time the U.S. relationship with India
focused more on what our two countries couldn't do together
rather than what we could do together. Today, in my view, the
U.S. relationship with India is one of our most important,
driven by our shared interests and shared values.
We have made progress in so many areas. India now
participates in more military exercises with the United States
than any country in the world. Once the sticking point between
our governments, nuclear cooperation has become the lynchpin of
a renewed U.S.-India partnership.
On climate change, India has already ratified the Paris
Agreement. Trade between India and the United States continues
to expand. Supporting thousands of American jobs, it has nearly
tripled from 36 billion in 2005 to over 107 billion in 2015.
India's strategy to expand economic engagement in Asia aligns
closely with our own Asia rebalance.u
The list goes on and on from space exploration, to shared
concerns in the Indian Ocean region, to economic growth; we are
collaborating on more issues than ever before. Much of this
progress is due to our people-to-people ties rooted in the 3
million strong Indian-American community. Thanks to their
advocacy and the hard work of dedicated leaders of all
political ideologies in both countries, the United States and
India are now closer than ever before. But this doesn't mean
that the United States and India will agree on everything. And
when we don't see eye to eye, we need to have honest
discussions and work toward good solutions. And that is why we
are doing this hearing today on the NGOs and other things
involving the U.S.-India relationship.
I discussed earlier the importance of the values that the
United States and India both share. This goes beyond the cliche
of being the world's oldest and largest democracies, we embrace
our traditions of political freedoms, of free and fair
elections and of a vibrant, vocal civil society.
The United States nor India, neither one of us, are
strangers to contentious political debate. Our recent elections
are a great example of that, and India has a long rich
tradition of raucous political campaigns. The free debate is
the cornerstone of democracy. So I was concerned by reports
earlier this year that a college student, a student body
president, was arrested for making what was deemed antinational
statements. College campuses have long been a hotbed of
political activism. And whether we find this activity agreeable
or objectionable, these democracies need to protect the right
of free expression and free assembly, and again I know the
chairman is very concerned about that as well.
I have been concerned by reports that NGOs are having
difficulty registering and operating in India. Civil society
plays a pivotal role in democracy, holding government
accountable and standing up for the rights of marginalized
groups. So it is troubling that a country with such a long
tradition of an empowered and active civil society might be
going down this path. We can't avoid the hard questions or
avoid discussions simply because they are difficult
conversations to have. This is how democracies work, warts and
all.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
all of these issues, the tremendous progress and potential of
the U.S.-India relationship, but also in areas like
international child abduction, where there is still a lot of
work to be done. If we stay committed to deepening this venture
further, if we think long term while working to meet day-to-day
challenges, then this relationship will help both our countries
become stronger and more prosperous and will become one of the
defining partnerships of the 21st century.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
We go now to Mr. Oakley.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN OAKLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL AND VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE, COMPASSION
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Oakley. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Engel, members of the Foreign----
Chairman Royce. Mr. Oakley, there is a button right there
that you can press. We can hear you there.
Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members
of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My name is Stephen Oakley. I
am Compassion International's general counsel. It is my
privilege to speak with you today on the topic of Compassion's
specific experience in India and the reason that Compassion is
merely weeks away from permanently withdrawing its operations
in India.
By way of a brief background, since 1952, it has been the
mission of Compassion to help children living in extreme
poverty around the world. And today, Compassion is the world's
largest child sponsorship NGO with 1.9 million children in 26
countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Compassion has been in India since 1968, and for five
decades now, Compassion has worked without incident under the
authority of successive Indian Governments. That abruptly
changed in 2013 when Compassion encountered the first of a
series of legal and regulatory attacks. This came about in the
form of tax cases, in which the government assessed over $18
million in corporate income tax on the charitable donations to
our locally incorporated South India entity.
That was followed by a series of different attacks.
Intelligence bureau investigations, enforcement directorate
cases, you have before you as an exhibit to my brief a copy of
the Ministry of Home Affairs order. It is a prior approval
order that prevents Compassion from getting any money into
India without the advanced clearance of the ministry, which we
have found to be a fiction.
Finally, both of the FCRAs of Compassion's locally
incorporated entities have been denied. We have sought legal
advice from multiple lawyers, chartered accountants in India.
And to a person, they have assured us and provided us the
advice that our operations are legal and lawful under the laws
of India. And to a person, they have suggested that to the
extent the law is being broken in India, it is being broken by
the Indian Government in advancing extremely aggressive and
legally unsupported interpretations of existing law, knowing
that charities often lack the resources or expertise to
challenge these interpretations, and when they do, the
challenges will take years in court.
In discussions with other faith-based NGOs and my own
reading of the relevant portions of the Indian constitution and
their Tax Act and their FCRA laws, I have come to the
conclusion that Compassion is experiencing an unprecedented,
highly coordinated, deliberate, and systematic attack to drive
Compassion out of India. Anecdotally, I am hearing similar
stories from other faith-based and civil society organizations.
The reason, apparently, is the Government of India wrongly
believes that faith-based organizations are using humanitarian
efforts to convert Indians to Christianity. And these attacks
are occurring under the guise of regulatory compliance. But
these reasons are a fiction. It is religious discrimination,
pure and simple.
The behavior of the Indian Government toward Compassion and
other faith-based NGOs is in my view illegal. It is
inconsistent with the values of freedom of expression and
freedom of religion, which the Indian constitution specifically
guarantees.
Now, as a committee, why should you care? First, as one of
the largest NGOs in the world and as the number-one importer of
foreign NGO currency into India, if Compassion is forced to
withdraw, in my view, this represents a green light to the
Indian Government to take the same or similar action against a
range of other faith-based and secular NGOs. That is a real
risk.
Second, if the rule of law is breaking down in India, as I
believe it is, that impacts not only civil society
organizations, not only the NGO sector. That presents a real
risk to foreign business in India, to United States businesses
in India. The rule of law is essential for all corporations,
including not-for-profits and for-profits.
Finally, you should care because the Indian Government has
made no plan, no provision whatsoever, for the 145,000 children
that Compassion cares for in India. There is no plan for them
when we depart.
To that end, I have three requests. First, we humbly ask
that this committee demand that the Indian Government
immediately rescind the prior approval order, which our counsel
tell us was illegally issued and is illegal under their law.
Second, we ask that this committee demand that the Indian
Government reinstate the FCRAs of both of Compassion's locally
incorporated field offices in India that have operated for over
a decade successfully. Our counsel tells us their revocation
was illegal.
Third, we ask that you continue to make the fair treatment
of NGOs in India a precondition across a spectrum of other
issues between India and the United States. Link it to other
issues that India cares about. Consequences only have value if
they result in changed behavior, so I ask that you send the
Indian Government a strong message that this matters to the
United States.
Again, there is no plan for these children if we depart. So
we ask you to ask the Indian Government to reconsider its
decision. Thank you very much. I would be happy to take your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oakley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Oakley.
We go to Mr. Sifton.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, ACTING DEPUTY WASHINGTON
DIRECTOR, ASIA ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Mr. Sifton. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to
testify today. It may be a moment of transition here in
Washington, but this hearing is actually extremely well-timed.
As my copanelist has already noted, there is a troubling new
crackdown underway in India today, especially in the last few
months.
A large number of nongovernmental organizations--
international, domestic, religious, secular--have faced
increasing government harassment in the last few months and in
the last few years, including intrusive and politically
motivated legal scrutiny. And the U.S. Government, a close
ally, needs to better respond. And the incoming Congress and
incoming administration needs to give this issue more attention
than it has already received.
My testimony, in summary, is about how the Indian
Government is specifically creating for NGOs these problems. So
let's go down to specifics.
The main and most powerful tool the Indian Government has
for harassing NGOs is the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,
the FCRA. It is an overbroad and poorly worded, poorly drafted
law that contains provisions that basically can be abused to
block foreign funding for groups, deregister them, and stymie
their activities.
The problems with the FCRA are twofold. First, it is overly
intrusive. It basically gives the government too much power.
The Home Ministry is given powers that it ought not to have,
powers to look into an organization's specific projects and
question them. Its provisions are both overbroad and
overreaching. It gives the government the power to cut funding
for organizations on the vague grounds that they are ``likely
to affect prejudicially the economic interest of the State'' or
its ``public interest.''
The FCRA has been used and abused by successive Indian
Governments. The Congress government abused this law as well,
but its use and abuse has increased significantly with the
current BJP government. Last year the government used FCRA
provisions to harass numerous NGOs, including Greenpeace India,
as well as an organization run by the activist, Teesa Setalvad
that has brought legal cases seeking justice for victims of the
2002 Gujarat violence. As you know, Prime Minister Modi was the
chief minister in Gujarat in 2002, and there are numerous
allegations about his complicity in the violence. So you can
imagine that when people who are seeking justice for that
violence are gone after, it very clearly looks politically
motivated.
This May, the government suspended for apparently
politically motivated reasons the FCRA's status of the Lawyers
Collective founded by the prominent lawyers Anand Grover and
Indira Jaising. The Lawyers Collective has represented Setalvad
and the Greenpeace activists, who are targeted, among others.
And just a few weeks ago, the government canceled the Lawyers
Collective's registration under the FCRA.
Abuse of FCRA has intensified in recent months. In October
alone, the government refused to renew the FCRA of at least 25
NGOs without valid reasons, lead us to issue a statement about
it. Several domestic human rights groups were deregistered. The
Ministry of Home Affairs told media that the NGOs were denied
FCRA registration because their activities were ``not in the
national interest.''
Several of the specific cases from October are outlined in
the written version of my testimony. But let me give the
context. All of these new harassments under the FCRA come as
attacks on freedom of expression and association in India have
been on the rise. In the last 2 years, Human Rights Watch has
observed how Indian authorities have increasingly used the
country's sedition law against peaceful critics, including
activists and artists and students, for alleged
``antinational'' speech.
Other overbroad and vaguely worded laws, including India's
criminal defamation and hate speech laws, are also used to
harass and prosecute those who have expressed dissenting or
unpopular or minority views.
The harassment of NGOs is taking place in a context in
which religious minority groups, in particular Muslims and
Christians, are at increased risk. Let's be clear, since the
BJP came into power in 2014, militant Hindu groups have been
increasingly threatening and sometimes even physically
assaulted Christians and Muslims.
The consequences of these tensions go beyond human rights
concerns, as my copanelists have mentioned, and affect even
India's economy. So I think it is important that the U.S.
Government and incoming administration take this seriously not
just from a human rights point of view but from an economics of
view.
The basic recommendation my testimony gives are that,
first, the incoming administration and the incoming Congress
and Members should raise concerns about the FCRA more publicly.
When U.S. officials speak with Indian officials, they be should
raise concerns about the FCRA directly and mention publicly
that they are doing so.
They should enlist the support of U.S. corporations and
other private sector actors whose charitable activities are
impacted by this. I think if U.S. corporate and business
leaders are also raising this, it will have an enormous impact
beyond, you know, groups like Human Rights Watch raising these
issues.
And last, just speak out about the rise in violent attacks
by Hindu nationalists on Christians and Muslims and other
minority groups. I mean, the Government of India needs to hear
complaints from outside the country about these issues.
The written version of my testimony outlines those
recommendations in more detail, but thank you for allowing me
to testify today. And I will be glad to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Dr. Nooruddin.
STATEMENT OF IRFAN NOORUDDIN, PH.D., HAMAD BIN KHALIFA
PROFESSOR OF INDIAN POLITICS, WALSH SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE,
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Nooruddin. Good morning, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member
Engel, members of this distinguished committee, committee
staff. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to have
this opportunity to speak to you.
The FCRA, or the Foreign Contributions Regulatory Act of
2010, which is at the core of today's hearing, is a revision
and amendment of an earlier act that was passed in 1976. The
FCRA of 1976 was passed in the height of India's Emergency
period, which is the one brief interlude where India veered
toward an autocratic rule before coming back to its democratic
core. I would say that over the 40 years since the FCRA 1976
was passed, the India-U.S. relationship has deepened and has
become a truly strategic partnership thanks in no small part to
the efforts of many of you.
But the FCRA hasn't improved with time. And, in fact, its
antidemocratic roots are very much on display, as has been
remarked upon by our copanelists today. While I talk about FCRA
in civil society, I do think, though, it is important to put
into context the broadest strategic relationship that has been
built, thanks to the investments of the United States
Government across administrations and by the Indian Government
across its governments. The defense relationship is stronger
and deeper, with more potential than at any prior time in
either country's history.
The signing of the LEMOA agreement earlier, the start of
the joint exercises in Malabar, the defense procurement
potential between India and the United States all represent
opportunities that even 10 years ago, at the height of that
civil nuclear deal that Chairman Royce referenced, would have
been quite unthinkable to have happened so quickly. So this is
a really tremendous success.
In energy and the environment, there is a level of dialogue
between the United States Government and the Indian Government
that I think transcends just energy and environment and has
business implications for technology transfer and technical
assistance that is quite far reaching and transformative. And
the fact that between September of this year, when the Indian
Government stated a position on the Paris Agreement that it
could not imagine signing it, to today, 2 months later where it
has, is really a revelation that United States pressure on
issues of climate change and energy paid dividends.
The Indian Government recognizes the United States as a
crucial partner, and I think sees its viewpoints as those that
have to be taken seriously. This is all enhanced by a very
vibrant commercial relationship that is in its own way
developed by that diaspora population that has now become a
prominent part of American society, contributing to every
aspect of American life.
So it is against a very promising and optimistic background
that we come here today to discuss what has remained a sore
point, and that is India's record on civil society and on its
base core democratic principles. This is especially troubling
given that the two countries are united not just by strategic
interests but by a shared commitment to principles of democracy
and to religious freedom.
India is among the most religiously diverse countries in
the world. With one of the largest populations of Muslims, a
Christian population that dates back millennia, and is home to
major world religious. And so any strikes against religious
freedom in India should trouble us all, not just those who are
particularly interested in India. If religious freedom cannot
succeed in India, it has a very poor chance of succeeding in
other parts of the developing world.
So what happened? From my perspective, it is important to
understand that the FCRA in 1976 was passed so that the Indian
Government could regulate foreign contributions to pro-
democracy, antigovernment organizations but in the context of
an autocratic government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who
was very afraid of domestic dissent, pushing back against the
Emergency.
This has continued and all governments have used the FCRA
to stifle NGOs. The question, therefore, today is sort of how
bad has it gotten and what are the implications for religious
freedom?
My colleagues have mentioned a couple of numbers. The one I
would point to you is that in 2012 there were 43,000
associations registered under the FCRA. Today, that number is
halved. It is down to about 20,000. That is about 20,000 NGOs
that either have chosen not to reapply for their licenses, or
who have had their licenses not renewed by the Indian
Government.
If you go to the FCRA Web site on the Ministry of Home
Affairs, they list 11,300-plus NGOs that have not had their
FCRA licenses renewed.
There are a number of reasons for this. Many of these are
undoubtedly in violation of the letter of FCRA regulations. But
the broader issue here is the transparency or lack thereof of
the Indian Government and how it has enforced and how it has
changed its interpretation of FCRA regulations over the last 4
years has placed a lot of NGOs in violation of a law that they
thought they understood and thought that they were following.
This has a chilling effect on civil society that has to be
considered.
So just to close, and I am happy to take questions, I think
the key recommendation I would make from my perspective is that
the United States Government has to put pressure on the Indian
Government to clarify and make transparent how it understands
and plans to enforce the FCRA, what are the procedures for due
process and for appeal for an association found in violation of
the FCRA, and to assure all parties, both in India and in the
United States, that it is not being used to target faith-based
religious organizations that, I should make explicit, are not
in violation of the FCRA simply by being faith-based or
religious organizations.
There is nothing in the FCRA that prevents a faith-based
organization from doing charitable work in India. I think we
can come back to this in Q&A, but I think my colleagues have
talked about the possibility of this being religious
discrimination smuggled behind the guise of taxation. I am not
sure that I would endorse that position fully. That requires
deeper analysis, but I think there is enough to warrant real
concern. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nooruddin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Nooruddin.
I am going to go now to Mr. Eliot Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Dr. Nooruddin, I just have one quick question.
Mr. Oakley and Mr. Sifton were talking about Compassion
International, and I wondered--the experience that Compassion
International is going through--are other NGOs facing this kind
of harassment in the magnitude that Compassion International
seems to be hassled?
And what should, in your opinion--we have a new
administration coming in--what should that administration say
to the Indian Government, knowing full well that our
relationship with India is a very important and strategic
relationship, getting warmer, getting better. We all like it.
We all think it is important, and we think the Indian diaspora
here in the United States plays a major role.
You know, it is sort of a delicate diplomatic move where
you want to whisper in your friend's ear, and you want to tell
them that you are not happy with certain things, but you don't
want to worsen the relationship. You don't want to ruin it. How
do we create that delicate balance? What should we be doing
there?
Mr. Nooruddin. Thank you for a very good question. Let me
start with the first one, which is in some sense easier even if
it is not a very positive answer. Is Compassion International
alone in its experience, the short answer is no. As I said,
over 11,500 NGOs have not had their licenses renewed over the
last couple of years. Now, to be fair, a lot of these are
affiliates of foreign-backed NGOs. So the FCRA regulations
require that any money that is dispersed through an association
by, say, Compassion International, the recipients of that money
have to also have FCRA licenses. So there are a lot of
associations.
High-profile examples that have already been mentioned are
Greenpeace, but others include the National Endowment for
Democracy and the Ford Foundation, both of which ran afoul of
FCRA regulators, lost their licenses, and only after some
negotiations has the Ford Foundation, for instance, been
reinstated though under a completely different instrument of
the Indian Government that is arguably just as stringent and
intrusive in managing how the Ford Foundation will function.
So I don't think this is just about Compassion
International. I think it is very widespread and quite broad.
The broader question of, you know, how do we do this in a
way that recognizes that this is an important relationship,
that these are very centrally sensitive domestic politics
questions in India, the core issue, I think, in a lot of this
discussion is that the Indian Government is deeply concerned
and has been across governments, but maybe more so today, about
religious harmony, or put differently, the risk of communal
discord at the local level.
This communal discord occurs when local actors complain
that a local association is using its NGO status to
proselytize, to evangelize, to convert people to Christianity,
even if that is not, in fact, what they are doing. This, then,
you know, percolates up to Delhi where the Ministry of Home
Affairs will then choose to investigate.
So I think the Indian Government is increasing it because
of its own definition of antinational activities is likely to
put a real damper on many of these sorts of things. And, yet,
the diplomatic relationship is very deep. There was a great
deal of concern in India that we will return to a transactional
relationship between India and the United States as opposed to
a strategic relationship. This is meant to suggest that what
India won't respond well to is being told, if you don't do
this, here is what we are going to pull away. Right? They want
to see a strong, deep relationship that can survive temporary
disagreements. But I think on our end, that requires that we
take them at their word for it and be willing to ask very hard
questions about this.
You mention the diaspora population. So let me say in
closing, the diaspora population in the United States is an
extremely generous, charitable population which gives back to
India lots of money benefiting education and social services.
All of that money is also at risk if the FCRA is used to go
after charitable organizations that the Indian Government sees
as being unpleasant.
American businesses doing work in India are going to be
held under corporate social responsibility requirements. All of
those contributions are going to be at risk if suddenly the
Indian Government can scrutinize how those moneys are given. So
this is not just about a particular NGO and a particular
agenda. This really becomes a relationship of all American
citizens who want to contribute to India's development suddenly
worrying about whether their money is going to be impounded,
whether their partners in India are going to be scrutinized and
at the risk of criminal offenses.
So I think we have a great diplomat--I applaud Ambassador
Verma for the work he has done while he has been in office. I
think he should be empowered by you to come here to speak
frankly to a good friend in India and hopefully the
conversation will improve rather than worsen.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Well, thank you, Dr. Nooruddin.
I would follow up maybe also with just a thought. Besides
communicating with our Ambassador, and of course, we have
communicated with the former Ambassador of India here, do you
have any other thoughts about how we can dialogue on this
issue? Of particular concern to me is what is going to happen,
you know, if we end up without the ability to have Americans
support these 145,000 Indian families that sort of rely on it
in terms of whether the children are going to get an education
or enough food?
Mr. Nooruddin. Chairman Royce, I think that is a fair
question. I wish I had an optimistic answer to give. As you
point out, bureaucracy is a stubborn thing. And it is--the
Ministry of Home Affairs, which is, I will give you, the most
powerful of India's ministries, has taken a very strong
position on this in ways that are going to make it politically
difficult for them to back down in any way that suggests they
are backing down to external pressure.
There is a strong domestic constituency in India, however,
that is deeply concerned about Christian missionaries'
activities that frankly forms the support base for the current
government. And so I think they are going to want to pay
attention to that.
Chairman Royce. But, doctor, here is the point, and this is
a conversation I had with the Ambassador: We are fairly
familiar with the operations of Compassion, because they also
operate in Indonesia, a country that likewise, would be
concerned about conversions in activity. And what we have found
is that largely, this is a myth. They are not involved
proactively in doing that. It is a rumor. And so the
suggestion, which I think is an easy one, to resolve the issue,
is that if you have a particular channel partner--you know,
there are 580 channel partners that are involved in that, all
right, you take that off the table, but you allow the rest of
the families here in the United States to write those checks to
continue to support that effort and to not only give moral
support but give the opportunity for those younger kids in
these families, in situations that are so challenged, where
they can actually complete their education. I mean, it just
seems to me that there are the makings here for a compromise in
this, which keeps the program open.
And maybe I could ask Mr. Oakley on that question. Going
forward, is there an opportunity to move forward in a way that
would guarantee the support for the destitute that rely on the
contributions that come into the country?
Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Currently, no, there
is no path that we see as long as the current MHA order, the
prior clearance order, which you all have a copy of, is in
place. That order prevents Compassion's funds from being
credited to the recipients without the prior approval of the
Ministry of Home Affairs. We have worked for 7 months to obtain
that prior approval, and we have been unsuccessful.
Chairman Royce. So let us say for a minute, though, that
there was a change of heart, and a decision to go channel
partner by channel partner, you have 580 channel partners, and
to just review the channel partners and those that are not
engaged in activities of--I mean, it seems rather dogmatic to
shut down the largest program, whole scale, that offers
financial support to this sector in India.
Mr. Oakley. Thank you. We completely agree. And, of course,
we have submitted over 120 channel partners for review by the
Ministry of Home Affairs. To this point, they have not even
responded to our requests for that prior clearance for that
group.
And in point of fact, some months ago, when we first heard
that there were a few--they describe it as a few black sheep in
the flock. We said, tell us who those black sheep are, and we
will within 24 hours separate our partnership with them to
alleviate all of your concerns. So that was our offer to them.
Subsequently, we agreed to not partner with any channel
partner that had not received its NGO before the deadline--
excuse me--its FCRA before the deadline to receive it, and that
too did not produce any desired results. Our inability to
communicate with MHA directly has been a source of significant
frustration.
Chairman Royce. So there is the outline, obviously, for a
resolution that would fit within their perspective if the
decision could be made to look individually at these channel
partners and then release the funds.
Well, let me--my time has expired. Let me go to Mr. Bera
next.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I think about where we are in the U.S.-India
relationship in a broad scope, it is at, really, a peak right
now in terms of bilateral trade, in terms of bilateral security
cooperation, in terms of--you know, if you look at where the
diaspora is, here in the United States as well, it is also
hitting a high note.
I am the only Indian-American Member of Congress currently,
and I am thrilled that I will be joined in the House of
Representatives by three additional members in the 115th
Congress and our first Indian-American Senator. So in that, the
diaspora is starting to step up, and as Dr. Nooruddin
mentioned, is extremely philanthropic. And I would venture most
of that philanthropy is going back to India.
And my concern with how this issue is resolved is that we
don't want to decrease that philanthropy. We don't want to
discourage folks, not just the diaspora but others that want to
do good around the world from continuing to contribute and make
those donations.
And in my conversations with the chairman, that is my
concern. If you have one ministry, if you have someone in the
MHA setting policy, that potentially becomes disruptive to many
other NGOs, that is just a bad precedent. I understand the
sensitivities in India as well, that they don't want to see the
House of Representatives or a foreign government dictating what
their own domestic policy should be. But from my perspective
and my review, Compassion International has done everything
that they can to be transparent to meet the guidelines and the
compliance here and continue to do the work that they do along
with other NGOs.
I would be curious, in terms of just following up on the
ranking member's question, Dr. Nooruddin, the role that the
diaspora might be able to play here in terms of resolving some
of these issues, again, understanding that the diaspora
increasingly is making philanthropic investments in India.
Mr. Nooruddin. The diaspora, I think, especially with four
Indian-Americans in Congress, a first Indian-American Senator
and possibly an Indian-American as the U.S. Representative to
the United Nations, is a source of great pride in India. Many
newspapers reported the day after the election about your
success and your colleagues' success as much as they reported
on the result of the Presidential election. I mean, it is a
tremendous source of pride.
So I think that this is, in fact, a great point of
leverage. There is a population in the United States that is
very deeply engaged at home in India through their
philanthropy. Their philanthropy goes through exactly the kind
of work that Compassion International does in serving those
that are most marginalized, especially children. And so I think
the Indian-American community can understand that its voice
will be heard in India, that it should recognize that if it
signals to the Indian Government that an attack on Compassion
International or any of these other NGOs that are doing the
work that are trying to abide by the rules is going to be
perceived as an attack on their own work, that they see that
their contributions are likely to be addressed. Because I think
this is will be heard loud and clear.
This is not a relationship, meaning with the diaspora
population, that the Indian Government wants to endanger. They
do see this as a real strategic strength and also as one that
has, you know, crossed domain and that it brings commercial
ties and all sorts of other things back.
I also think that, you know, the issue that you kind of
hinted at in your remarks, Mr. Bera, concern about the
definition of antinational. One of my colleagues on the panel
also remarked about this, but really the most worrisome part of
the FCRA regulations has been that the Indian Government has
adopted a very wide interpretation of what constitutes
antinational activity.
In the case of Greenpeace the cited reason was that in
highlighting the potential environmental damage of some
industrial projects, Greenpeace would hurt India's economy and
this is, therefore, antinational. If that is the--if talking
about Christianity to young children might induce some of them
to be attracted to convert thereby upsetting other actors in
the village, and that this is, then, deemed antinational, in
effect, what antinational becomes is a license that anything
the government doesn't agree with is antinational.
So there is no end in sight for that. And I think all of us
who want to see India develop, who want to contribute to the
most impoverished have a reason to want to have a much more
transparent interpretation of that ruling and one that is
consistent with principles of freedom of speech and association
and of religious freedom.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Royce.
First of all, to Mr. Oakley, thank you and Compassion for
your extraordinary work living out Matthew 25, clothing the
naked, feeding the hungry. I, like many members of this
committee, are great admirers of your work, and I want to thank
you for that worldwide, including in India.
Let me just ask a question with regards to the threat to
Compassion International, and I think many of you have already
suggested this, is really the bitter fruit of a multi-year,
ever-escalating attack on NGOs. It is happening in India. The
International Religious Freedom Report in 2016 notes that in
April 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs revoked the licences
of nearly 9,000 charitable organizations, and it points out
that it really is because of their poor record, pointing out
the poor record of India on human trafficking, labor
conditions, religious freedom, environmental food issues as
well, and I would add child abduction where they have scored
horrifically with the most recent report under the Goldman Act.
So there are a myriad of issues. And like China, India is just
defaulting to throw them out.
Later I am chairing the hearing as chairman of the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, on a look back
over the last 8 years. We have seven people, all of whom have
spent time in the Gulag, the lao gai as they call it in China,
for their faith and for human rights causes. And we have had an
inferior, weak, feckless response to China when it has come to
human rights. And the parallels, particularly on the NGO laws,
especially on the religious faith issue, it takes a turn in the
curve, if you will, or a bend in the curve or the path, because
in China it is to get to atheism.
In India, it is to get to Hinduism rather than allowing, as
the Constitution of India prescribes, a true robust religious
freedom. It is being usurped by the current regime, but it does
go back some years ago.
In 2014, Hindu nationalists announced a reconvert effort.
So, again, the bitter fruit of that is being realized. And, of
course, six Indian states have very, very strong anti-
conversion laws.
And, again, the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom points
out, and this is 2015, religious intolerance deteriorated,
religious freedom violations increased, and they point out it
is on a poor trajectory.
It seems to me that the United States has a moral duty, our
Government, to put a tourniquet to the greatest extent possible
on this deterioration. And I would ask you, if you would, maybe
Mr. Sifton, you might want to speak to this, because you did
say the U.S. Government needs to respond. Has it, and has it
done so in a way that is likely to achieve the results? By CPC
designation under the International Religious Freedom Act it
seems to me, perhaps the time has come now to so designate
India.
It does work in some countries to say, look, we are not
kidding. You can't do this to Compassion. You can't do this to
all of these other faiths including Muslims, and we are just
going to turn the blind eye.
Secondly, do you see a parallel, Mr. Sifton, especially,
with China? It seems like the NGOs become the enemy if they
don't comport to the government policies, and to what they
conceive or believe is the way forward. India is a democracy,
unlike China. We would expect far more from India than we are
getting.
So if you can speak to those issues, CPC designation and
the parallels to China.
Mr. Sifton. Well, there is no doubt. There is no doubt at
all. There is worldwide crackdown on civil society underway,
and this is but one example. Hindu nationalism in India is at
the heart of what is going on in India.
CPC designation, generally, needs to be overhauled. I have
great respect for the current Ambassador, but the fact of the
matter is when countries like Vietnam and India are not on the
list, it creates huge questions about the criteria that are
being used.
I think the U.S. Government has a way in that is diplomatic
and polite, the way two democracies can speak to each other
effectively. The two principles I would recommend to the
incoming administration and to this Congress is, A, parity. An
Indian tycoon can give money to an American NGO like ACLU or
pro-life group or pro-choice group, no questions asked. As long
as it meets tax codes, it is fine. There are foreign agent
laws, but that is for lobbying.
The fact of the matter is an Indian NGO can give $1 million
to an American organization. I, if I were a millionaire, which
I am not, I cannot so freely give money to the Lawyers,
Collective or Compassion. That is a question of parity.
The second is consistency through the foreign investment
vein of this current government. The Modi government is asking
for foreign contributions. It is asking for international money
to flow into the country from investment and, yet, when it
comes to this type of money, the door closes.
And I would just say--I mean, you can say this politely,
but what is the biggest threat to the entity of India?
Compassion's work, the Lawyers Collective's work, or Kentucky
Fried Chicken? I don't know. I mean, I think it is a question
of consistency. You say to them, if you are going to do this,
you have to do it consistently, and we have to have parity.
U.S. and India are allies, democracies, and we have to have the
same approach to be----
Mr. Smith. Would you recommend CPC designation now? Because
it can be done at any time. Normally, it is done on a
designated--yes.
Mr. Sifton. I would think that the incoming Ambassador
should give it a very hard look.
Chairman Royce. Congresswoman Karen Bass from Los Angeles.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And let me thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
And also, I don't know if it was staff or who put this
information together, but I was happy to learn that there were
several hundred sponsors in my district for Compassion's work.
I have a large Indian population, and it is nice to know that
they are actively involved in Compassion.
I really wanted to continue along the responses from Mr.
Sifton in terms of what is really behind this. And I understand
that the FCRA was established to keep foreign money out of
politics, but it seems like you are saying it was far more than
that. I was wondering if you could provide a little more of the
historical context, what was going on that led to it. And then
I would also like to know more about Compassion's work.
Mr. Sifton. I will just say really quickly, the testimony
of my copanelists about the origins of law is correct, it was
primarily a political control issue, similar to the legislation
that Senator Fulbright moved through in the 1960s on the
foreign agents law.
The great irony, though, is just this year there were
amendments to the FCRA that loosened the regulations for giving
to political parties, which is an amazing irony to this whole
thing and the history of it. But perhaps my copanelists would
like to talk more about it.
Mr. Nooruddin. Just on the background of the FCRA, I mean,
and as I remarked and as Mr. Sifton just corroborated, the
roots of this were to keep money out of politics, but what that
really meant was to keep money out of civil society that took
positions on issues that might be deemed sensitive to
politicians.
Ms. Bass. So was there a specific case that was happening
in India? I understand what you just said.
Mr. Nooruddin. Right.
Ms. Bass. But in terms of the catalyst for it.
Mr. Nooruddin. No, ma'am. The context was in 1976, during
what in India we refer to as the Emergency period, in 1975 the
then Prime Minister suspended civil liberties and established
what was called the Emergency. It was in that period that this
was passed, and the concern was that money could come into
civil society actors that were pushing back against the
Emergency legislation.
Ms. Bass. I see, thank you.
And then Compassion?
Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Briefly, in terms of the work that we do in India, across
the world really, we believe in holistic child development. So
we are interested in the physical, mental, emotional, and
spiritual needs of the child to break the cycle of poverty.
I will tell you one of the things I find most interesting
about this specific case with India, we push approximately $45
million a year in aid just to India, and by their own
calculation the income tax commissioner of India has evaluated
our operations at length and determined that merely 4 percent
of that $45 million a year is for moral and spiritual values
education. The remaining 96 percent, the overwhelming majority,
is for all the types of humanitarian interventions you are used
to seeing--provision of nutrition, food, clothing, medicine,
school tuition, et cetera.
Ms. Bass. So it is my understanding you work with children
that are designated as undesirable.
Mr. Sifton. Correct. Our population, our criteria for entry
into our program is that you are either a child in poverty, as
defined by the World Bank, less than $1.90 per day, or extreme
poverty of less than $1.25 per day. That is the only criteria.
There is no condition based upon religion or any other
category.
Ms. Bass. I see. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Royce. We go to Congressman Matt Salmon from
Arizona.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
I just have two questions and they are, I think, very
similar in nature. Question number one is, does the Indian
Government have the capacity to fill the void that has happened
with these children, the services for these children? Do they
even have the capacity to fill the void? And second, if they
do, are they doing anything to try to fill that void?
Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Congressman Salmon.
The answer is no. Currently, the worldwide population of
children in poverty is around 300 million, and, unfortunately,
one-third of those, over 100 million of those are in India
alone. So Compassion is actually just dealing with a very, very
small fraction of that. The 145,000 children that are under our
care, there will be no provision for them in the eventuality
that we have to exit the country. They will become part of that
100 million who are either entirely underserved or
underreached.
Mr. Salmon. My experience in dealing with humanitarian
crises all over the world has been that the best deliverer of
services, bar none, that I have seen anywhere on the globe are
faith-based NGOs and faith-based initiatives. And I think it
would be really tragic, really tragic, if we are not able to
get the Indian Government to rethink this whole process in the
name of the children. And I applaud you for your wonderful,
wonderful work. And I think it is incumbent on us.
We do have a great relationship, bilateral relationship
with India. But even when you have great relationships, even in
marriage when you have a great relationship--I have been
married 37 years, I have a great relationship, and my wife
still tells me when I do things wrong. And I love her for it.
It is a great thing. And I think that even with a great partner
like India we should be very, very outspoken about resuming the
great work that you are doing and getting those children cared
for.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Oakley. Thank you for that comment. And I would just
like to reiterate that our desire is overwhelmingly to work
with the Government of India to resolve this. We have been
there for almost 50 years and we would love to be there for
another 50. We believe that the diversity of India,
religiously, ethnically, is a strength, not a weakness. They
should lean into that. And we will help them as part of helping
all of their poor kids.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. If the gentleman would yield.
I think have you about 3 weeks left before the decision to
just have to vacate entirely the program in India?
Mr. Oakley. Correct, Mr. Chairman. We have simply run out
of funds. We are unable to get funds into the country. We are
actually faced with the problem that if we depart, we may not
have funds to pay the legally obligated gratuity and severance
benefits for our employees there. There are 6,000 people in
India who are employed by Compassion funds through our channel
partners. We have no provision for winding up in an orderly
fashion if we can't work with the government.
Chairman Royce. Let me go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, I want to thank you for your unwavering support
for what Compassion International is doing and your focus on
the children in India. I was proud when Prime Minister Modi
came and spoke to a joint session of Congress last year, and I
want to use my time to call on him at this point and the Modi
government to end the pre-approval requirement for Compassion
so that money can flow to where the rubber meets the road and
where the needs are most dire.
Mr. Oakley, how many children qualify as living in extreme
poverty globally?
Mr. Oakley. Currently, extreme poverty would be 300
million, as I mentioned earlier. And about a one-third of that
exists just in the nation of India and a fair bit in the South
Asia area as well.
Mr. Duncan. Right. Does Compassion accept children of all
faiths?
Mr. Oakley. Absolutely. There is no criteria of religion
for admission to our program, simply economic need.
Mr. Duncan. So my understanding is Compassion really
focuses on holistic child development programs. Is the
spiritual component of Compassion's holistic approach
contextualized in any way?
Mr. Oakley. Thank you. Absolutely. We operate in 26
countries, in all three areas of the world, Asia, Africa and
Latin America. And we understand, we recognize very well that
each of those is very different. We have to contextualize our
programming, both for the region that we are in, and it has to
be contextualized from an age perspective.
So to the extent that there is a spiritual and values-
driven component to our programming, it is age appropriate, it
is culturally appropriate. We teach values that transcend all
of the world's great religions. The values that we are teaching
in India would be values taught by the Hindu faith, by the
Muslim faith, Buddhist faith. They would transcend each of
those religions.
Mr. Duncan. So let me ask you this. If Compassion has to
exit India, what are the implications for other faith-based
NGOs there?
Mr. Oakley. This is the concern I mentioned at the outset
that troubles me greatly, because so many NGOs that are
operating in India are doing so on budgets that are much
smaller than ours, they don't have the network that we have.
Certainly access to this forum is not something that is
available to them easily.
And if Compassion were to exit India, I really do feel that
we sort of represent the canary in the coal mine, that if we
go, the Indian Government has taken down the largest child
sponsorship agency in the world, the largest importer of
foreign NGO funds into India. They understand at that point
there is very little to stop them from taking the same type of
action against other NGOs.
And I appreciated the comments of my colleagues earlier
that if anti-national activity is anything the government
doesn't agree with, it is not just the faith-based NGO
community, it is a number of civil society organizations that
have expressed opinions or have policies and platforms that are
in opposition to those of the government, or perhaps simply not
as aligned as the government would prefer. That is not--I hope
that is not anti-national activity in India.
So the trend here--I like to look at trends, where is it
going--the trend is heading in the wrong direction. And this
would be a significant bellwether to the Indian Government that
their effort to stop NGOs that have positions with which they
do not agree is working.
Now, the Government of India, we do not intend to tell them
what to do or how to do what they do. They are a sovereign
nation. But they are also signatories and have ratified the
ICCPR, and those provisions, by signing and ratifying that
document, they have agreed to allow the freedom of expression
of religion, freedom of political speech, all of those
freedoms.
So those are under attack and they fail to recognize that
using policy in this fashion and using regulatory requirements
and legal requirements in this fashion and then not following
their own legal requirements in doing so, it is in violation of
their own law and it is in violation of international law.
Mr. Duncan. I co-chair the Sovereignty Caucus here in
Congress, and I fully respect the sovereignty of nations to do
what is in their best interest and what they feel like they
need to do, so I don't intend any of my comments to trample on
the sovereignty of India. But this is an urging of the United
States Congress to the Modi government to embrace an
organization that is filling a void.
To piggyback on what Mr. Salmon said, the Indian Government
doesn't have the capacity to help the children that Compassion
and other NGOs help.
And so let me ask you this. Are there any other pre-
approval requirements in any other countries that Compassion
helps?
Mr. Oakley. No, we currently do not have a pre-approval
requirement in any of our 26 countries. And I can tell you from
personal experience, I have spent the last 3 years working on
this case, this is our hardest country to work in from a
political and regulatory perspective.
Mr. Duncan. I am about out of time. Let me just ask this
final question. Has Compassion broken any laws in India?
Mr. Oakley. None.
Mr. Duncan. Wow. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work. I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you so much, sir.
And now we will turn to Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Oakley, is there any there any action that the Indian
Government could take to enable Compassion to continue its
operations in India?
Mr. Oakley. Yes, there is. Thank you, Congressman. I
believe the immediate step that would allow us to restore
operations in the next 3 weeks would be rescinding the MHA's
prior approval order of February 2016. That would allow funds
to move directly from us to the 500-plus channel partners that
are supporting the 145,000 children.
Secondarily, we have to be able to pay our field staff on
the ground. We have two locally incorporated entities, one in
Kolkata, one in Chennai. Presently, both of those charitable
entities have had their FCRAs revoked, although they had been
in place for more than a decade. If those were restored--
because we think the revocation was in violation of law,
certainly there was no notice, no indication as to why they
were revoked--if those were restored, we could continue to pay
our people who are assisting the children under our
sponsorship.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And if they would take that action,
how many children would be affected and what would that effect
be on their lives?
Mr. Oakley. So presently, we had 145,000 children under our
care as of this summer. Because of our decision to
unilaterally, as a gesture of good faith, drop our partnership
with any channel partner that had not received its FCRA as of
the end of September, we actually departed 15,000 children at
that time. So the 130,000 that are remaining are still under
our care, although the operations for many of them are
suspended at this time.
If those operations could be restored quickly, the aid that
we give, the food, the medicine--the school tuition is
critically important because the school year is just about to
commence in February in India and you have to enroll your kid
and you have to pay tuition there, they have uniform
requirements, all of these things--all of that could be
restored quickly.
And our commitment to the Indian Government would be we
will be as transparent, as open, as cooperative as we can with
you. If you are concerned about any project and whether or not
there is anti-national or conversion activity going on at that
location, tell us. We will work with you. We will eliminate
that partner for as long as you have a concern about that
partner. That dialogue has been something that has an eluded us
thus far.
Mr. Chabot. So if the Indian Government would take the
action that you have recommended and that is the number of
children that would be affected, on, say, a typical day, what
are the types of things that you all do and what impact on a
daily basis would it have on these children's lives?
Mr. Oakley. Absolutely. In India that is a fairly high-
touch country for us, U.S. dollars go a long way. That is a
very efficient place for us to operate. So the contact time
with a child is quite high. Our programs run 5 to 6 days a
week. These are child development centers that are attached to
the local Christian church. They will receive one to two meals
a day there. They will receive medical treatment if they need
it, evaluations as to their health. They will also receive
tutoring that is age appropriate related to the studies that
they are doing.
In some cases, we have medical interventions that are much
higher need, surgeries, those types of things. Those will occur
as well on a regular basis, particularly given the size of the
population that we have in India. It is our largest country at
present.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
And then finally, if the Indian Government does not take
this action that we have discussed here, is there some other
organization that is ready to step in and aid those children in
the ways that you have just described.
Mr. Oakley. That is a fantastic question. We have wrestled
with that at length. As part of withdrawing, if we are forced
to withdraw, we would very much desire to do so in an orderly
fashion that is compliant with the law, as well as make
provision for the transfer of some of those children to other
NGOs operating in country, secular, faith based, just provide
for them.
We have done some preliminary analysis on that point. We
think we could transfer potentially 10,000 to 15,000 children,
nowhere near the 130,000 that we currently care for. The
primary problem is distance. You have to be able to travel by
foot typically to a child development center to receive the
services we provide. So we have to find an equivalent somewhere
within foot distance, and that can be very hard.
Mr. Chabot. So it would be safe to say that if the
government doesn't take that action, there are some children
that are going to inevitably fall through the cracks here.
Mr. Oakley. Not some. It will be more than 80 percent.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Royce [presiding]. Randy Weber of Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sifton, you said earlier in your remarks you suggested
parity, there needed to be some parity there, in talking about
the fact that they wouldn't allow U.S. dollars to go to Indian
NGOs. By parity, are you saying that we should not allow any
Indian money to come in? Explain that.
Mr. Sifton. Certainly not. I think that would violate U.S.
law.
Mr. Weber. Move your mic over in front of you. There you
go. Thank you.
Mr. Sifton. No, certainly not, it is not a threat, but
rather an exhortation to the Indian Government that your
wealthy or more fortunate citizens are entitled to give money
to nonprofits and churches and educational institutions here in
the United States, we should be allowed--our citizens should be
allowed to give money to the same institutions in India.
Mr. Weber. It is almost like a trade agreement, isn't it?
Mr. Sifton. I mean, the great irony here is that Prime
Minister Modi is making enormous efforts to attract foreign
investment, bring foreign money into India, but not this kind
of money.
Mr. Weber. Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Oakley, you said earlier the ICCPR was ratified by
India. What is that?
Mr. Oakley. Apologies for using the acronym. It is the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. India is
a country that has ratified it. And those obligations,
countries commit to those obligations understanding that they
supersede their local law, that they are committing to those,
that those commitments will then be embedded in their national
law.
Mr. Weber. When did they sign that?
Mr. Oakley. I do not have the date, Congressman.
Mr. Weber. How many countries have signed it? Do you know?
Mr. Oakley. I believe the vast majority of the countries of
the world. There are perhaps one or two that have either not
ratified it or done so with reservations that have gutted it.
Mr. Weber. Any teeth to that agreement? I mean, if they
don't hold up their end of the bargain or live up to that
agreement what happens?
Mr. Oakley. Well, functionally, and this is true with most
of the international covenants, enforcement is difficult, at
least at a legal level. Typically what happens is there is
dialogue around it raising awareness of the violations. It is
almost an approach of shaming a country into abiding by their
international commitments.
The other approach, which we do not desire, is to litigate
this issue, which would take more than a decade, and it would
really be on behalf of the other NGOs who are remaining in
India.
Mr. Weber. In your opinion, would it be worthwhile to have
a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that they think
India has violated this and it is going to have a dire effect
on their most unfortunate?
Mr. Oakley. I think a resolution like that would be
incredibly helpful from our perspective. But we are not alone.
I think this would be incredibly helpful from the perspective
of my colleagues here today and the broader civil society
community.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Nooruddin, you also made the comment that your
colleagues said that this was ``discrimination disguised behind
taxation,'' but that you didn't necessarily agree with that.
Did I mis-hear that?
Mr. Nooruddin. I think you did not. If I may expand. I
think to demonstrate that this is discrimination would require
a much more systematic analysis. Eleven and a half thousand
NGOs have lost their licenses in the last year and a half. They
are not all Christian faith based.
Mr. Weber. So they are equal opportunity discriminators is
what that means.
Mr. Nooruddin. Well, maybe from their perspective they are
equal opportunity appliers of a regulation that is not very
transparent and is not very clear as to how you fall afoul of
it. I think it is quite clear, and you can glance in my written
testimony, I provide a link to the Indian Government Web site
which lists the NGOs that have lost their licenses.
Just anecdotally, I just glanced at page one. There are 22
listed on page one. Nine of them have very obviously Christian
names to them, invoking the Virgin Mary and invoking particular
saints, et cetera.
So my guess, Congressman, is that the particular
application of this law across the 11,500 might quite possibly
have a religious dimension to it, but it is not only that. It
is very much environmental organizations, it is pro-democracy
organizations.
And of course there are a lot of organizations, as I
mentioned up front, that were likely in violation of the law.
They hadn't filed income taxes for 3 consecutive years that are
required of the law, money had been channeled to places who had
not gotten FCRA approval, et cetera.
So there is a big bag of associations that have run afoul
of this particular regulation, and I just wanted to suggest
that we want to think of the whole picture.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I am out of time. I appreciate it.
Chairman Royce. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Dr. Nooruddin, if a citizen in India donates money to a
religious organization, is it tax deductible there? Or if a
corporation does, is it tax deductible there?
Mr. Nooruddin. No, sir.
Mr. Ribble. It is not?
Mr. Nooruddin. No.
Mr. Ribble. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
I want to go back to be Mr. Oakley. Each of us were given a
map like this, I appreciate you providing, I am assuming you
provide the data. I am one of these sponsors. And Compassion
just does amazing work in Wisconsin and around the world. My
son Jared is a Compassion artist, has been for 10 years, and
has raised tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of
dollars for your work.
But I will guarantee you before this day is out I will
either have someone tweet at me or put a Facebook posting who
has seen this and they are going to ask this question. I would
like you to give you the opportunity to answer it, because you
are going to be better equipped to answer it. And this question
is not based in cynicism, it is just going to be a question
they are going to ask.
And they are going to ask me, if the Indian Government
doesn't want you there, and given that the needs around the
world are so great, why would you not just redirect the money
to other needs, to the Bolivians or the Hondurans or the
Ethiopians? Would you mind answering that question for those
folks?
Mr. Oakley. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, and
thanks for your support and your son's support as well.
There are several answers to the question. One is simply,
as I mentioned earlier, the extraordinary need in India. It has
more children living in poverty than any other single country
on Earth. So it is a great place for us to work with the
poorest of the poor.
We could exit and apply those funds elsewhere, and
certainly those funds would be well utilized elsewhere. That is
not our hope. We have been in India for a very long time. We
see that the people of India, the people that we work with, the
parents, the people within the poorest communities that we
operate in, they want us to stay in India. They are incredibly
grateful for the services we provide.
And so I think Compassion, I am speaking for myself, but I
believe for my organization as well, we go where the greatest
need is. To the extent we can work in conditions of extreme
poverty that is where you get the most bang for your buck in
terms of outcomes. By working with children, you have a longer
runway for those outcomes to be effective.
We have had independent, third-party, peer-reviewed
analysis of our program which determines that it works. So by
operating in a country like India, which has over 130 million
Muslims, it has got more than 50 million Christians, it is a
diverse country religiously, in terms of ethnicities,
languages, this is an extraordinary opportunity to help change
the face of India by raising up its poorest children.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you for that answer.
And, Chairman Royce, I want you to know I would be
completely supportive of whatever action this committee wants
to take in relationship to this issue. It would be unfortunate
indeed for the children of India to suffer the moral hazard of
this choice if it results in you redirecting that money
elsewhere in the world. Now, those other children would be the
beneficiaries for sure, but that doesn't alleviate the problem
in India. And so thank you for your work there and thank you
for the work of Compassion.
I yield back.
Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. First of all, I would like to thank the
chairman for focusing our attention on this issue. Mr.
Chairman, you could have focused on any number of issues, and
let me just say it speaks highly of you and your values that we
have focused on something that 130,000 kids are going to have
an immediate impact on. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to understand the overall issue here as well as
the specific issue and challenge that you are facing here in
Compassion. Is this part of a bigger picture? Look, we are
suffering in parts of world of radical Islam, okay, and in this
part of world maybe is this a result of Hindu fanaticism?
Mr. Oakley. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
It is difficult for me to get into the mind of another
individual, let alone a political party in a country. I can
tell you that based upon the timing of our challenges, having
operated successfully for 45 years, and then to have a series
of incredibly rigorous challenges in a very compressed period
of time, in the last 3 years, in multiple contexts, so across
different divisions of the Indian Government, and then looking
at our own operation and recognizing that nothing has changed,
everything that we are doing is the same.
And then personally I have sat with six different law firms
and multiple chartered accountants in India and asked this very
question, are we legally compliant? Is there something that we
are doing that in fact breaks the law? And to a person I have
heard that, no, you are operating within the law. And again, as
I mentioned in my opening comments, to the extent that the law
is being broken, it is being broken by the Indian Government.
Now, motive is difficult to understand. I will tell you
that we operate in 26 countries, so I get a fairly high-level
view of what is happening around the world and I see the rise
of nationalism as being particularly concerning. It is very
concerning in the Indian context, in part because of the
numbers of minority groups that I mentioned earlier.
And my view, and I believe the view of our organization, is
that a test of a democracy is how it treats its poorest, its
most vulnerable, its smallest minorities, not whether or not it
is pandering to the desires of the majority.
So from my perspective, I think something has changed in
the last 3 years and the trend is going in the wrong direction.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There are repercussions on these type of
changes that we are talking about in the world, whether it is
not just Hindu nationalism, not just radical Islam, but as you
are expressed it today, you might say an upsurge of
nationalism.
I would have to say I disagree with you as to whether or
not that is something that is inherently going to take people
in the wrong direction. Quite frankly, nationalism in the
United States, for example, has I think really accomplished
some great things, and that is overcoming local prejudices and
local challenges where we face that we are a country of
everybody, of so many different type of people that it is the
nationalism that keeps us together as a country.
But with that said, I could see that some NGOs might
actually, if they come in conflict with that spirit of
nationalism, could basically end up in a conflict in that
society where there were not conflicts before, which doesn't
seem evident in your case.
But, for example, if you have NGOs that are focused on
government policy rather than providing charitable givings to
people in need, that would be, I could understand, where a
newly nationalistic government would not want someone from the
outside coming in and being financed, asking them for a change
in their law. However, obviously the change in law that did
happen in your case has resulted in 130,000 kids being put in
jeopardy.
Let me again echo what my colleague just said in that
whatever action this chairman would like to take on this to
help you and your efforts to keep this charitable activity
going in India, you will have our support and my support.
However, I do think that it is time, Mr. Chairman, for us
also to put into perspective as we see nationalism rising
around the world what NGOs are supposed to be about and what
some NGOs--I mean, if we are talking about a country that has
30,000, did you say, NGOs?
Mr. Oakley. No, more like a million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. A million NGOs. Something is wrong there.
Maybe many of those NGOs could be classified here as political
organizations. And I know that in several other countries that
is what we have. I will have to just say in one country that I
asked--well, I asked about the political prisoners in Russia. I
asked for a list of all the political prisoners. For years I
could not get that list, because everyone wants to portray
Russia as having thousands of political prisoners.
Well, I got the list and there were a couple hundred people
on the list, but a large percentage of them were on the list
because they were part of Greenpeace. But they were not just
part of Greenpeace, they were part of groups of people who went
onto drilling platforms in the Arctic to try to prevent Russia
from having Arctic drilling.
Now, sorry, that would be illegal in our country as well.
That is not what an NGO should be all about, is forcing a
policy on someone, as compared to even advocating it.
So I think that we need to have a closer look at NGOs, but
I think your testimony today and this issue that we are talking
about today really is valuable to us, because to understand
that with--don't let us focus on some of these NGOs that are
engaged with policy versus NGOs that are engaged with charity
and how we must step forward. If we are going to save 130,000
kids, we need to get behind you. And that is a really important
message for this hearing.
And thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for taking us here.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
And on behalf of the committee, I want to recognize the
outstanding work of Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin, who will,
unfortunately, be retiring from the committee, as he is
retiring from Congress. And I wanted to share with everybody
how much I enjoyed working with him during his time here.
We traveled together to the Congo. He has a passion for
children and children abroad. He has personal experience with
adoption. And he used that to good effect to help us bring some
ultimately 400 children who had been adopted to get them out of
the Congo where they had been stuck.
He cares deeply about our Nation and its security. But also
there is this private side of him that you saw a little bit
about today, which is the fact that he is one of these donors.
He and his family and his son donate to Compassion in order to
reach a family abroad, in order to do what Amy Porter, my chief
of staff, and her daughter do, which is to reach out to
children in India and to provide them the means, the help, so
that they can get an education and so that they might have
enough food to eat.
I want to thank the witnesses also for their participation
and the committee members. I think we have a better
understanding of the issue. As we heard today, Compassion is
helping Indian children who are living often on less than a
dollar a day. And they are in desperate need and we are all
very worried that their support, support coming from our
constituents, several thousand constituents, for example, in my
district, will end in a matter of 3 weeks if we do not figure
out a resolution to this, and that would be a tragedy.
I mentioned the bureaucracy in my opening statement. It is
the committee's sincere hope that this problem can be resolved
in a way that allows for humane generosity to continue. The two
great countries have so much in common. So many bridges have
been built over the last 15 years. The ranking member, Eliot
Engel, and I have been involved so much in this bridge
building. And on top of it, we have the vision from the Prime
Minister who leads India and his background as well.
So I think I can speak for the committee in asking that
those in India involved in this decision focus on this
immediate resolution so that we can then go on to focus on all
the other issues that bring our two great democracies together.
Thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]