[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16261-16262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 PRO-INDIAN CHARITIES SUPPORT TERRORISM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 4, 2002

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, on August 8 there was a very significant 
article in the Indian newspaper The Hindu. It was written by Robert M. 
Hathaway, whom many of us know as a former aide to former South Asia 
Subcommittee chairman Steven Solarz. As you may remember, Chairman 
Solarz was a fervent defender of India.
  Mr. Hathaway's article is called ``Charity . . . or Terrorism?'' It 
exposes the rise of terrorism in India and how charitable contributions 
from Indian-Americans support it. In his article, Mr. Hathaway writes, 
``substantial sums of money are sent from Indians resident in the U.S., 
and from American citizens of Indian origin, to groups and 
organizations in Gujarat and elsewhere in India that are directly 
linked to the violence in Gujarat.'' He also writes that ``respected 
Indian journalists have uncovered disturbing linkages.'' These 
transactions could raise issues of fraud and they appear to violate 
U.S. antiterrorism laws.
  We must not allow money from the United States, even in the form of 
private contributions, to be used in support of terrorism. In that 
case, President Bush should act. After September 11, the President 
froze the assets of charities involved in supporting the terrorist 
network that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Similar 
action should be taken to freeze any American assets of charities 
involved in the violence and terrorism in India. And contributions from 
U.S. residents to those charities' offices in India should expressly be 
prohibited. America should also stop its aid to India until it stops 
repressing the minorities, sponsoring cross-border terrorism against 
Sindh and other neighbors, and until it allows self-determination for 
all the people and nations seeking freedom from India.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to put Mr. Hathaway's article into the 
Record at this time. It shows Indian terrorism in great detail.

                     [From the Hindu, Aug. 8, 2002]

                      Charity . . . or Terrorism?

                        (By Robert M. Hathaway)

       It is probably advisable for the American Government to 
     hold an official inquiry into fund-raising in the U.S. by 
     groups implicated in the Gujarat violence.
       TERRORISM COMES in many guises. An armed assault against 
     Parliament House in New Delhi. A suicide bomber detonating 
     high

[[Page 16262]]

     explosives in a crowded bazaar. Political assassination. 
     Angry young men flying commercial aircraft into the World 
     Trade Center. And, yes, hate-consumed mobs butchering 
     innocent women and children. The people of India need no 
     instruction from foreigners regarding the moral issues raised 
     by this spring's communal violence in Gujarat. Except for an 
     embittered but fortunately minuscule minority, Indians of all 
     religions and beliefs reacted with horror and disgust to the 
     great human tragedy that unfolded in their country earlier 
     this year.
       All those who admire Indian culture and accomplishments, 
     who celebrate the extraordinary progress India has achieved 
     in its still brief national existence, understand that the 
     tragedy of Gujarat strikes at the very essence of India's 
     being and promise. The assassination earlier this year of 
     Abdul Gani Lone, who opposed Indian rule in Kashmir but who 
     in his final years had come to the realisation that violence 
     and extremism offer Kashmiris no way out in their struggle 
     with New Delhi, represented another blow to the ideals of 
     tolerance and moderation, another triumph for the forces of 
     hatred and sectarian-based violence. In this sense, the 
     tragedies of Gujarat and of Kashmir are inextricably linked.
       Kashmir was certainly not the cause of Gujarat. Sadly, the 
     seeds of Godhra and Ahmedabad and Baroda spring from still 
     more ancient soils. But the continued violence in Kashmir 
     makes the hatred recently seen in Gujarat more likely, and in 
     a perverted sense, more ``respectable'', or at least 
     acceptable. Perhaps, it does not go too far to assert that 
     until the Kashmir sore is at last healed, the poison that 
     produced Gujarat will make other Gujarats increasingly 
     likely.
       Some Indians, of course, say that the tragic events in 
     Gujarat are a domestic Indian affair, and that the United 
     States and the rest of the world have no business intruding 
     into a purely internal Indian matter. This is a self-serving 
     falsehood. Important American interests, including the global 
     war against terrorism, can be directly impacted by what the 
     U.S. says--and fails to say--about Gujarat.
       At this particular moment in history, the U.S. cannot allow 
     the impression to take hold that Americans somehow value a 
     Muslim life less than the life of a person of another 
     religion. Sadly, there are those in the Islamic world who 
     assert that the present conflict is a war directed not 
     against terrorism, but against Islam. That the U.S. does not 
     care about Muslims. That Washington seeks to hijack the 
     tragedies of 9/11 to carry out long-held plans to repress the 
     Islamic world. These are detestable lies, but many in the 
     Muslim world are prepared to believe them. So leaving aside 
     the moral issue, it is essential that India's friends in the 
     U.S. speak out to condemn the injustice and hatred so 
     prominently displayed in Gujarat, and to lend support to 
     those Indians, of all religious beliefs, who are working to 
     strengthen the forces of secularism, tolerance and 
     multiculturalism. Some have asked what impact the recent 
     events in Gujarat will have--should have--on the new and 
     healthier relationship that the U.S. is developing with 
     India. No one needs to be reminded of the tortured history of 
     U.S.-India relations over the years, or the difficulty the 
     two nations have had in working collaboratively with one 
     another, even on those issues where our purposes and 
     interests ran along parallel tracks.
       Over the past half dozen or so years--and notwithstanding 
     the temporary if traumatic jolt to the relationship 
     administered by India's 1998 nuclear tests and subsequent 
     imposition of U.S. sanctions--Washington and New Delhi have 
     begun to construct a qualitatively better relationship, so 
     much so that the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has 
     come to describe the two countries as ``natural allies'', a 
     phrase increasingly used by Americans as well.
       Following the trauma Americans experienced on September 11, 
     India was one of the first countries in the world to step 
     forward with a pledge of unconditional and unambivalent 
     support for the U.S. in its quest to bring to justice those 
     responsible for the terror attacks in New York and 
     Washington. The administration of George W. Bush, already 
     keen to upgrade relations with Delhi, took notice. Prior to 
     the February 27 Godhra attack that touched off the bloodshed 
     in Gujarat, this new and more sanguine relationship between 
     the U.S. and India was widely viewed by Americans as in the 
     national interest. it remains so today; Gujarat has not 
     changed this calculation.
       And yet, it is neither possible nor practical simply to 
     pretend that Gujarat did not happen. The violence in Gujarat, 
     and the steps the Indian Government might take in coming 
     months in response to those events, could have a significant 
     impact on American views of India, and hence, on political 
     and public support in the U.S. for a close and collaborative 
     U.S.--India partnership.
       Credible reports have recently suggested that substantial 
     sums of money are sent from Indians resident in the U.S., and 
     from American citizens of Indian origin, to groups and 
     organizations in Gujarat and elsewhere in India that are 
     directly linked to the violence in Gujarat. I do not know if 
     these accounts are true. But respected Indian journalists 
     have uncovered disturbing linkages. If these reports prove 
     accurate, then it is possible that such financial 
     transactions violate U.S. anti-terrorism statutes.
       Alternatively, issues of fraud may be at issue. Responsible 
     sources report that some U.S. residents make financial 
     contributions to overseas religious groups in the belief that 
     these funds are to be used for religious or humanitarian 
     purposes, when in fact the monies so raised are, used to 
     promote religious bigotry.
       In either event, it is probably advisable for the American 
     Government to hold an official inquiry into fund-raising in 
     the U.S. by groups implicated in Gujarat violence, to ensure 
     that U.S. laws are not being violated. Legitimate 
     organizations need not fear such an investigation, which 
     would serve to clear their names and reassure potential 
     donors about the legitimacy of their fund-raising activities. 
     Nor would such an inquiry be new or unusual. The U.S. has 
     acted in the past to regulate or even to band fund-raising 
     activities by groups advocating violence and ethnic or 
     religious intolerance in other countries, as well as 
     activities where fraud may be an issue. Since September 11, 
     both the Bush administration and other Governments have shut 
     down a number of groups whose ostensible purposes were to 
     collect funds for Muslim charities, but which actually served 
     to finance terrorist networks.
       The Gujarat violence, Lone's assassination, and most 
     recently, the designation of L.K. Advani as Deputy Prime 
     Minister and most likely successor to Mr. Vajpayee have all 
     raised new concerns about India's future among India's 
     friends in the U.S. An official U.S. investigation into 
     Gujarat-related fund-raising, voluntarily facilitated by the 
     Government of India, would go far towards easing those 
     concerns and further strengthening the new partnership 
     between our peoples.

     

                          ____________________