MHA statement on Amnesty issue: The stand taken and the statements made by Amnesty International are unfortunate, exaggerated and far from the truth.

MHA: Amnesty International had received permission under FCRA only once & that too 20 years ago (19.12.2000). Since then Amnesty International, despite its repeated applications, has been denied FCRA approval by successive governments since as per law it is not eligible

MHA: However, in order to circumvent the FCRA regulations, Amnesty UK remitted large amounts of money to 4 entities regd in India, by classifying it as FDI. A significant amount of foreign money was also remitted to Amnesty (India) without MHA’s approval under FCRA.

MHA: This mala fide rerouting of money was in contravention of extant legal provisions. Owing to these illegal practices of Amnesty, the previous government had also rejected the repeated applications of Amnesty to receive funds from overseas

MHA: This had led Amnesty to suspend its India operations once during that period as well. This bipartisan and purely legal approach towards Amnesty, under different govts, makes it clear that entire fault lies in dubious processes adopted by Amnesty to secure funds for its ops.

MHA: All glossy statements about humanitarian work and speaking truth to power are nothing but a ploy to divert attention from their activities in contravention of laws. Such statements attempt to influence course of investigations into irregularities carried out i. last few yrs

MHA: Amnesty is free to continue humanitarian work in India, as is being done by many other organizations. However, India, by settled law, does not allow interference in domestic political debates by entities funded by foreign donations. This law applies equally to all

MHA: India has a rich and pluralistic democratic culture with a free press, independent judiciary and tradition of vibrant domestic debate. The people of India have placed unprecedented trust in the current govt.

MHA: Amnesty’s failure to comply with local regulations does not entitle them to make comments on the democratic and plural character of India.