On March 1, 2017, a blog post was published on the website of Compassion International (CI), a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with its headquarters in Colorado. “Months ago, the Indian government began blocking funds from reaching our field offices and church partners,” read the post. “Without those funds, we can no longer pay our staff or provide resources to our church partners and the children they serve.” After 48 years in India, CI was folding up its activities in the country, which meant an abrupt end to the sponsorship of 147,000 children in rural India and snapping its collaborations with more than 500 affiliate NGOs in the country.

Since the ascent of Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, there has been a ruthless pursuit of NGOs who have violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010. FCRA’s high-profile targets have included Greenpeace India and Sabrang, run by activist and lawyer Teesta Setalvad. The purpose of FCRA, as revised in 2011, is to:

“Regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain

individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” (emphasis: ours)

Last year, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said that 14,222 NGOs had been barred from receiving foreign funds between 2012 and 2016. Of these, 10,020 had been barred in 2014-15. In the first year of Prime Minister Modi’s tenure, foreign contributions to NGOs in India came down by more than 30 per cent compared to the previous year. The number of organisations receiving foreign funding too declined. Foreign contributions came down from Rs 13,115 crore in 2013-14 to Rs 8,756  crore in 2014-15, according to information obtained under the Right to Information Act by Newslaundry.

CI joined the list of NGOs under scrutiny last year. On March 28, 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) revoked CI’s registration under the FCRA.In May, 2016, the organisation was put on a “prior permission” list, which meant that CI would have to seek prior permission from the MHA before making any transfers directly. In August, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation into the operations of Compassion East India. While the investigation remains pending, by November, both primary affiliates of CI, namely Compassion East India and Caruna Bal Vikas were denied renewal of FCRA.

Stephen Oakley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of CI, said in a statement presented before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in the United States, on December 6, 2016, “Compassion’s charity towards India’s poorest children is rooted in Christian values. MHA evidently views Christian values as a threat to the national interest.” He also alleged that CI’s staff in India had been subjected to hours of questioning, by Intelligence Bureau and Income Tax department officials. Oakley said officials posed questions like, “You are converting children to Christianity, aren’t you?” Speaking to Thomson Reuters, before their exit in March, CI’s Media Relations Officer Becca Bishop said that she believed CI had been targeted for being a Christian organisation. “We do believe that Compassion and other Christian charities are being singled out because of our faith, and that the Indian government is trying to limit the expansion of Christianity in India,” said Bishop.

Although CI strenuously rejects charges of forced conversion and has repeatedly insisted that it extended its charity to children of all religious backgrounds, some, like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are not convinced. The New York Times (NYT) suggested in an article published in March that the RSS’s disapproval of CI was costing the Christian NGO dearly. CI’s Chief Executive Officer Santiago Mellado is quoted as saying, “We understand that the BJP and RSS are tied together somehow, so it seems to us that we also need to be talking to the RSS.” According to NYT, Mellado had tried to contact Indian government officials, “but the only interlocutors they could find were through unofficial channels”, referring to RSS members.

RSS has denied this allegation. All India Prachar Pramukh Manmohan Vidya described the idea of RSS doing any “back channel negotiation” as “unfair and totally false”. “Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh works only in Bharat (India) and has no representative in any foreign country including USA. NYT never contacted the RSS in this regard,” he said in an official statement.

Newslaundry reached out to MHA spokesperson K S Dhatwalia with the following questions.

What was the reason that renewal of FCRA was denied to the organisation?

Was there a direct connection between the funds raised by the NGO for social activities and religious conversions?

What do you have to say about the allegation of the organisation about the alleged harassment with regard to questioning them on conversions?

The story will be updated if and when we receive a response from the ministry.

Although there is no official statement confirming allegations of conversions, RSS remains convinced. Its pracharak, Milind Oak, a writer at an RSS-backed news portal called newsbharti.com, outlined the organisation’s objections against CI (and other NGOs that he believes were converting parents and baptising children) in Cross Purposes, a book published in 2012 by India Policy Foundation. “CI is a mother organisation that funds various other NGOs and they are involved in conversions,” Oak told Newslaundry. “We do have ideological differences but Cross Purposes has nothing to do with ideological differences but only facts,” he said. The facts presented include FCRA data from government websites (for funds that the NGOs receive) and information from the websites of the NGOs and their affiliate churches. “The NGOs mention in their reports or newsletters that they have converted people. They mention it for their foreign donors,” Oak added when we said we couldn’t find the information he’d referred to on CI’s website.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution entitles every citizen with ‘Right to Freedom of Religion’. It states that, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” RSS claims organisations like CI are violating this constitutional liberty by ‘forcing’ people to convert in order to receive charity. This is also what makes these NGOs “detrimental to national interest”.

Speaking to Newslaundry, director of India policy Foundation and also an RSS vicharak, Rakesh Sinha claimed many NGOs were misusing the funds they received. “A large number of Christian NGOs, whose purpose is rural development are getting large sums of money and they themselves publish on their website that large number number of people have been converted,” he said. “This is a violation of the rules and regulations. If they are not ready to follow any law, it has to go back.” Newslaundry found no such figures in CI’s website.

While both Sinha and Oak said that conversions were happening, neither of them could establish whether the conversions were voluntary or forced. “I am just stating facts (in Cross Purposes) that certain organisations are doing social work and some are converting people. I have not said whether they are voluntary or socio-political conversions,” Oak told Newslaundry.

The question of whether a conversion is forced or voluntary is difficult to prove. CI insists religion has not been a consideration in its work while RSS maintains the NGO lured the impoverished into the Christian fold. There is little by way of concrete fact to justify the latter claim, but what is beyond doubt is that at a grassroot level, CI pulling out of India affects the tens of thousands of children and young mothers who received sponsorship from them. While the allegations fly between RSS and CI, it’s these people who are the real casualties. Though Sinha didn’t wish to comment on what these children would do after the NGO’s exit, he was certain that the government’s decision was justified. “This is justified,” he told Newslaundry. “They should be thrown out, they should be punished and no NGO should be allowed to misuse the rules. Indian society is more effective without misusing power, money and wealth. We can take care of our people.”