- Is IDRF a sectarian organization that funds hate? (The association of a
funded agency to outside agencies is an indirect association and it should
not be used to label IDRF as sectarian.)
The table on page 81 in Appendix H lists IDRF funded organizations. This
table must be the basis for extracting evidence to show that IDRF is a
sectarian organization. Speculative projections do not constitute evidence.
The report includes extensive unnecessary discussions on RSS, HINDUTVA, BJP,
VHP, Vikasan Foundation [p40] and re-conversion to Hinduism [p58-64], which
have no relevance to IDRF operations. Why talk about Vikasan Foundation
when it is not funded by IDRF? The argument that IDRF has done some secular
funding [p68] but should do more for Christian and Muslim organizations, is
not an evidence to prove it wrong. An organization that has not requested
for funding has no moral right to complain that it did not receive funding
(refer to UWR modus operandi). The report acknowledges that families of
Muslim Haj pilgrims who died in fire received humanitarian aid from IDRF
[p68] but cleverly ascribes it as an act to gain political mileage. The
report adopts the philosophy "You are damned if you help and you are damned
if you don't help". It is a no win situation.
The table [p81] lists 184 organizations spanning 20 Indian States
besides several organizations in America. It also lists Army Welfare and
Gujarat Earthquake Relief funds. The report should look at all these to
infer IDRF's sectarian intent and not just a select few. The table
identifies 20 organizations as definitely secular and 36 organizations as
non-classifiable, which in terms of percentages are 10.9% and 19.6%. An
organization, which is non-classifiable as sectarian should be considered
as secular. Therefore, as per the data reported, the secular content should
be 30.5% and not 2% [p19, pie chart] as the report claims, and the
non-classifiable should be 19.6% and not 7%. The report has deliberately
tweaked the numbers to convince the reader that IDRF is not doing enough of
The report cleverly excludes all organizations involved with education,
relief and rehabilitation, research, Tornado victims, medical missions,
Kargil soldiers fund, Gujarat Earth Quake Relief and tribal upliftment from
secular content and wrongly categorizes these activities as sectarian. They
should in fact be treated as secular activities.
In figure 6 on page 87, the report identifies that 1.8% are Hindu
religious activities but on page 18, pie chart it states 8% of funding goes
to Hindu or Jain religious organizations. There is no math to show how this
8% was figured out. Nonetheless, does funding 1.8% Hindu religious
activities make an agency as funding 100% Hindu militancy?
The report puts forward an illogical argument "90% of funds are in Hindu
hands which by the very definition are sectarian" [p20]. In other words, if
the funds are in Muslim or Christian hands then the funding becomes
non-sectarian but if in Hindu hands it becomes sectarian. How illogical!
Adivasis have consistently stated that they had no religion prior to
becoming Christians [p22, s4.4.1]. The report attests in unequivocal terms
that 70% of the IDRF funds go to organizations dealing with education in
Adivasi areas [p19]. The report should consider this as secular activity
and not sectarian activity. Further more the report deviously labels this
help as Hinduization of tribals [p72-79].
In Appendix F it is stated that large scale conversions of Adivasis to
Christianity did occur in the last century but recently RSS had begun
re-conversion to Hinduism [p70]. This is a false claim. When Adivasis did
not have a religion before conversion to Christianity [p22, s4.4.1], how
could they be then re-converted to Hinduism?
Ekal Vidyalaya, Vanvashi Kalyan Ashram, Sewa Bharati, Vivekananda
Kendra, Bharat Kalyan Pratishtha and Friends of Tribal Society are the
tribal welfare programs. These are humanitarian programs designed to
educate and uplift underprivileged people in India. If there are any people
in India that deserve help, then they are tribals. The tribals have no
religion [p22, s4.4.1] and IDRF funding of these programs should not be
interpreted as sectarian.
Summing up, this part of the analysis proves that IDRF is not a
- Does IDRF funnel money through RSS to its funded agencies?
The report acknowledges [p5, s2.4] that RSS does not accept foreign
funding and by virtue of this acknowledgement it is proof that IDRF never
used RSS as a conduit for funding. Therefore, there are no grounds for
accusation that IDRF is linked with RSS. IDRF has stated publicly that it
has no connection with RSS/VHP [p10, s3].
The report devotes close to 60% of its discussion on RSS and its
Hindutva concept to brand it a violent organization. But the facts prove
otherwise. Does the recent RSS's support to Iraq [Feb 3, 2003 news] and
opposition to US war on Iraq, mean hatred for Muslims? Definitely not.
The report alleges that Hindutva is a violent concept and it is growing
in considerable numbers in the USA [p1, s1.1], implying that Hindu
immigrants to the USA are likely to strengthen Hindu violence. The upshot
of this accusation is an underlining intent of the report to stop
immigration of Hindus to the US. It is a well known fact that Hindutva
embodies religious tolerance. Then how can it be a violent concept? No sane
person can equate it to jihad or Nazi persecution.
This part of the analysis confirms that IDRF does not fund or funnel
money through RSS.
- Do the agencies that IDRF funds have ever been found guilty of
The report laboriously tries to project RSS as a violent organization
without providing concrete proof of its involvement in anti-religious
riots, and then tries to link the IDRF funded agencies to RSS. In other
words, it attempts to establish an indirect association and use that
as evidence to peg IDRF as a hate funding organization. As explained in
"modus operandi of a not-for-profit organization" earlier, indirect
association can not be used to label IDRF as funding violence.
The statement in the report "It could be argued that while the Sangh
is sectarian and IDRF has well established links with the Sangh that IDRF's
funds do not necessarily aid and abet Hindutva's anti-minority programs"
[p18, s4] is enough proof to absolve IDRF of any sectarian intent.
The report also tries to link Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram in Gujarat to Muslim
and Christian attacks between 1998-2000 [p3] but fails to provide reliable
references. It cites one incident and just one reference [p75]. The
incident relates to reprisal resulting from the destruction of a Hindu
temple in a village in Madhya Pradesh. It is again not substantiated to
convince the reader that the attack was premeditated by Vanvasi Kalyan
Ashram. It is pure speculation to say that a reactionary attack by Hindu
villagers is the premeditated work of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and thereby
Elsewhere in the report [p3, s1.4] the anti-Christian attacks of
1998-2000 are attributed to Hindustava organizations but not to Vanvasi
Kalyan Ashram. Also on page 8 of the report the excerpt "Most of these
attacks have been perpetrated by individuals connected to the Sangh Parivar"
does not include Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram. Again the excerpt "Numerous police
reports filed by eyewitnesses after Gujarat Muslim violence have
specifically named local VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal leaders as instigators or
participants in the violence" [p9] does not refer to Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.
Therefore, it is inconceivable that Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram is involved in
perpetrated attacks on Christians or Muslims. Reactionary attacks resulting
from temple destruction, sexual molestation of girls by priests, class
feuds and personal vendetta should not be classified as anti-religious
attacks. Attacks on Christians and Muslims that take place on a perpetual
basis with no reason should be classified as religious attacks.
This analysis provides no evidence to brand IDRF funded agencies as
engaging in anti-Christian or anti-Muslim crusades.
- Other contradictory, false and illogical assertions