Ford Foundation an entity outside law: Officials

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by ezsasa, Jun 7, 2015.

?

Should Ford Foundation be allowed to continue in india?

  1. Yes, As long as they don't interfere in internal dynamics of india.

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  2. No, they are behaving like a quasi state by attempting to change the political structure in india

    7 vote(s)
    77.8%
  3. Maybe, They are not so evil as they are presented to be.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. ezsasa

    ezsasa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    3,009
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
    why did Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru allow the Ford Foundation entry into India in 1952 without the complete paperwork and permissions required in law for establishing itself in this country and conducting operations in sensitive sectors on a major scale? Senior officials claim that "Ford is in Indian law a ghost entity", in that it has on paper apparently "no existence in law in the country", adding that in its consistent refusal to officially legitimise its activities through securing written permissions, the foundation showed utter contempt for the laws and regulations of the newly independent country. Amazingly, until this year, no government agency, including the Reserve Bank of India or the police and regulatory agencies, seems to have so much as raised a verbal objection to such "obvious contempt for Indian law" on the part of the well-connected foundation, which is known to have privileged access to key sections of the US government, including its covert agencies. These officials claim that the perceived partiality towards the powerful US entity showed the respect with which Nehru in his heart regarded the US, despite his public denunciations of much of that country's policy. Despite Nehru's regard for the US, officials who have access to records denied to the public, adduce a novel reason why the first Prime Minister of India gave significantly more weight to the USSR's interests than to the US in both economic as well as foreign policy. They link this tilt to the "Bose factor".

    Until Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi overcomes the obstacles to fulfilment of the BJP's pre-election promise of transparency in the records available with government, especially on matters dear to the public such as the disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, corroboration through the publication of records of information conveyed by highly placed sources will not be forthcoming. These sources, who play a key role in the inner processes of governance, have detailed an account of the 1950s agony of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who according to them "was trapped between his desire to establish a friendly and equal relationship with the US" and — according to these sources — "subtle pressure by Stalin and his successors to follow a pro-USSR policy dressed up as non-alignment". They say that the thus far hidden record will show that several times, most poignantly during the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, when tanks and aircraft crushed the democratic movement in that country, "Nehru wanted to take a strong stance against the invasion of an independent country, but had to be restrained because of the Bose factor". According to these sources, Stalin and his successors were able to keep Nehru and later Indira Gandhi from adopting a line against Soviet interests, even during the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, which the sensitive and urbane Indira Gandhi was privately appalled by. This was, it is claimed, "in the early 1950s because of the physical presence of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on Soviet soil" and later, towards the end of the decade, when the freedom fighter and patriot was reportedly placed in gulag conditions too appalling for his physical frame to bear, "out of apprehension that the Bose factor would surface through leaks from Moscow, thereby damaging the reputations in history of two of the most prominent freedom fighters". Unfortunately, as yet, successive governments in India have refused to share with the people of this country the available documentation on the subject of the final years of the life of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who would easily have eclipsed all other leaders in popularity, had he returned to India in 1945 rather than gone missing.

    These sources claim that Prime Minister Nehru wanted to be genuinely non-aligned rather than adopt a pro-Soviet stance in foreign policy, but that the "Bose factor" kept both him as well as his numerous successors from such a path. "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union made it clear (to Nehru) that a security and defence relationship with the US was out of the question. In 1962, after the border conflict with China, Prime Minister Nehru had indicated the imperative of aligning more closely with Washington in order to get weapons on a scale which Moscow was till then reluctant to supply." However, "the Soviet leadership assured Nehru that there was no need for US weapons as the Soviet tap would flow freely from that time onwards". And so it did, to the anger of Beijing, who was unaware of the geopolitical game being played by the Soviets with the leadership in India who were in effect prevented by subtle blackmail from adopting the course favoured, of genuine non-alignment, which placed equal stress on both the US as well as the USSR in the field of defence and security. Soon after this Soviet assurance on weapons supply, given in the first half of 1963, Nehru reversed his earlier stance of asking the US to send weapons in exchange for closer defence ties. As much of such manoeuvring took place informally, officials say that the written records available as yet only to the top tier of government often "only hint at what took place rather than give such considerations in detail", but that their perusal would be sufficient to establish the truth of the contention that Nehru and his successors were forced to adopt a Soviet-centric line out of fear of possible revelations from Moscow about Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

    It needs to be added that clumsy and often retrogressive stances by Washington (encouraged by London, which has moved away at least partially from its favouritism towards Pakistan only during the current government) made it politically easy for Prime Ministers such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi to adopt a pro-Soviet line. Officials say that the "hidden pressure on his family from the USSR was among the reasons why Sanjay Gandhi had such a dislike of that country". Sanjay Gandhi died in an air crash amidst murmurs that "the aileron (control) wires of his stunt aircraft had been filed to a point where a few sharp tugs at the controls resulted in their snapping", with the aircraft plummeting to the ground. Hardly any investigation took place into the 1980 crash, at least none made public.

    The de facto immunity given to the Ford Foundation from the purview of Indian law was, according to the high officials spoken to, "compensation in a way for the pro-Soviet economic and foreign policies which Nehru took", officials claim, "for reasons that were not shared with Washington". In 1952 because of the indulgence towards it of Prime Minister Nehru, the Ford Foundation established an office and began operations in India through three agreements with the Ministry of Agriculture and in 1953 and 1954 with the Ministry of Finance, which to date is a fervent backer of the Foundation, as is the present leadership of the Reserve Bank of India. Incidentally, the RBI is following an agenda of imposing a hyper-high interest rate regimen combined with monetary tightening, which together are having the predictable effect of choking manufacturing and other job-creating activities such as infrastructure investment in the economy. These anti-growth inflation-ineffective RBI measures are being taken for reasons which are opaque except to Raghuram Rajan and his influential backers within the UPA and the NDA, who are on the same page in the matter of admiring an individual who is choking growth in the economy without in any way mitigating inflation.

    Initially, the Ford Foundation promised to fund mutually agreed "rural education and other projects", but this was to be done through the relevant ministries and with their concurrence. However, from the start, the Foundation disregarded this stipulation and acted on its own, without being questioned by the Central government of the day until Narendra Modi got sworn in as Prime Minister on 26 May 2014.

    Despite the fact that no papers appear to have been submitted to the government to ensure that it was an entity functioning as per the domestic laws in India, the Ford Foundation opened a bank account in India, at first with CitiBank and subsequently with American Express, before moving back to Citi 15 years ago. As Know Your Customer (KYC) forms were not filled in, some officials claim that these bank accounts are legally untenable, and that to date, documentation needed as per law to open a bank account in India has not been furnished by the Foundation to any authority. Interestingly, Raghuram Rajan, who as RBI Governor has placed curbs after curbs on the smooth operation in financial matters of Indian entities, does not seem to have reacted or even noticed such apparent disregard of Indian laws by the Foundation, which has, according to high officials, set up its Delhi office on land taken at a token cost from the government, again on the basis of records which seem non-existent.

    When Home Minister Rajnath Singh asked the MHA to raise such matters with the Foundation, the reply came not from itself, but from a US Department of State spokesperson, as well as US envoy to India, Richard Verma, both of whom strongly condemned Government of India for its effrontery in seeking to enforce the provisions of law on an entity which acts as though it is an independent entity subject to its own laws, rather than an institution needing to respect local laws and regulations. Albeit those which no government except the present has enforced, from 1952, the year in which "Chacha" Nehru acted as a benevolent uncle by, in practice, waiving any need for the Ford Foundation to follow Indian law. The US State Department also protested in very minatory terms about the MHA's recent cancellation of the FCRA licences of 9,000 NGOs, who have not filed returns for five consecutive years or more, raising doubts as to its real intentions in the context of developments in Eastern Europe, North Africa and West Asia, all locations where NGOs backed by Washington have been active in replacing the ballot with the street as the appropriate forum for regime change. In each such intervention, chaos has resulted.

    In particular, US Secretary of State John Kerry has been insistent in demanding extra-legal rights for NGOs operating in India such as Greenpeace and of course the Ford Foundation. Clearly, the only law the US State Department considers to be worth enforcing is its own, as (the absence of) records show that the Ford Foundation has been operating in India without any visible basis in law for decades. As per its own records made available to authorities, the Ford Foundation in India is neither a Trust nor a Society, nor is it a For Profit or a Nonprofit company, nor is it a partnership or sole proprietorship registered under local law. Nor has it bothered with the trifle of registering under FCRA with the Home Ministry, since this was made mandatory in 1976 and again in 2010, nor does it seem to have registered for an office in India under FERA in 1973 or FEMA in 1999 with the RBI, unless the same has been done in secret. Why RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan seems unbothered by such peccadilloes in the matter of individuals connected with the Foundation must be coincidental and not because he knows many Ford-connected individuals well, and in whose company he spends big chunks of time in both the US as well as India.

    Interestingly, over the decades, Ford has switched from funding service providers (and in this, much good work was done, notably in agriculture and education) to advocacy groups active in painting a picture of India as a semi-fascist state. Among the subjects that have been looked at for funding in recent years are matters described in somewhat imprecise terms as "transparent, effective and accountable governance", "expanding community rights over natural resources", "economic fairness", "freedom of expression" (except perhaps for any comments against itself), "media rights", "gender justice" and "reproductive justice", whatever these terms mean. Interestingly, several of those to whom grants have been made available are related or otherwise linked to high officials past and present and other local influentials, although it would be unfair to accuse the Foundation of making such linkages a consideration in its disbursement of funds.

    Among those certified by Ford Foundation grants as being practitioners of "transparent, effective and accountable governance" is Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

    Why have successive governments in India followed Prime Minister Nehru's Nelson's eye to the fact that the Ford Foundation in effect is a "ghost entity" (in the words of a senior official), which has not provided any documentation sanctioning the bulk of its operations?

    Uncle Sam is clearly not amused that the Modi government does not appear to be following "Chacha" Nehru's line on the Foundation and is questioning its apparent disregard for Indian law. The Barack Obama administration should make it explicit across the world that in its view, the only laws which need to be followed by US entities are those enforced within the US, and not those of countries such as India, where local laws appear to have been ignored with an insouciant impunity by the Ford Foundation, which has altered its preferences from promoting a Green Revolution (i.e. raising food output) to pushing for a Colour Revolution (i.e. changing a regime through street protests).

    Link:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/ford-foundation-an-entity-outside-law-officials
     
  2.  
  3. ezsasa

    ezsasa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    3,009
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
    I don't think Ford foundation can be wished away, a deal can be made but can never completely be banned from indian activities.
     
  4. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    For a deal to be made in our interests, we first need to push it on the back foot. Which modi is doing.... we need to push harder. ...... These little neo-imperialists need to be curtailed.
     
  5. ezsasa

    ezsasa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    3,009
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
    I don't view Ford foundation as a random NGO types, i view it as a silent enforcer of american policies. Their job is to create leverages in other countries which can be exploited by american government at a later point in time. If any country tries to shunt them out, there will be consequences. Consequences sometimes take the shape in form of people like Kejriwal, Medha patkar etc.

    Best way is to get them aligned to our countries goals and make them work for us and create a win-win situation.
     
  6. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    Yes...but we need to make sure for that to happen, they must be put in a position where working with us is seen as beneficial than working against us.
     
    raja696 and ezsasa like this.
  7. Vishwarupa

    Vishwarupa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2,206
    Why Greenpeace appointed a political advisor?

    Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/india/why-greenpeace-appointed-a-political-advisor-1713022.html


    New Delhi, April 11: Why was Greenpeace India paying a salary of Rs 1,04,850 a month to the Political Affairs Advisor? Why does an NGO which is clearly barred from interfering in political affairs need a political affairs advisor? The rules clearly state that NGOs shall not indulge in political activity, but the report by the Home Ministry clearly indicates that Greenpeace India was paying a salary to a political affairs advisor who also doubled as a Public Relations officer. The government of India had on Thursday seized seven accounts of Greenpeace India and also suspended it's licence for a period of 180 days after it had found that it's activities were violative of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. Greenpeace paid handsome salaries: According to the Home Ministry report, Greenpeace dished out handsome salaries to several persons. A policy advisor with Greenpeace India earned 4,48,435 as consultancy fee. Interestingly the NGO appointed an IIT Madras graduate as a consultant. The Home Ministry, which clearly states that such fees are on the extreme higher side also points out that between the years 2008 and 2009, the policy advisor was paid Rs 39 lakh. ‎Further, the NGO also appointed an executive director and paid him Rs 1,85,300 per month. While the Home Ministry found that the salaries were on the higher side for an NGO, it also pointed that there is no consent from the donor. When salaries are paid and money is used, an NGO needs to obtain the consent of the donor. However, there is nothing to show that the consent or permission of the donor has been obtained,shows the report. Furthermore, the report also notes that there were around nine employees in Greenpeace India who were paid in the range of Rs 1.5 lakh a month. ‎Advancing the foreign policy of UK: The report further states that there was an attempt to help the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. This refers to the Priya Pillai incident in which she had attempted to go to the UK and testify against a developmental project of India. The trip was entirely sponsored by Greenpeace UK and it involved the testimony of several Indian activists to be made before a committee in the UK. The testimony was being undertaken after India had banned foreign donations from Greenpeace UK to its India unit. The very fact that the trip was being undertaken at the expense of the Greenpeace UK despite a ban on foreign donations itself is violative of the law, the report notes. False allegations by Greenpeace: The report claimed that Greenpeace was making false allegations against India. There were nine British, one Australian and three American activists who had trained Indian activists on how to carry out a false propaganda. These activists were directly involved in training their counterparts in India so that anti developmental activities threatening the Indian economy could be carried out. Priya Pillai was specifically posted at Mahan in Madhya Pradesh since the year 2011. Her job was to create protests to prevent coal mining by the Mahan Coal Ltd which was setting up a thermal power plant. She was to testify in the UK in January 2015 against this project the Home Ministry report also stated.

    Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/india/why-greenpeace-appointed-a-political-advisor-1713022.html
     
    Rowdy likes this.

Share This Page