NEW DELHI: Amnesty International India halted its operations in September 2020 after the Government of India froze its bank accounts, triggering a fierce confrontation over foreign funding, regulatory compliance and the organisation’s activities in the country. The development dealt a major blow to the organisation’s India operations, forcing it to suspend campaigns and research work and lay off staff.
While Amnesty portrayed the action as a politically motivated “witch-hunt” by the Narendra Modi government, the controversy also brought renewed attention to the legal obligations of foreign-funded organisations operating in India. An international reputation or human rights mandate does not, by itself, exempt any organisation from complying with Indian law.
Following the freezing of its accounts, Amnesty International India accused the government of targeting the organisation over its work on the North-East Delhi riots and developments in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370.
The organisation claimed that the action was intended to silence its criticism of the government. However, its allegations of political retaliation were claims made by Amnesty and should not be treated as established facts without supporting evidence.
The central question was whether the organisation had complied with the legal requirements governing its financial activities in India. That question could not be settled simply by branding regulatory action a “witch-hunt”.
The Enforcement Directorate had initiated an investigation into Amnesty International India in 2019 over alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The government maintained that the organisation was not registered under the FCRA to receive foreign contributions.
The case placed the spotlight on the financial arrangements used by international organisations to fund their activities in India. Foreign funding and the transfer of funds through different entities are subject to applicable legal requirements, and allegations of non-compliance warrant examination by the competent authorities.
Amnesty maintained that it had complied with applicable Indian and international laws. The competing claims underscored the need for transparent scrutiny of financial records and a determination based on evidence and due process.
Amnesty’s interventions on J&K and the North-East Delhi riots attracted strong criticism from sections of India’s political establishment. Its participation in international discussions on alleged human rights violations in Kashmir further intensified the debate over whether its activities were being assessed fairly or had become entangled in a wider political confrontation.
Critics questioned the organisation’s approach to sensitive national issues, while Amnesty maintained that its work focused on human rights and accountability.
Such disagreements, however, do not independently establish allegations of foreign interference, links to particular organisations or a deliberate campaign against India. Those claims require credible supporting evidence.
A separate political controversy involved Aakar Patel, Amnesty International India’s former executive director, who called for protests in India similar to demonstrations following George Floyd’s death in the United States.
In a tweet, Patel referred to Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women and economically disadvantaged people as groups that could participate in protests. His remarks drew political criticism and intensified debate over the role of activists and international organisations in India’s domestic affairs.
The episode became part of the wider political controversy surrounding Amnesty, although criticism of Patel’s remarks should be distinguished from the separate legal questions concerning the organisation’s finances.
The 2020 shutdown exposed a fundamental issue: international organisations operating in India must be accountable under Indian law, just as other entities are. Advocacy on human rights does not automatically establish compliance, just as government scrutiny alone does not prove wrongdoing.
Amnesty described the freezing of its accounts as an attack on dissent. The government’s position centred on regulatory enforcement and alleged FCRA violations. Both the organisation’s accusations and the allegations against it must be evaluated against verifiable evidence.
