Why govt took action against Greenpeace

They used sarcastic language. They encouraged people to demand water to drink. These are two of the reasons offered by the Home Ministry to justify its ban on Greenpeace receiving foreign funds. While the government notification claimed that the environmental NGO's registration had been cancelled because Geenpeace had “prejudicially affected the economic interest of the state,” a Home Ministry report prepared in September lists causes that are far less threatening, if at all. Here are some highlights.

Using sarcasm

The report sharply critiqued a Greenpeace ad which attacked the low financial limits in India’s nuclear liability clause. "On August 14, 2012, Greenpeace posted a full-page colour advertisement in The Hindu, with a sarcasm-laced header, 'Can you spot the foreign hand in this picture?' and equally sarcastic content on the foreign hand being present in 'the air-conditioned offices in New Delhi, carpeted wall-to-wall with nuclear industry lobbyists."

Drinking water stops national progress

The report accused Greenpeace of “creating hurdles in the way of progress of our nation”. One of the Greenpeace activities which the government produced to back up this claim is as follows: "Mobilisation of over 2,55,000 people from drought-affected areas to stop diversion of water from agriculture and drinking." This demand that water not be diverted from a drought-affected area and be used for drinking purposes violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, alleged the report.

Activism as a crime

Home Ministry lays out a charge: "Funding and creating activism and protests in areas where none existed, e.g.: in the villages of Mahan Coal Block by locating an office in the area and deploying GIS [Greenpeace] employees at the location, who spent all their time and GIS resources in spreading misinformation amongst villagers." What “misinformation” was spread is never spelt out. The NGO had been mobilising residents of the Mahan forest against a mining project that would have a detrimental effect on communities.

Change of address

The report claimed that Greenpeace changed its address from Chennai to Bangalore without informing it. While Greenpeace denied changing this charge, shifting offices seems unlikely to mean that the organisation “prejudicially affected the economic interest of the state”.

Greenpeace pays its employees too much

The report singled out a certain advisor from Greenpeace objecting to how high his renumeration was. In reply, Greenpeace argued that he was a highly qualified professional and his payment was still less than the the “market based pay for a similar professional.” Definitions of what is “exorbitant” were not provided.

Highlighting pesticide abuse in foodstuff

The report said Greenpeace was highlighting high levels of pesticide in India’s tea and was alarmed that the organisation was trying to test the presence of harmful substances in other foodstuffs. The report says: "It has also decided to target other commonly consumed goods such as rice, wheat, etc. and highlight the abuse of pesticide in these sectors."

Ex-employee fought an election

"In contravention of Section3(1)(a) of FCRA 2010, Greenpeace was also in talks with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and declared Greenpeace consultant, Pankaj Singh, as the AAP candidate from Mahan for the Sidhi Lok Sabha constituency in Madhya Pradesh. He subsequently resigned from Greenpeace and joined AAP for the elections." Section3(1)(a) reads that “No foreign contribution shall be accepted by any candidate for election”. It just assumed that since Singh was once in Greenpeace, the organisation funded his campaign.