India: Recent Human Rights Reporting Date:

James P. McGovern
Good morning and welcome to today’s Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on human rights in India. I extend special welcome to our witnesses and I want to thank them for taking the time to share their expertise with us this morning.
India is an incredibly important country. It ranks seventh in land size and overtook China last year as the world’s most populous country. It is incredibly diverse ethnically, culturally and religiously, and it is considered the world’s largest democracy. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize India’s importance and have worked to deepen US Indian ties based on our shared interests, including China.
The Biden administration’s launch last year of the ambitious US- India initiative on critical and emerging technologies is a recent example. But as bilateral ties have deepened, concerns about human rights abuses in India have grown. The US government’s own human rights reporting reflects these growing concerns.
The State Department’s most recent human rights report covering 2022 identified significant problems including restrictions on religious and press freedoms, violence targeted at national racial, ethnic and religious minorities, harassment and restrictions on civil society and human rights organizations, corruption and lack of accountability.
The 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report found that overall anti trafficking efforts, especially against bonded labor, are still insufficient.
As we will hear today, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended for some time that the State Department designate India as a country of particular concern.
Many of the problems that most worry human rights observers have been linked to current Prime Minister Modi’s push to reshape India’s secular democracy into a Hindu First Nation.
This coming April 19, India will begin multi-phase general elections that will determine the country’s political direction for the next five years. Prime Minister Modi is seeking a third term.
I’m one of those people who thinks that friends should tell each other hard truths. India is a friend and it is truly important to the US that India prosper. Yet there is a real risk that the tensions inherent in diverse societies could harden into dangerous conflicts and undermine India’s bright future if human rights abuses are not addressed.
The recent communal violence between ethnic Hindu and Christian communities in Manipur state is just one example. Congress must do its part to urge the Indian Government to correct course and reconsider policies and laws, including counterterrorism laws that are inconsistent with the obligations India has acquired through his ratification of key human rights treaties. That’s why we’re here today.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses who will update us on their human rights situation and human rights situation in India based on their most recent reporting. And will offer recommendations for steps that Congress could take to incentivize India’s compliance with his obligations. Speaking out as we’re doing today is important. In that regard, I urge my colleagues to co sponsor H.R. 542, which condemns violations of international religious freedom in India, but clearly more is needed and I look forward to the witness’s ideas.
This hearing has attracted significant interest and we are expecting statements for the record from several organizations including the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and without objection, I moved to submit for the record the statements we receive. This is a large hearing and unfortunately, you know, we may not be able to accommodate everybody, but you can watch it on TV. So I appreciate it if everybody could limit their remarks to five minutes and with that, I’m happy to yield to Co chair Smith for any opening remarks.
Rep. Chris Smith
Thank you very much and good morning and welcome, Commissioner, thank you and all of our distinguished witnesses to this important hearing.
Religious freedom has often been referred to right and rightfully so is the first freedom, foundational for all other human rights in our world. As author of the Frank R Wolfe International Religious Freedom Act, which became law in 2016, I work on religious freedom rights around the world, just about every day and you do it so extraordinarily well over the commission, a statement so thank you for that leadership. It’s extraordinary.
As we know from the latest International Religious Freedom Report 13 of the 28 states have restricted religious conversions.
Numerous reports during the year of violence by law enforcement authorities against members of religious minorities in multiple states as well. Police arrested Christians accused of forcing others to convert. Christian groups said police sometimes aided crowds who disrupted worship services. The crowd said we’re forcibly converting Hindus. Attacks on members of religious minority communities, including killings, assaults, intimidation occurred in various states throughout the year.
There were also attacks on pastors, disruption of Christian and Muslim worship services, and vandalism of churches
and let’s not forget that the one person who got denied a visa pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, the original bill written by Frank Wolf was Modi because of his killing and his ordering.
And I think the evidence is very clear of a large number of Muslims in India.
And it’s clear from the report that Muslims suffered greatly and then for both Muslims and Christians, the situation can vary enormously from state to state within India. So this will be, I know our witnesses will be focusing on this and other issues of human rights abuse.
I also appreciate the benefit of your expertise. in contempt utilizing the orphan report is reports of your own organizations, and 1.5 billion people, more people who live in India than the entire continent of Africa, and they speak dozens of different languages. How do we break down the situation of such a large and varied country? So as to better understand and advocate for human rights?
The second very key issue with regards to human rights is human trafficking.
While the TIP report puts India as a tier two country, I think they should be downgraded by quite frankly. Here and I am the author of the introduction of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 200o and four of their laws and I, like many of my colleagues, follow it very, very closely.
India has a very serious problem with human trafficking. And as the most recent report pointed out that TIP Report, prosecutions are down and when you don’t prosecute the traffickers, that enables and helps those who commit such cruelty to do even more of it and they are doing that in India today. They both labor as well as sex trafficking.
Third International Parental Child Abduction. Again, I’ve authored the law there as well. It is called Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014. India has not adhered to any of the protocols with respect to international parental child abduction including the Hague Convention, and the US government has tried repeatedly, to engage. I have I talked to Modi myself, on behalf of a constituent, a woman who lives in New Jersey, whose children were abducted back to India, and she has been treated so harshly not only by the abducting parent, but also by the government. fearing for her own life, I had a couple of hearings on this issue, but she was one of our star witnesses and one of them. Her heart is absolutely broken. And she can’t even know her kids are coming close to the age of 18. Parental alienation has been, has really taken a deep toll. The abducting husband has so abused her memory that the kids don’t even want to see her anymore. I mean, it is the classic case and the government has done nothing. They are on the list as well, a sanction-able list. There could be sanctions, just like if they get a CPC designation on that laws as well. And I would hope that the administration would sanction them. You know, as a as my friend and colleague Jim McGovern just said a moment ago, we consider India a friend but friends don’t like friends commit human rights abuses in those three areas and more human rights abuses are being committed with impunity by state governments as well as by the national government. Yield back.
James P. McGovern

Thank you very much Co-Chair for excellent statement and i want to introduce the first panel, which consists of Stephen Schneck, a Commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He also serves on the Governing Boards of Catholic Climate Covenant, which advocates for environmental justice and care for creation and of Catholic mobilizing network, a Catholic organization working to end the death penalty at Advanced restorative justice. Mr. Schneck, happy to have you here and the floor is yours.
Stephen Schneck
Good morning everyone and thank you McGovern. Thank you co chair Smith, and any other members distinguished members of the Commission for this invitation. It’s an honor to represent the US Commission on International Religious Freedom USCIRF to testify this morning at this important hearing on human rights in India. As I believe everyone knows USCIRF is an independent bipartisan, US federal government body that is dedicated to promoting the universal right to freedom of religion or belief around the world for people of all faiths, and for people who choose to have no faith, human rights conditions in India are incredibly concerning. I will focus my testimony on specific ways the Indian government targets individuals rights to freedom of religion or belief.
The government led by the Bharatiya Janata or BJP party enforces discriminatory Hindu nationalist policies, perpetuates hateful rhetoric against religious communities, and in several instances has failed to address communal violence that disproportionately affects Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits Jews out of RCS and the adivasis who are indigenous peoples of India.
Last week, Indian officials announced the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act or CAA which provides a fast track to citizenship for Hindus and other minorities seeking asylum from neighboring Muslim majority countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Notably, this law however omits Muslim refugees, including Rohingya from neighboring Burma, Ahmadiyya Muslims from Pakistan, or Hazara Shia from Afghanistan.
The law’s initial passage in 2020 sparked large scale protests across the country that provoked a harsh and deadly crackdown by police forces, including the arbitrary arrests of activists and students like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Miran Haider, all of whom today are still detained under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Indian authorities also continue to detain religious minorities under various state level anti conversion laws, which are in effect as we just heard in 12 of the 28 Indian states. These laws enable and encourage Hindu nationalists to target and discriminate against religious minorities under the guise of protecting the Hindu faith and upholding state laws.
The application and advocacy of these policies by government officials has created a culture of impunity for nationwide campaigns of harassment and violence, particularly against Muslims and Christians. Anti-conversion laws are increasingly targeting interfaith marriages or interfaith couples, restraining an individual’s right to convert and curtailing the right to choose one’s partner. These laws carry penalties of hefty fines, and imprisonment.
In addition, 18 of 28 states have cow slaughter laws, which have been used as justification by vigilantes for violence targeting religious minorities for consuming or transporting cattle.
Similarly, the Indian government’s lack of response and investigation into ongoing violence in Manipur state fits into a larger pattern of behavior that neglects communal tensions between religious groups in favor of the Hindu majority.
Since June, violent clashes between ethnic Hindu Meitei and Christian Kuki communities resulted in the destruction of more than 500 churches, two synagogues and the displacement of over 70,000 people. In addition, Haryana is predominantly Muslim new district. Communal violence erupted following a Hindu procession in July where participants carrying swords chanted anti Muslim slogans. Muslim tomb and mosque were torched, resulting in the death of at least seven individuals, including Imam Mohammed Hafiz.
In the lead up to national elections, such violence and hate speech against Muslims escalated to an alarming level.
USCIRF remains equally concerned about Indian government’s efforts to export these harmful practices beyond its border.
In 2023, Indian authorities increasingly engaged in acts of transnational repression, to target into silence religious minorities abroad, including human rights advocates, advocates and journalists reporting on religious freedom issues.
In September, Indian authorities allegedly killed Sikh activists Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada which was followed by an alleged plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States in November.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, or IRFA, requires our State Department to designate any country engaging in particularly severe violations of religious freedom, defined as systematic ongoing and egregious as a country of particular concern or CPC.
If a country meets that threshold, then they should be designated along with appropriate administrative actions to encourage adherence to international human rights norms. India clearly meets these CPC standards under IRFA. Not only based on USCIRF analysis, and public reporting, but by the State Department’s own annual International Religious Freedom Report, which reiterates the same concerns that I’ve just laid out here this morning.
USCIRF has recommended the State Department designate India as a CPC every year since 2020.
And we continue to urge it to do so.
Despite the US government’s failure so far to designate India as a CPC, there are still some important policy actions that can be taken to address religious freedom concerns about the country. Let me suggest these
1). Congressional hearings like this one, are an important tool to publicly highlight conditions for religious minorities in India. We encourage members of Congress to continue to publicly raise religious freedom issues in India and to include religious freedom in discussions with government counterparts And importantly, during congressional delegations.
2) USCIRF freedom of religion or belief victims list. We currently document 25 individuals imprisoned in India related to their religious identity or expression, though in fact the actual number of individuals detained is much higher. However, we urge members of Congress to advocate on behalf of these religious prisoners of conscience and other human rights defenders through public statements, floor speeches and letters, including through the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission’s defending freedoms project.
3) Congress should continue to emphasize the importance of a full investigation into transnational repression allegations outlined in the Department of Justice, recent indictment. And
4) We recommend that Congress condition financial assistance and arm sales to India on improved religious freedom conditions and include measures for additional review and reporting.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
James P. McGovern
Well, thank you very much for your testimony and I think you have thoroughly outlined some of the human rights challenges that quite frankly are a reality in today’s India. And I agree with all your recommendations, but you reminded us that USCIRF has recommended the State Department to designate India, a country in particular concern every year since 2020.
Right
Okay, so you help us understand what is your understanding of the reasons the State Department has not made that designation?
Stephen Schneck, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)
Congressman McGovern, I frankly, I’m unclear why it’s, it’s it’ll be will be wilderness me. Let me say on the face of it. I mean, if we look at the criteria, objectively, India clearly meets all of the criteria. Obviously, you’re aware of the geopolitical concerns about the world today. And I suspect that that that’s probably part of what what’s going on here. But I would point it to other countries that we designate as Countries of Particular Concern that are also of interest to us for geopolitical reasons, countries like Pakistan, and so forth. Those countries, we do list as countries of particular concern and we grant them a waiver. Nevertheless, to work with them outside normal sanctions. I wonder why something like that couldn’t be the situation in India, in other words designate as a country of particular concern. And then if for geopolitical reasons, other measures need to be taken and perhaps a waiver.
James P. McGovern
I think that’s a good suggestion. I mean, the we all we’re all aware of the geopolitical concerns. We live in a crazy world right now. Right? I mean, you just turn on the news. It’s like drinking water from a firehose. Looking at all the turmoil and all the potential areas where things can go off the rails. But I think, you know, it’s precisely when countries that we deem as our friend, when countries that are significant in terms of population and influence as India, and it’s precisely in those in those instances where it is really important to state the truth. Because if you don’t, then what’s the incentive for anything to change. That doesn’t seem to be very much of an incentive. And I get it. I mean, countries don’t, you know, I mean, nobody wants to be on this list. And one would hope that if it were on this list, even if we were to waive, provide a waiver, that they would want to do everything they could to get off this list for the sake of their own global credibility.
Stephen Schneck
I mean, the power of the CPC designation is exactly it provides the leverage for countries to make these kinds of changes and without making the CPC designation, It’s as if it’s as if we’re giving India a free pass.
James P. McGovern
I appreciate it. And let me yield to a co chair.
Chris Smith
Thank you very much. Thank you for your very powerful testimony. I chaired all the hearings on the Frank Wolf international Lynch’s Freedom Act in the markup began in my subcommittee went to the full committee went to the floor languished over in the Senate for well over a year. We thought they’re going to kill it, as so many bills coming out of the house are often killed through inaction. But it did finally get passed and signed into law. And ditto for the Frank Wolf bill that I did, named in honor of that great champion of human rights Frank Wolf, that too went through a very, very tortured path in order to get enacted into law. What I learned during those early hearings was at the State Department on human rights in general and religious freedom in particular so often sees it as a nuisance. That’s why Frank in his original bill in my in mine enhanced State Department training for people FSOs and everybody else right on down the line right up until DCMs and the ambassadors because there is this dismissiveness, that is so rampant about, again, human rights in general, and religious freedom in particular that so just put that aside, and don’t worry about it. I have asked Secretary Blinken and I don’t know what the answer is to why I’ve asked Hussain and others who run the IRFA office for a good explanation as to why they have rejected your recommendation for CPC designation. I have said repeatedly Friends don’t let friends commit human rights abuses and we are enabling by our silence. You have been outstanding and I love when you put out your rationales you lay it all out in such vivid detail. It’s an engraved invitation, I believe for the administration to say but of course you know as we you know there’s prescribed about and there’s a one to operation named them for what they are calling for what it is, and they are a country of bigger concern. And I will put an h in there huge particular concern for their egregious behavior. And Modi looks at what we do and says they don’t care. That’s what the takeaway is by his government and by he personally. So I would encourage you to continue on. We keep asking we get …. as to what the rationale is for this, and geopolitical concerns are enhanced, I believe, and the ability for us to have credibility when we leave countries and CPC and exclude egregious violators like India. What does that say to the other countries that are on the list? They look at us as hypocrites, and that’s not good either. You know, credibility is important. And as you know, it’s a one two operation. The first operation is a designation based on the record. The second is what the State Department itself and the President decide to do in enforcing it started with a simple demarche and all the other important embedded penalties that are that are in that law. So I would hope and I thank you for your list of the 25 You know, without objection, I would hope that you would include that or provide it to us just so it’s in the record. So that we have a clear all those important names. And of course, as you said, there are many more than we know about but I have tried repeatedly and I next time the secretary comes up. I’m going to be asking me again about India. I’m also going to be asking about other countries including in Africa, Nigeria, which you know, where more Christians have been killed, 90% Of all the Christians killed and murdered for their faith, or happens in that country. And the current government, again, looks askance and we have all kinds of relationship with them. We do this they’ll take note. But again, we’re talking India today and I just hope we do this. And there is a pattern here. Again, I’m thinking also of the trafficking laws for the States of America, including the landmark one, I can’t believe they’re not tier three. Minimally they should be on the watch list for their trafficking that especially includes labor trafficking, but sex trafficking as well. It’s outrageous. And yet they get a buy on that one. They did not get a buy thankfully on their child abduction issue, but that’s not as highly profiled as these are so keep on, keeping on and if you get a sense of what that rationale is, please let us know because I have not been able to get it and I just very frustrated and very angry because the people who are suffering, the Muslims and the Christians and the others, the Sikhs, you know in Punjab who are suffering so many are suffering, because of this, you call it incredibly concerning a culture of impunity, impunity, can’t rebound or any culture of impunity. You’ve called it the way it is. And you know, when Frank did the two step having a commission it was precisely because we did not trust the State Department. Then other issues, we’ll put this on page six of Google talking points, even if it means a list. So we have an independent, absolutely focused group of men and women serving there that say let’s call it the way it is. So I can’t thank you enough for your leadership. And I yield back.
Carolyn Nash, Asia Advocacy Director, Amnesty International USA
Thank you to the co chairs for the opportunity to speak here today regarding the deteriorating situation of human rights in India.
Over the last 10 years Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have documented efforts by BJP authorities to demonize and deny the rights of religious and ethnic groups in India.
This includes both rights violating conduct by the government, such as rhetoric by BJP officials and supporters intended to stoke religious and ethnic violence, protection by state authorities of mobs that commit these violent acts, arrest, detection and intimidation of government critics and the use and export of invasive spyware for unlawful surveillance.
It also includes the government’s weaponization of laws to justify these abuses. Most recently, we saw the operationalization of the Ctizenship Amendment Act, which discriminates on the basis of religion, and could be used to strip members of religious groups of their citizenship.
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which violates fair trial guarantees and allows for prolonged detention without trial.
The Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, which facilitates financial harassment of nonprofits and the Information Technology Act and its corresponding rules, which provide unchecked censorship powers to the Indian government.
The Indian government uses these laws to dismantle civil society and target ethnic and religious groups, all claiming their actions are in line with Indian law and consistent with democratic governments. In fact, what we are witnessing is a government consolidating its power at the expense of the people and the right that it deems dispensable.
Given the urgency of the crisis in India, I would like to really reiterate our appreciation to the Commission for holding this hearing. We recognize that the co chairs will likely be criticized by those who support the emergence of an anti human rights supremacist India.
Today’s effort to publicly address the human rights situation in India is a vital responsibility of the US government, in part because the ecosystem I have described is not contained within India’s borders.
The US government has recognized acts of transnational repression by the government of India in Canada, which led to the assassination of an activist as well as attempts here in the United States.
The scale of oppression facing human rights defenders, both in and out of India limits the availability of information about human rights violations committed by the Indian government. Information that should influence how the US and other governments engage the Modi administration, and how the private sector makes choices about investment.
My Co panelists and I can provide documentation of the government’s intensifying efforts to weaponize and codify into law intolerance and hate. As you will hear from others on this panel of particular concern or the expansion of the government’s abuse of vague and overbroad laws to shut down dissent. The increases in leaders use of hate speech and vilification of religious groups and the recent rollout of the CAA and its discriminatory citizenship process, which could set the stage for millions to be deprived of citizenship.
It is up to US lawmakers to respond to these efforts, but the situation is worsening quickly And it would be a mistake to imagine that the US and other concerned governments are geopolitically constrained from taking action.
As India prepares for elections, We urge the US government, both members of Congress and administration officials to communicate to the Government of India that the US will condemn hateful rhetoric, legal harassment of civil society and the targeting of religious and ethnic groups.
The BJP party is eager to demonstrate to their base that they are delivering on the promises. We know the lead up to the election will be a particularly dangerous time. We also know that Prime Minister Modi will be particularly sensitive to messages from other governments and especially from senior leaders.
We urge the US to send these messages in several ways,
by Congress exercising its oversight role to scrutinize the human rights concerns related to major arms deals with India
by the US raising concerns in multilateral bodies, for example, ensuring that the upcoming evaluation report of India by the Financial Action Task Force of which the US is a member directly discusses the misuse of purported counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws to shut down civil society
by raising human rights issues directly with Indian officials in all bilateral engagements, including the US India Global Issues Forum
by reiterating that Indian officials will be held accountable for acts of transnational repression within the United States
by acknowledging that the US has its own human rights problems and is willing to have its record criticized and in all of this
by coordinating closely with other rights respecting governments to ensure that concerns are being raised on an international level and not only by the US.
Thank you again and I welcome your questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Sefton.
John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch
Thank you, and thank you for inviting me to testify. I’ve submitted a written version of my testimony which is also on our website, Human Rights Watch’s website, on our India page along with several other reports I’m going to refer to but to start, however, a word about my organization. Like others on the panel when I just want to be clear that Human Rights Watch is an entirely independent and international organization. We work in over 100 countries around the world and that includes India, where we’ve done work for more than three decades and the United States where we have reported on human rights abuses since 1978. We accept no government funding. We’re nonpartisan. We don’t endorse political parties.
My written testimony reviews an extensive list of human rights issues that we’ve documented, especially in the last 10 years since Prime Minister Modi’s party, the BJP was elected.
I just want to focus on some particular issues about how the government under Prime Minister Modi has essentially undertaken a broad crackdown on civil society in the media, as well as intensifying toxic atmosphere for religious minorities.
As they say in my testimony, the government has essentially adopted an increasingly majoritarian form of governance, that tramples on the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. But the issues go beyond religious freedom, as Carolyn has already outlined, and was discussed, authorities prosecuted journalists, human rights defenders, peaceful protesters, and they often use us fabricated counterterrorism and hate speech laws. They use hate speech laws against people who are protesting about hate speech by the government or BJP leaders. They have stifled civil society and human rights groups with pre textual investigations and prosecutions. And I also discussed in my written remarks, how there’s been increasing repression across international borders, which we discussed in a recent hearing as well.
But I want to focus again on the more overarching topic which underpins a lot of these, which concerns both freedom of religion but also basic freedoms of speech and assembly.
The government and the ruling party’s increasingly toxic policies and actions, which target religious minorities and champions majoritarian political agenda, That put the ruling party’s goals above all others, They are undergirded by a set of events that have happened over the last 10 years, which I think we should focus on. So to highlight some main points first, as both chairs have, and Commissioner Schneck have said, that ruling BJP party is encouraging vigilante groups and supporting in some cases, vigilante groups that engage in violence and hate speech and sometimes, both Muslims and Christians in groups to target minority Christian kooky and Manipur and many other locations, and BJP leaders, including elected officials often vilify religious minorities, especially Muslims and speeches, which has increased vigilante violence.
We’ve also seen widespread police complicity in that violence, dereliction of duty and protecting victims and cases where the police and authorities go after victim communities after they’ve suffered abuses which is the subject of recent reporting by Amnesty as well as other groups.
And then of course, we’ve seen these cases of excessive force against farmers who were protesting against agricultural problems predominantly Sikh farmers in Delhi and other locations have been subjected to these extreme forms of police violence and more worryingly, BJP leaders have dangerously labeled them as separatists.

And we should note also the impacts of when the government revoked the constitutional status of Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir and I’ve gone into detail about what those impacts were in terms of mass arrests, internet shutdown, and a total communications blackout which had severe repercussions for people throughout Jammu and Kashmir. I talk also about the issues in which the BJP and the government have raised tensions with respect to the site, the former Babri mosque and, you know, the violence that occurred in January after Prime Minister Modi officiated over the opening of a new Hindu temple there. Thousands have been killed in connection with this site, and it deserves attention as well as an aggravating factor.
But chief focus on my testimony is the government’s plan to move ahead with a citizenship verification process and this is connected with this new law, The citizenship Amendment Act, which was passed in 2019, but which is now has implementing regulations that will make it possible to implement it and this other issue the National Registry of citizenship, or citizens. This is a complicated issue.
I tried to get into the basics of my written testimony, but the basis of it is that the proposed citizenship process the NRC creates a highly problematic system in which local officials are given the power to label a person’s citizenship is doubtful or otherwise challenging. And this is what sets the stage potentially for stripping huge numbers of Indians of their citizenship.
This connects to the citizenship Amendment Act the CAA because that law, which is ostensibly a citizenship law, meant to fast track processing of people eligible for citizenship from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh. It excludes Muslims. And as the BJP supporters have made numerous statements about Muslims from those countries as quote, unquote, infiltrators, migrants foreigners, then stating that the law is only for Hindus Sikhs, Christians and other minorities who are non Muslim in those neighboring countries. And this language demonizes Muslims infiltrators is a key word that the Home Minister Amit Shah has used. He said illegal immigrants are like termites and they are eating the food that should go to our poor and they are taking our job, They carry out blasts bombings in our countries and so many of our people die.
In other words, it’s clear that the new amendments to the citizenship law are discriminatory And when they are connected with the registration process, the NRC, they create a system in which millions of Muslims especially in border areas could be rendered stateless and creates a system essentially where the burden of proof is reversed on long standing citizens of India, who might be called upon to prove that they are citizens; prove their parents were born in India and do so in cases in which government officials have made no allegations otherwise. This is really a recipe for disaster And we’ve seen how these problems have already unfolded in the state of Assam on the Bangladesh border when the Citizenship Act was initially enacted in 2009. widespread protests broke out because participants noted the citizenship laws in Assam had been compiled in a very shambolic and arbitrary way and we’re missing over well over a million people who are citizens and you know, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty documented that the processes used to set up that list in the first place, These citizenship laws, were arbitrary, discriminatory, inconsistent and error ridden, and there was no real method to appeal the decisions. There were tribunals but they operated without any uniform standards, and they were led poorly by officials who have no legal or judicial experience. So in other words, you have local leaders making decisions about whether you’re a citizen of India or not.
And some individuals reported to provide documentary evidence going back 50 years a particularly difficult burden for marginalized communities who often lack documentation of where they were born, where the parents were born.
So this process in Assam rendered over a million people stateless, most of them were Muslim, and now this new law the CAA would not even give them a pathway to citizenship because they are Muslim.
So this is essentially the problem.
India’s reputation as a rights respecting pluralistic country is now really at risk. And so long as the government continues to be guided by these discriminatory, exclusionary and intolerant approaches to governance, this is going to continue to be a problem.
And as long as the government elevates a particular religious group over the rest, so what should we do about it?
Carolyn has made a number of excellent recommendations, I would only add a few beyond urging the government to change all this specifically focus on this National Register of citizenships issue and citizenship Amendment Act and ask India to turn away from this terrible approach of making Indian citizens prove their citizenship when there’s no allegation made otherwise.
And of course, repeal all the other laws that discriminate against Muslims and are abused as I think worse will talk about in the name of counterterrorism.
Smith raise the issue of trafficking, I just wanted to let the committee that a major report by the Associated Press was released yesterday about forced labor in the shrimp industry and given the fact that 40% of shrimp eaten in America is coming from India now. This is an area that government can explore too. Congress could write to Customs and Border Protection and ask questions about enforcement, forced labor laws and raise that but like most importantly on this larger toxic issue, Congress needs to more forcefully urged the President Biden to speak directly to Prime Minister Modi about these concerns. And it’s ultimately Prime Minister Modi who has the power to instruct his government, his party, about their toxic rhetoric and their abusive laws and policies and get them to drop this abusive form of governance. Members of Congress and President Biden need to acknowledge the scope and gravity of this situation.

President Biden’s embrace of Modi and reluctance to criticize the government for this situation will be understood by India to mean that the worsening conduct will have no consequences and that cannot be the situation.
So my last point would merely be that doing so failing to say anything to Prime Minister Modi about this deteriorating situation sends a terrible message that the US government cares more about him about Modi as a leader, and about the people of India, who Modi was elected to serve. Thank you.
Waris Husain, Legal Advisor, American Bar Association Center for Human Rights
Chairman McGovern, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and before the commission. Before I begin, let me state that my remarks reflect my personal opinion and should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association at large.
In October 2023. The Center for Human Rights at the American Bar Association released a report on the adverse impact of counterterrorism laws on human rights defenders, and the Financial Action Task Force compliance of India. We’ll call it fat if the report reflects the views of the authors who are experts in India’s relationship with that if and its use of counterterrorism laws. Based on this report, I will discuss the problem of the misuse of counterterrorism laws And measures in India today, and the impact that such practices have on achieving peace and security goals.
India became member of FATF in 2010, and has since risen in prominence, in fact, if that if it’s an international organization of states combating terrorism and terrorism financing which dates back to 1989, and then was given authorization for the counterterrorism financing in 2001.
India has repeatedly amended its anti-terrorism and money laundering laws allegedly to be in compliance with FATF requirements. In doing so, however, India has expanded the scope of these laws in ways that have resulted in wide ranging adverse impacts on nonprofit organizations or MPOs, as well as human rights defenders, who have been targeted with prosecutions, and in many instances, for exercising their civic freedoms and critiquing the government.
From the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the UAPA the prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA and the foreign contribution Regulation Act the FCRA, which constitute major parts of India’s counterterrorism regime, Critics have argued that these laws define terrorism in such a vague and imprecise way, That they have been used to punish nonviolent political activity, rendering human rights defenders, political opponents and dissenters vulnerable to malicious prosecution.
A survey of human rights defenders cases of have been prosecuted under these laws demonstrates how the government of India has used has used its amended counterterrorism financing legislation to target human rights defenders and to close civic space in the country.
The first trend begins the first trend rather, begins at the onset of cases wherein the investigating officers and others involved in the police process use vague allegations and inconsistent evidence to attempt to punish human rights defenders MPOs and NGOs that are critical of the ruling government.
This harassment was seen in the case of Waheed-ur-Rehman Para, a former journalist, social activist and current president of the youth wing of People’s Democratic Party in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as other cases of Kashmiri human rights defenders.
The second trend, which is particularly concerning, in my opinion, is that the punishment is oftentimes meant to be the process itself. Individuals are arrested, they’re given extensive pretrial detention, repeatedly denied bail, and their cases could take years to be resolved in the court, and could involve multiple rounds of appeals to various courts.
Once again, I emphasize that the process here is in fact the punishment.
This was seen in the case of Siddique Kappan , who was charged into the UAPA in the PMLA. Kappan who spent a total of two years in pre-trial detention, remained in jail even after the Supreme Court granted his bail.
Extensive pretrial detention is also exemplified with Kappan case where individuals including poets, academics, and others, who stood in opposition to the current ruling administration have spent over five years in pretrial detention for charges in the UAPA.
This process, as punishment concept, stands in contravention of both FATF requirements, as well as international human rights law And they call for the respect of due process fair trial rights for individuals.
The continued treatment of human rights defenders and certain MPOs And NGOs in this manner could in my opinion, result in a silencing of political opinion in the country, which will not only impact democracy, but also the rule of law and the credibility of India as an international partner in counterterrorism.
As has been demonstrated above, in my testimony, India has used its battered compliance as a justification for expanding its counterterrorism financing laws, which has rendered them overbroad, vague, and susceptible to misuse. The increasing scope of these laws has facilitated the persecution of human rights defenders and is often led to a failure by the Indian government to engage in an objective risk based assessment when enforcing laws such as those required by FATF.
In my opinion, which does not reflect the ABS overall policy, In order to retain its long running security relationship with India, US policymakers must raise these issues with their Indian counterparts to ensure that India remains an effective partner that isn’t directing resources, and laws that are meant to fight terrorism, and it’s financing in a political manner against human rights defenders and NGOs.
Adrian Shahbaz, Vice President for Research, Freedom House
Thank you Co-Chair McGovern, and my gratitude to co chair Smith and the members of the Commission for the opportunity to testify today.
Freedom House has been evaluating the state of political rights and civil liberties in India for over 50 years as we do with every country in the world.
Through our annual Freedom in the World Report, India is the world’s largest democracy with a history of pluralistic governance and a robust constitution. However, we’ve tracked a decline in freedoms over the past decade, with the country losing 11 points in our 100 Point index. And in 2021, we change the country’s rating from free to partly free.
This democratic backsliding has been driven by three negative trends that I’ll go through today.
First, a crackdown on freedom of expression.
Second restrictions on civic space and
third concerns around the rule of law.
Many of these negative trends are the results of policies enacted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP and it’s a pattern that we see in many countries undergoing significant backsliding around the world.
Let me start with the crackdown on free expression, with a particular emphasis on the internet.
India hosts a lively and diverse online environment with some 865 million people using the internet.
But India’s score has dropped by 10 points since 2015 in our freedom on the net index which measures human rights online. The government has passed a series of new rules that require social media platforms to quickly remove content that is deemed illegal, as well as kind of content identified as fake or false by a government run fact checking unit, you hear that right. This has translated into an uptick in political censorship, particularly content that is perceived as critical of the Prime Minister, the ruling party or its broader social policies.
In just the first two months of 2024, Authorities have taken down a popular magazines reporting on state violence in Jammu and Kashmir.
They have restricted over a dozen social media accounts linked to the leaders of a farmers protest and blocked two websites dedicated to tracking hate crimes and hate speech in India.
In full disclosure, we have also been notified by Twitter or now x, that they have received requests to restrict posts by Freedom House in the country.
This increased censorship combined with internet shutdowns and politicized investigations, has also impacted the ability of civil society to operate freely.
India is the world leader in shutting down the internet, with blackouts sometimes lasting hundreds of days. These disproportionate restrictions not only have a significant impact on people’s ability to access health care, continue education and run businesses, but they curtail political and civil liberties.
Like my colleagues, we have noted the controversial use of tax and finance laws to curb the activities of nonprofit organizations in the media. This general pattern around the timing and the targets of these investigations raises significant concerns that administrative resources are being disproportionately used to target the political opposition and BJP critics.
One example of this from last year in November in January 2023, the central government restricted access to a BBC documentary that examined whether Prime Minister Modi did enough to stop inter religious clashes in the state of Gujarat in 2002 when he was his chief minister, and only one month later, tax officials rated two of BBC India’s offices in question staff members.
Authorities have also launched probes under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act or FCRA against organizations that report critically on the government.
The third negative trend relates to concerns around the rule of law.
The Supreme Court in India has played an important role in safeguarding fundamental rights. But in recent years, Prime Minister Modi has broken norms around judicial appointments and observers have noted increased political interference and decisions. It reached the point then in 2018, four senior members of the court took the unprecedented step of publicly raising concerns about judicial independence.

Several recent and upcoming judicial decisions are likely to have outsized impact on democracy and human rights in the country, particularly ahead of elections that are that are starting in the coming months. These include rulings on the citizenship Amendment Act, whether a government factchecking unit actually has the authority to censor content online and attacks investigation of the main opposition party whose accounts are partly frozen ahead of this general election.
In closing, I wanted to outline several possible measures that Congress could take to stall further backsliding and India.
First raised issues of concerns related to human rights and democracy directly with Indian officials in all meetings at all levels. Advocate for the release of those unjustly imprisoned for their religious speech, political speech or social opinions. It’s so important as we’ve heard throughout the testimony today that the future of democracy in India has enormous implications not only for the people of India but globally.
Second, to urge the Indian Government to respect human rights online, specifically to refrain from imposing connectivity, connectivity restrictions, or blocks on social media platforms, and to refrain from censoring expression that is protected under international human rights law, also to enshrine standards to govern the use of commercial spyware products.
Third, towards the Indian Government to ensure that the conduct of the 2024 elections are free and fair, specifically to ensure that opposition politicians, candidates and parties can engage in campaigning without fear of arrest, suspension, or other restrictions on their liberty; to refrain from using state resources to privilege the ruling party as set out in India’s model code of conduct; and to ensure that neutral election observers from internationally accredited organizations and reputable domestic groups are invited to monitor the totality of elections processes without any undue restrictions. Thank you.
Isaac Six, Senior Director of Advocacy, Global Christian Relief
Thank you, Chairman McGovern, and it’s good to be back. Chair Smith. Also, thank you for the invitation to testify and members of the Lantos Commission for holding this hearing and for inviting GCR. The Commission truly is a beacon of light when in Congress on matters of human rights, and when I’m proud to have worked for the years past.
I took this photo nearly nine years ago. In the photo, a congressional staffer and I are sitting in a dark room in a small village in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh. The room is dark on purpose. Extremists had been terrorizing members of the religious minority whom we had come to interview and were threatening to return. So we conducted the interview in secret. Some of the men in the image had been ordered to attend a ghar Wapsi or homecoming ceremony, essentially forcing them to convert to Hinduism. When they refused, they were attacked and beaten by members of the Vishva Hindu Parishad. In the nine years since that photo was taken, nothing has changed. We receive more reports of attacks on religious minorities in states like Chhattisgarh in Uttar Pradesh than we can possibly publish. These reports include testimonies of forced conversions, the destruction of places of worship, kidnappings, sexual assaults, and sometimes fatal mob violence. These pieces of anecdotal evidence pointing to serious religious freedom concerns are supported by a much wider body of data in addition to all of the reports referenced by my fellow panelists.
The Pew Research Center rates India and the top seven of all countries for social hostility on the basis of religion. The United Christian forum, a Delhi based human rights group documented 720 attacks on just Christian minorities in 2023.
Global Christian released own violent incident database, which was launched this year to track violent incidents of persecution in every country and involving every faith community So violent incidents against religious minorities in India sometimes involved hundreds or even 1000s of victims.
Undergirding much of this violence is a pernicious legal framework that favors extremists in the religious majority. The passage and enforcement of anti conversion laws and 12 of India’s 28 states ostensibly to protect citizens from forced religious conversions has in effect criminalized conversions from any fate from any faith except those into Hinduism.
Hundreds of Christian leaders often from Scheduled Castes and Tribes have been arrested under these laws and countless more attacked for exercising the basic right to tell other people about their deeply held beliefs.
The most shocking aspect of all of this is how little any of it reflects what I believe India truly is, a beautiful pluralistic nation where respect for others religious beliefs is a deeply ingrained cultural value.
In fact, 84% of Indian say respecting all religions is quote, very important to being truly Indian end quote.
How do we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions by recognizing that most religious violence is instigated by a small faction within Indian society, and here and also lies the answer to addressing these issues.
There is and I recognize the weight of this statement in a hearing like this but there is only so much that can be done from outside of India.
Congress and members of this commission should apply pressure on the Biden administration to accept USCIRF recommendations and designate India a country of particular concern.
Congress and the administration should identify Indian government agencies and officials responsible for severe religious freedom and other human rights violations and enact targeted sanctions against those entities.
But more importantly, we must support the efforts of Indians themselves to address these issues and reconcile their differences.
It must be made clear the negative actions I’ve just mentioned are intended to be temporary and to go hand in hand with a positive offer to work together and addressing concerns.
We must emphasize the long standing values that the vast majorities of vast majority of Americans and Indians have shared for decades, and refuse to divide ourselves along fractious political lines theirs or ours.
In the end, as chair Smith said repeatedly this morning, friends don’t let friends commit human rights abuses. We have a responsibility to speak up. But mostly we have a responsibility to support the overwhelming majority of Indians looking for a better future, lasting change can and only will come from them. Thank you.
McGovern
Thank you very much. I have a few questions but I don’t have a lot of time and in Congressman Omar has some questions as well. So if I can just some of these are just yes or no answers, but I think it’s important to get this on the record. First of all, co chair Smith, you know, raised the issue of organ harvesting. Does anyone want to add want to comment on any of that? Do any of you see India as having a robust and independent press still ?

John Sifton
They don’t have. There is minority reporting, but they’re doing so while having to exercise bravery and a lot of resources to defend themselves legally And so I wouldn’t call it independent
McGovern
Or robust at this particular point, given the fact that we were all in agreement with anybody dissent on that just I just want to get the record straight here. So we’re all clear
Waris
lots of charges against journalists, criminal drivers that are being held against those rights for telling the truth.
McGovern
China seems to be a factor in the hesitancy to publicly raise concerns about human rights abuses in India. Is this reasonable? Is there a risk that public criticism could push India closer to China? Or backfire in some other way?
Nash
I mean, I think there are a number of risks, I don’t think I think the risks need to be in line with kind of what what we’re seeing is a trajectory here. So for example, the arms deal that was recently approved the $4 billion arms deal the US approved with Hellfire missiles and Reaper drones. Those will be delivered to India four years from now about four years from now we can look at the last 10 years and see how India has changed and see the things you just heard about become increasingly worrying that means when we’re thinking about what India looks like as our geopolitical partner and anything, whether it’s China or anything else. We’re talking about the India of four years down the line if this is not interrupted, having access to those weapons, and we’ve been the people who supplied them. I just regionally speaking I also want to broaden it it’s not only a question of China, there’s also a question of the impact that this particular Indian government this moment is having on the crisis in Myanmar. So just to briefly highlight that there are 10s of 1000s of Rohingya refugees who have fled into India who face constant threat of forced return to Myanmar while it is in the middle of a violent civil war.
McGovern
I’m raising this concern, going back to what Mr. Schneck talked about earlier, how you sort of, you know, continues to recommend to the State Department that they designate India as a country of particular concern, but yeah, we don’t do it. So is it China? What what is what I’m trying to think what is the what is the so
Stifen
on that front, let’s look at the other country that the other countries that have not been listed even though that it’s been recommended, including Vietnam, or including Turkey, this is an Indian serious let’s talk about India. In that context, when we worry about administration’s and it’s not just this one, soft peddling on India. It’s a concern that India is joining, has joined and as a participant of institutions like BRICS, (Brazil, Russia), in the idea that BRICS will expand and become a institution which undermines human rights are real, also undermine the United States national interests, which has no concern of human rights watches, but as you know, a concern of the Biden administration’s. These are real concerns that they have, but what we’re trying to convince the administration is that it’s not a zero sum game. You can do both. India is not going to run away if they get criticized for these concerning issues. And in fact, the theory we have here is not just to raise human rights for the sake of raising human rights, but precisely because doing so will not result in them running away and will result in them. The leadership of the BJP and Prime Minister Modi instructing their government officials and their leaders to tone down the vilification tone down the abuse and misuse of laws to target critics and let the country be a little bit more vibrant and pluralistic.
Shahbaz
Two quick points; one is just the very quickly that strong democracies make for better security Partners. The second point is that authoritarianism doesn’t have borders. And we know given the incidence of transnational repression that we’re already referenced, one that took place in Canada and an attempt in the United States that authoritarianism can threaten the freedom and security of Americans here at home as well. Thanks.
McGovern
Then the next step would be as you answer your question, I just want to add one more thing. I mean, you argue that the US should support the efforts of Indians themselves to address the human rights and religious freedom issues that we’re discussing today. And do you have any specific recommendations on how best to provide such support? I do throw that throw that in after you answer this question.
Issac
So let me answer the first question. I do think there’s a risk that India that talking about these issues in the US administration, moving forward on these issues, could risk jeopardizing US national interests. I’m an idealist. though I believe that we have to regardless of whether it does. That’s the why couched the country in particular concern designation is often seen as this shaming tool. And it is to a certain extent, however, it was never intended to be a permanent tool where we list countries forever and say, You are a terrible country and we’re not going to improve. The goal is to work with the country to help them get off those lists. And so I think that needs to be carefully framed in the messaging about CPC recommendations, and including in communications with the Biden administration on this. As far as the answer to how we work more closely with those in India. I mean, first and foremost, if we could get the foreign contribution regulations act amended a bit to allow for more help from outside of the country. That would be fantastic. But my my strongest recommendation and ties into my testimony is we need more code, l’s and staff drills to the country. Those relationships are incredibly productive. You meet with both Indian officials but also meet with those who have suffered from human rights violations and help bridge that gap bridge the understanding. So if I can make one recommendation, it would be we need to increase the relationships between Congress and Indian government officials and that way. You want
Waris
The question about security partnerships is an important one obviously, and it’s something that everyone is considering from State Department to folks on the Hill as well. I think the importance that we bring to our report at the ABA, and in my personal opinion, you can’t have a security partner that’s using their counterterrorism laws to silence their opponents and still rely on them as security partners that can deliver on the promises that they’ve made to you, right. So I think that’s one of the major issues that we need to consider when this framework of laws is being used or abused against individuals who are being critical of the government, and they can’t spend those same resources that they would need to be a good security partner. So it actually makes sense in the sense of the, to overlap actually a security partnership with a country that respects human rights, will make it a better security partnership.
McGovern
I just got a couple more questions and I’ll yield to Parrish with whom. Mr. Schiff, you mentioned in your testimony that the implementation of the National Register of citizens together with the citizenship Amendment Act could render millions of Muslims are stateless. For the record, we’re trying to get this record full here. For the record, what are the implications of being stateless?
Stifen
It’s difficult to say how it would pan out on the ground in particular border areas of India, but I mean, let’s say already in the state of Assam. Hundreds of 1000s of Muslims are right now without any real documentation that they are citizens of India. It’s been challenged that they are and they have not been included in this initial registry. If that were to then be attached to some effort to deport them for being non citizens. It would be a catastrophic situation and if that process that was undertaken in Assam was then replicated in other areas, the situation will become worse. But I mean, it’s not just that there has a process that reverses the burden of proof. We can talk I mean, this is going on right now in Texas about who’s supposed to provide which proof to whom and what it’s the process. For sorting it out is arbitrary, and is conducted by people who have no legal or judicial background. So it’s completely
Shahbaz
I just wanted to make one further point to that, which is that India is going through a rapid digitalization. process where they’re providing biometric identity IDs, to to Indians, and then those IDs and registration is required to access any number of government services and so by being stateless by not having the identification possible, it essentially makes people it’s hard to say a second class citizen but not a citizen. So they’re ineligible to access, and to really conduct a normal activities of everyday life.
McGovern
You just say a little bit more about the definition of terrorism. That’s being used. And you have examples of, of language that lends itself to this overly broad implementation?
Waris
Yeah, so we can point to Section 15 of the UAPA, which has been amended over time and now includes other unlawful activity, which can be a litany of other things that aren’t related to terrorism or any other things that are related to the actual fighting word counterterrorism policies. There are other provisions that are left so vague and imprecise, and they continue to be amended over time and made more imprecise and more broad, but I would say that section 15 of the UAPA is certainly a place where it’s very concerning that the definition has gone far beyond I think, what we would consider as terrorism or terrorism financing.
McGovern
Let me just conclude and I yield to Congresswoman Omar. Look. I want to be clear. For those who are critical of us doing this hearing, that our intention here is to basically work with a friend to do better. We want to have a relationship with India. This is not about cutting off relationships. This is about encouraging a relationship that we you know, that we have trust in and that we that they respect of human rights. And I think it’s not only good for our relationship, I think it’s good for India as a country. Right. And I think everybody’s making that case. And things are not going in the right direction. Things are very concerning. That’s why we’re doing this hearing because we are concerned you know, and that is why many of us, you know, will continue to urge the administration to, you know, make the designation that in here is a, you know, a country of particular concern. And we will continue to raise the questions as to why they’re not doing that in light of all of the evidence. Clearly, they’re doing it because they don’t want to, you know, make any waves. That’s just not a good enough excuse. We need to be consistent on human rights. And by the way, not just with regard to, you know, our human rights in India but also human rights in Gaza right now. And I mean, you name the country, right? There are places where we’re sometimes hesitant because we don’t want to ruffle anybody’s feathers. But if we’re not consistent, then we’re not going to be effective. And so, I just want to make clear, I mean, the approach that we are taking here is one of you know, as a friend, Congressman Smith said our friends don’t let friends commit human rights abuses. I think that’s, that’s, that is done with respect and that is done with the hope that our relationship will get stronger. If things don’t change, then there will be problems. And then there will be more and more efforts for Congress to you know, limit certain kinds of aid and, you know, actually, you know, change the nature of relation. We don’t want to go that way and quite frankly, India is a is a big enough country is a vibrant enough country they ought not to have to resort to human rights. abuses or repression or discrimination to try to be able to continue to I thank all of you for your testimony, and I’m happy now to yield the rest of my time to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar the time that can go on forever.
Ilhan Omar
Thank you, Chairman McGovern. I really do appreciate you calling this hearing and thanks to Chairman Smith.
I echo the sentiments of McGovern. I think it is it is important for us to say that for the for the record. It is not that we are an enemy of India when we ask these questions, it’s because we deeply care as a friend as an ally. And, you know, of course, for many of us, we’ve been concerned over the last several years about the treatment that Muslims and Christians are receiving in India. But I’m also increasingly concerned about the situation in Punjab and the treatment of the Sikhs. Of course, most notoriously, there was a plot by the Indian government to murder a Sikh, American activist last year and a successful plot to murder a Sikh activist in Canada. The Indian government claims that is just politics and it should be accepted as politics. But are you and this is to NAS and Siften Are you worried that this is really starting to come? down to Sikhs as a whole?
Sifton
What’s been going on with the protests involving Sikh farmers is one thing what’s been going on with alleged separatists overseas I think is a slightly separate thing but in both cases, what we see is a demonization of a particular religious minority as other as as separatists is somehow not the same as Indian citizens and that is those broad blanket statements that were made about both protesting farmers who seek as well as Sikhs were in the diaspora that is of concern. As far as religious liberty goes, as far as the effects of transnational repression. There was a separate hearing earlier about that worldwide, but which I spoke about India. And the most alarming thing about the allegations there with respect to the murder for hire plot in New York and successful killings in Canada. Are they dovetail with a set of repressive acts that India has been doing for the aspera of a softer nature like revoking their overseas Indian origin cards, or revoking the visas are the passports of Indian citizens who are outside the country. These are terrifying things to deal with if you’re the Aspera person, and there’s other forms of threats as well. But the most insidious thing about all of this, is that what it leads to is policymakers, your colleagues not hearing from constituents who care about this because they’re afraid. They’re afraid to tell you and other members of Congress that they have concerns about the Indian government because they’re afraid that if they do that, they or their family members may face this type of repression, and that has an impact on the entire US India relationship because too many members of Congress are perhaps themselves reluctant to raise issues with the Biden administration and with the Indian Government about their concerns, and that, in some ways, is the most insidious impact of all this repression, not just the transnational repression but also the repression of journalists in the country. And I would add that we, I was asked about Indian journalists and Indian press, but the repression also impacts American and European and other journalists who both in Delhi and here in Washington, Sabrina Siddiqui, the Wall Street Journal have faced serious attacks for their reporting where they’re questioning on India, which again has this impact on the policymaking here in Washington because people aren’t hearing the unvarnished truth
NASH
I would echo all that. The only thing I’ll add to broaden it. I mean, I agree. Absolutely. The ways in which we see repression manifest are in part used so that others will know that that’s available that’s on the table, and we we really do see that in our work, but I want to kind of broaden that to what it means to be an amnesty or Human Rights Watch. You know, our organizations have both struggled and in some ways to be able to keep doing our work MNCs office, bank accounts were frozen in 2020, forcing a halt to our operations, and it’s been difficult to resume work, and certainly it’s not possible in the same way. And I’m flagging that not because it’s a problem for amnesty, but because you can be absolutely sure that if amnesty is struggling, the local civil society partners, who we depend on, everywhere we work, are facing something exponentially worse than than we are. And that’s certainly the case here. And so I think we often a lot of the attention comes to these particular moments, whether it’s a particular case, or in our case, a particular organization. But this is a situation where it’s almost like the opposite of the canary in the coal mine. It’s not a warning of what’s to come. It’s a it’s a wake up call for the devastation that people are already suffering in the country and more and more in the diaspora as well.
Waris
Yeah, so I think in my personal opinion, what I would say here is that the group of people that are being other eyes in the country keeps expanding right and so it’s more and more restrictive as time goes on. And from a legal perspective, you know, for anyone who has a group who is standing up and protesting against the government, what we see as a response from the government, oftentimes, in my personal opinion, is that, you know, they’re repressed and persecuted and prosecuted through the criminal justice system. So if you have now as the Sikhs have been part of their farmers movement, have been protesting against the government, you are now increasingly going to be subject to some kind of criminal prosecution or persecution, including, you know, charges which I’ve discussed here under counterterrorism and sedition, where you could face up to two to three years of just pretrial detention. We’re not talking about the settlement of your case, and you’re, you’re literally waiting for them to decide your case, and you can be in jail for two or three years. So that’s the cost of protesting at this point, whether you’re from the Sikh community or from other communities, but that pool of other ideation does seem to be increasing in a very disturbing way.
Ilhan Omar
Siften and Nash, you mentioned earlier, the $4 billion that the State Department’s just approved in arms sales, drones for surveillance. Can you, may be, share some of the specific concerns about this arms deal Beyond the general concerns like what are the human rights implications for this deal when it comes to Indian security forces at all.
Nash
let John talk in some detail about this. But I do want to say that part of it is that this is an opportunity. So I mentioned that there will be a time lag before these arrived. There there was an opportunity for Congress to require simply things like notifications. And these would send important signals notifications of pre delivery. So it would give the opportunity for the US to to review the circumstances when it was time to actually make that delivery, those kinds of steps or not interrupting the security relationship, but they would send strong messages that there’s enough oversight on this relationship to condition or to slow down some of it and to recognize that there’s an awareness of a trajectory and concern about where things seem to be going, but if you want to speak more about that,
Siften
I think on these arms deals, I mean, first we want to separate the use of the weapon to commit human rights from the fact that the weapons deal of any type took place at this size. As far as the use goes, I mean, I can’t. A pine on whether or not things will happen the way they’re supposed to. But technically these are supposed to be utilized for both maritime and border security. The weapons platforms come with a significant suite of lethal weapons including hellfire. And Hellfire missiles and bombs. But they’re technically supposed to be surveillance drones. And they’re not supposed to be utilized for internal conflict. And so thus we wouldn’t expect was going according to the way it’s supposed to. They would be used in a place like Kashmir or on the on the Pakistani border. But the fact is, Congress has a role to play in asking tough questions about whether this deal makes sense given the fact that this is a country which has just been accused of being involved in a murder for hire, plot York City has a deteriorating human rights situation. US Commission on International Religious Freedom was just recommended that it be listed for country of particular concern, which would by the way, make a deal like this extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, so a lot of tough questions to ask and not just about the assassination attempt in New York. If this had been a deal for non lethal weaponry, we would have had the same questions and what we’ve asked now as a Congress if a 30 day period is passed, but these are ongoing deals. It requires massive amounts of maintenance. of personnel who has personnel in India, left to go to India and ensure that the continuing operations going on these are long term contracts. It’s like having a service contract with a service provider. And so there are a lot of tough questions that Congress can ask about this and other deals going forward and ask how it how it fits into that because I think Congress does need to step up and play a bigger role in asking questions here. And did they need these drones? Or was it part of a larger geopolitical decision making process to get India to be less in the world of BRICS and Brazil, Russia and China and more in our world? Or was it something India really needed? I can’t say but what I will say is when you have a deal of this magnitude, and with a particular weapons platform, which is so culturally and sort of historically linked to targeted assassinations in places like Pakistan and Somalia and other locations, you have to ask yourself about the optics and what message it sends to Modi and his people about what the US is willing to criticize Modi for and not criticism for in this case.
Ilhan Omar

I do. I do hope that wish is carried out by our members, the armed services and on on Foreign Affairs. I certainly will continue to raise these questions. I carry the resolution to designate India as a country of concern. And I think it is it is important for us to move with urgency. I thank you all for coming for your testimony, for the work that you all do. And yeah, just really grateful that we were able to have this conversation today. And I do hope that it does move more people to do the more just moral and right thing. With that we are adjourned.