'No private citizen can be prevented from holding or propagating in India or abroad, a view contrary to that of the government of the day.'

'The government, it seems is misreading the mandate in the Lok Sabha as being a mandate to crush dissent. In times when ruling parties have brute majorities in Parliament, the true test of safeguarding democracy is its ability to allow dissenting voices to be heard,' says Indira Jaising, the former additional solicitor general.

Priya holds a valid passport with a valid visa and the restriction on her travel are squarely unConstitutional.

It would be dangerous for us as a nation to accept a proposition that any person who holds a view contrary to the view of the government of the day on its economic policies or investment priorities would be considered anti-national and acting 'in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the country.'

Funding by foreign sources, is not the issue here, the issue is the right to dissent with or without foreign funding. If this was the law of land, a vast majority of citizens would be 'anti national' and be subjected all forms of victimisation.

The only category of persons who are prevented from criticising the policies of the government are public servants. No private citizen can be prevented from holding or propagating in India or abroad, a view contrary to that of the government of the day

Justifying its decision to stop Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai from travelling to London last month for a meeting of the British all-party parliamentary group, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has told the Delhi High Court that the UK, US and European Parliament bring out “heavily biased” annual reports on rights violations which could leave India “open to a potential sanction regime”.

In an affidavit filed in the High Court on February 13, the MHA said “these very instruments” had been “used very recently against Iran, Russia and North Korea, all of which have had serious impact on the growth rates, well-being and happiness of the citizens of these countries”.

“There are indications that the UK parliament’s APPG report on tribal peoples will use Priya Parameswaran Pillai’s testimony to rate India at a low level, leaving Indian open to a potential sanction regime… Unlike at the United Nations, these reports by US, UK and EP do not provide opportunity to the Government of India or the local Embassy/High Commission to record their opinion and are heavily biased against the targeted country,” stated the MHA affidavit filed through an Under Secretary of the Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing).

confuzzled dude wrote:

'No private citizen can be prevented from holding or propagating in India or abroad, a view contrary to that of the government of the day.'

'The government, it seems is misreading the mandate in the Lok Sabha as being a mandate to crush dissent. In times when ruling parties have brute majorities in Parliament, the true test of safeguarding democracy is its ability to allow dissenting voices to be heard,' says Indira Jaising, the former additional solicitor general.

Priya holds a valid passport with a valid visa and the restriction on her travel are squarely unConstitutional.

It would be dangerous for us as a nation to accept a proposition that any person who holds a view contrary to the view of the government of the day on its economic policies or investment priorities would be considered anti-national and acting 'in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the country.'

Funding by foreign sources, is not the issue here, the issue is the right to dissent with or without foreign funding. If this was the law of land, a vast majority of citizens would be 'anti national' and be subjected all forms of victimisation.

The only category of persons who are prevented from criticising the policies of the government are public servants. No private citizen can be prevented from holding or propagating in India or abroad, a view contrary to that of the government of the day

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/what-happened-to-priya-pillai-could-happen-to-many-of-us/20150216.htm.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
The harassment was uncalled for and definitely pointless since she still went ahead and spoke to the British MPs over Skype. But the GoI's pettiness in this instance is only a reflection of the fatigue felt by most people with the antics of these NGOs. These groups had overreached themselves during UPA 2 thanks to Sonia Gandhi's patronage, contributing in no small measure to the policy paralysis of those years. What you're seeing now is the backlash.

Aggressive NGOs like Greenpeace are extremists, not open to reason and incapable of the compromises that are required while balancing the country's need for economic development with environmental concerns. They are just a noisy nuisance, so any clipping of their wings does not evoke much sympathy here.

Hellsangel wrote:Damn! Who knew Obama headed a dictatorship?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
The harassment was uncalled for and definitely pointless since she still went ahead and spoke to the British MPs over Skype. But the GoI's pettiness in this instance is only a reflection of the fatigue felt by most people with the antics of these NGOs. These groups had overreached themselves during UPA 2 thanks to Sonia Gandhi's patronage, contributing in no small measure to the policy paralysis of those years. What you're seeing now is the backlash.

Aggressive NGOs like Greenpeace are extremists, not open to reason and incapable of the compromises that are required while balancing the country's need for economic development with environmental concerns. They are just a noisy nuisance, so any clipping of their wings does not evoke much sympathy here.

But the other side of the equation is much scarier, look at the US which is slowly becoming an oligarchy with one percenters making majority of the decisions for the government, leaving the rest with ZERO chance to have a say; capitalistic dictatorship.

Are you aware of any Indian who has deposed abroad on such issues?

Arvind Subramanium, the chief economic advisor in this government, has spoken in the US against India’s trade and patent laws and had in fact asked for a dispute to be raised against India. This was directly pertaining to foreign policy. Yet I have been branded an anti-nationalist for attempting to protect interests of vulnerable Indian citizens.