U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–864PDF 2017

AMERICAN COMPASSION IN INDIA:

GOVERNMENT OBSTACLES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 6, 2016

Serial No. 114–241

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Stephen Oakley, general counsel and vice president of the General Counsel Office, Compassion International .................................................................. 4

Mr. John Sifton, acting deputy Washington director, Asia Advocacy Director, 

Human Rights Watch .......................................................................................... 12

Irfan Nooruddin, Ph.D., Hamad bin Khalifa professor of indian politics, Walsh 

School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University ............................................ 17

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Stephen Oakley: Prepared statement ............................................................. 7

Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement .................................................................... 14

Irfan Nooruddin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................ 19

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 51

(1)

AMERICAN COMPASSION IN INDIA: 

GOVERNMENT OBSTACLES 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

And to put this hearing in perspective, I want to make a point 

about India. As chairman and as a leader of the India Caucus, I 

helped build that caucus from just 12 members to 160 members. 

I managed the U.S.-Indian civil nuclear agreement on the House 

floor and beat back the anti-India amendments, which would have 

killed the agreement. 

I carried the original bill to lift sanctions on India in the 1990s 

and traveled with President Clinton on his historic trip to India. 

I was tasked with briefing President Bush on the importance of 

deepening our relationship with India on counterterrorism and on 

trade. And I flew into Bhuj with USAID the day after the Gujarat 

earthquakes and first met then Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who 

was on the ground bringing order out of chaos. I admired him for 

the work he had done, and I admire him today for what he is trying to do in India. 

I traveled to Mumbai the day after the terrorist attacks to meet 

with Indian intelligence officials and press the Government of Pakistan to either try the LeT terrorists or turn them over to The 

Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity by the International 

Criminal Court. I was one of the leading voices pushing for a U.S. 

visa for Chief Minister Modi. I extended the invitation for Prime 

Minister Modi to address a joint meeting of Congress, a historic occasion we celebrated this June, and I also personally hosted the 

Prime Minister at a reception in his honor. 

My chief of staff, Amy, and her daughter, who is Indian American, have for years sponsored and built a relationship with a girl 

in India. These two 7-year-olds draw and send pictures to each 

other. They share what games they like to play and what food they 

like to eat. That bonding experience is the same for the other 

American families that also send, each of them, $38 every month 

to 145,000 children, the poorest of the poor in India. These are children who would otherwise be without enough food and without the 

fees that they need for their education. 

2

Americans have been sending these checks, through an organization called Compassion, to India for nearly 50 years. In India, it is 

the single largest contributor of aid for children living in extreme 

poverty. 

Now, Amy and thousands of other American families are being 

obstructed from supporting these children. This is despite the best 

effort of Secretary of State John Kerry and of myself and others on 

the committee. We have spent 9 months and hundreds of hours 

dealing with the Indian bureaucracy on this, and it looks like the 

bureaucracy is trying to run out the clock. 

We as Americans deal with American bureaucracy. It is part of 

the job here as members of the House of Representatives. We work 

for our constituents, but we don’t always win. Bureaucracies are 

stubborn, stubborn things in America, let me tell you. 

Presidents can have a vision, but that vision can be frustrated 

by the bureaucracy. Prime Minister Modi has a vision about India. 

He is self-made. He was never a member of some elite. He was the 

son of a poor man. As he says, ‘‘the son of a poor man standing 

in front of you today,’’ and as he said, ‘‘I am devoted to the development of all; the Dalit, the oppressed, the underprivileged, the deprived. A government is one that thinks and hears the voice of the 

people. A government must be for the poor.’’

But bureaucracies have their own dynamics, and they can stifle 

any President or Prime Minister’s dreams. For the past 9 months 

this committee has had meetings, written letters, made phone 

calls, and for that I thank our members. 

This isn’t a hearing that the committee expected to be holding. 

It is my hope that by bringing attention to this issue, as we are 

doing here today, the 145,000 children will not be tragically denied 

the services they desperately need and that American families like 

Amy’s can continue to send the $38 a month for food and education 

fees to the poorest of the poor. 

I know the ranking member will be with us momentarily. In the 

meantime, I will introduce our panel, and then move to the ranking 

member’s remarks once he arrives. 

This morning, we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished 

panel. Mr. Stephen Oakley is the general counsel and vice president of the General Counsel’s Office at Compassion International. 

He joined Compassion in 2011 where he is responsible for overseeing their domestic and international legal and government affairs. 

Mr. John Sifton is acting deputy Washington director and Asia 

advisory director at Human Rights Watch. He began working at 

Human Rights Watch in 2001 where he has focused on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, and previously he worked for the International Rescue Committee. 

Dr. Irfan Nooruddin is a professor of Indian politics and director 

of the India Initiative at Georgetown University. He is the author 

of Coalition Politics and Economic Development Credibility and the 

Strength of Weak Governments. 

Without objection, by the way, the witnesses’ full prepared statements will be made part of the record. Members are going to have 

5 calendar days to submit statements or questions or extraneous 

material for the record. 

3

I am going to go to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York. But I am going to ask, when we go to the panelists, if you 

will summarize your testimony to 5 minutes, and then we will go 

to questions. 

Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this 

hearing today. I welcome the chance to speak with you about Compassion International’s recent struggles in India, and I know this 

is an issue close to your heart. 

As you know, I share your concern about challenges some NGOs 

are facing in India. My staff and I tried to assist in resolving the 

situation, and I hope following this hearing we can find a way forward on this issue. And I am grateful, as always, for your leadership. 

To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We 

are grateful for your time and expertise. 

More than 20 years ago, I was one of a handful of Members of 

Congress who founded the caucus on India and Indian Americans. 

At that time the U.S. relationship with India focused more on what 

our two countries couldn’t do together rather than what we could 

do together. Today, in my view, the U.S. relationship with India is 

one of our most important, driven by our shared interests and 

shared values. 

We have made progress in so many areas. India now participates 

in more military exercises with the United States than any country 

in the world. Once the sticking point between our governments, nuclear cooperation has become the lynchpin of a renewed U.S.-India 

partnership. 

On climate change, India has already ratified the Paris Agreement. Trade between India and the United States continues to expand. Supporting thousands of American jobs, it has nearly tripled 

from 36 billion in 2005 to over 107 billion in 2015. India’s strategy 

to expand economic engagement in Asia aligns closely with our own 

Asia rebalance.u 

The list goes on and on from space exploration, to shared concerns in the Indian Ocean region, to economic growth; we are collaborating on more issues than ever before. Much of this progress 

is due to our people-to-people ties rooted in the 3 million strong Indian-American community. Thanks to their advocacy and the hard 

work of dedicated leaders of all political ideologies in both countries, the United States and India are now closer than ever before. 

But this doesn’t mean that the United States and India will agree 

on everything. And when we don’t see eye to eye, we need to have 

honest discussions and work toward good solutions. And that is 

why we are doing this hearing today on the NGOs and other things 

involving the U.S.-India relationship. 

I discussed earlier the importance of the values that the United 

States and India both share. This goes beyond the cliche of being 

the world’s oldest and largest democracies, we embrace our traditions of political freedoms, of free and fair elections and of a vibrant, vocal civil society. 

The United States nor India, neither one of us, are strangers to 

contentious political debate. Our recent elections are a great example of that, and India has a long rich tradition of raucous political 

4

campaigns. The free debate is the cornerstone of democracy. So I 

was concerned by reports earlier this year that a college student, 

a student body president, was arrested for making what was 

deemed antinational statements. College campuses have long been 

a hotbed of political activism. And whether we find this activity 

agreeable or objectionable, these democracies need to protect the 

right of free expression and free assembly, and again I know the 

chairman is very concerned about that as well. 

I have been concerned by reports that NGOs are having difficulty 

registering and operating in India. Civil society plays a pivotal role 

in democracy, holding government accountable and standing up for 

the rights of marginalized groups. So it is troubling that a country 

with such a long tradition of an empowered and active civil society 

might be going down this path. We can’t avoid the hard questions 

or avoid discussions simply because they are difficult conversations 

to have. This is how democracies work, warts and all. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about all 

of these issues, the tremendous progress and potential of the U.S.-

India relationship, but also in areas like international child abduction, where there is still a lot of work to be done. If we stay committed to deepening this venture further, if we think long term 

while working to meet day-to-day challenges, then this relationship 

will help both our countries become stronger and more prosperous 

and will become one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

We go now to Mr. Oakley. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN OAKLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL 

AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE, 

COMPASSION INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. OAKLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Engel, members of the Foreign——

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Oakley, there is a button right there that 

you can press. We can hear you there. 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members 

of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My name is Stephen Oakley. I 

am Compassion International’s general counsel. It is my privilege 

to speak with you today on the topic of Compassion’s specific experience in India and the reason that Compassion is merely weeks 

away from permanently withdrawing its operations in India. 

By way of a brief background, since 1952, it has been the mission 

of Compassion to help children living in extreme poverty around 

the world. And today, Compassion is the world’s largest child sponsorship NGO with 1.9 million children in 26 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 

Compassion has been in India since 1968, and for five decades 

now, Compassion has worked without incident under the authority 

of successive Indian Governments. That abruptly changed in 2013 

when Compassion encountered the first of a series of legal and regulatory attacks. This came about in the form of tax cases, in which 

5

the government assessed over $18 million in corporate income tax 

on the charitable donations to our locally incorporated South India 

entity. 

That was followed by a series of different attacks. Intelligence 

bureau investigations, enforcement directorate cases, you have before you as an exhibit to my brief a copy of the Ministry of Home 

Affairs order. It is a prior approval order that prevents Compassion 

from getting any money into India without the advanced clearance 

of the ministry, which we have found to be a fiction. 

Finally, both of the FCRAs of Compassion’s locally incorporated 

entities have been denied. We have sought legal advice from multiple lawyers, chartered accountants in India. And to a person, they 

have assured us and provided us the advice that our operations are 

legal and lawful under the laws of India. And to a person, they 

have suggested that to the extent the law is being broken in India, 

it is being broken by the Indian Government in advancing extremely aggressive and legally unsupported interpretations of existing law, knowing that charities often lack the resources or expertise to challenge these interpretations, and when they do, the challenges will take years in court. 

In discussions with other faith-based NGOs and my own reading 

of the relevant portions of the Indian constitution and their Tax 

Act and their FCRA laws, I have come to the conclusion that Compassion is experiencing an unprecedented, highly coordinated, deliberate, and systematic attack to drive Compassion out of India. 

Anecdotally, I am hearing similar stories from other faith-based 

and civil society organizations. 

The reason, apparently, is the Government of India wrongly believes that faith-based organizations are using humanitarian efforts to convert Indians to Christianity. And these attacks are occurring under the guise of regulatory compliance. But these reasons are a fiction. It is religious discrimination, pure and simple. 

The behavior of the Indian Government toward Compassion and 

other faith-based NGOs is in my view illegal. It is inconsistent with 

the values of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which 

the Indian constitution specifically guarantees. 

Now, as a committee, why should you care? First, as one of the 

largest NGOs in the world and as the number-one importer of foreign NGO currency into India, if Compassion is forced to withdraw, 

in my view, this represents a green light to the Indian Government 

to take the same or similar action against a range of other faithbased and secular NGOs. That is a real risk. 

Second, if the rule of law is breaking down in India, as I believe 

it is, that impacts not only civil society organizations, not only the 

NGO sector. That presents a real risk to foreign business in India, 

to United States businesses in India. The rule of law is essential 

for all corporations, including not-for-profits and for-profits. 

Finally, you should care because the Indian Government has 

made no plan, no provision whatsoever, for the 145,000 children 

that Compassion cares for in India. There is no plan for them when 

we depart. 

To that end, I have three requests. First, we humbly ask that 

this committee demand that the Indian Government immediately 

6

rescind the prior approval order, which our counsel tell us was illegally issued and is illegal under their law. 

Second, we ask that this committee demand that the Indian Government reinstate the FCRAs of both of Compassion’s locally incorporated field offices in India that have operated for over a decade 

successfully. Our counsel tells us their revocation was illegal. 

Third, we ask that you continue to make the fair treatment of 

NGOs in India a precondition across a spectrum of other issues between India and the United States. Link it to other issues that 

India cares about. Consequences only have value if they result in 

changed behavior, so I ask that you send the Indian Government 

a strong message that this matters to the United States. 

Again, there is no plan for these children if we depart. So we ask 

you to ask the Indian Government to reconsider its decision. Thank 

you very much. I would be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oakley follows:]

7


22864a-1.eps
8


22864a-2.eps
9


22864a-3.eps
10


22864a-4.eps
11


22864a-5.eps
12

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Oakley. 

We go to Mr. Sifton. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, ACTING DEPUTY WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, ASIA ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN 

RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. SIFTON. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify today. It may be a moment of transition here in Washington, 

but this hearing is actually extremely well-timed. As my copanelist 

has already noted, there is a troubling new crackdown underway 

in India today, especially in the last few months. 

A large number of nongovernmental organizations—international, domestic, religious, secular—have faced increasing government harassment in the last few months and in the last few 

years, including intrusive and politically motivated legal scrutiny. 

And the U.S. Government, a close ally, needs to better respond. 

And the incoming Congress and incoming administration needs to 

give this issue more attention than it has already received. 

My testimony, in summary, is about how the Indian Government 

is specifically creating for NGOs these problems. So let’s go down 

to specifics. 

The main and most powerful tool the Indian Government has for 

harassing NGOs is the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, the 

FCRA. It is an overbroad and poorly worded, poorly drafted law 

that contains provisions that basically can be abused to block foreign funding for groups, deregister them, and stymie their activities. 

The problems with the FCRA are twofold. First, it is overly intrusive. It basically gives the government too much power. The 

Home Ministry is given powers that it ought not to have, powers 

to look into an organization’s specific projects and question them. 

Its provisions are both overbroad and overreaching. It gives the 

government the power to cut funding for organizations on the 

vague grounds that they are ‘‘likely to affect prejudicially the economic interest of the State’’ or its ‘‘public interest.’’

The FCRA has been used and abused by successive Indian Governments. The Congress government abused this law as well, but 

its use and abuse has increased significantly with the current BJP 

government. Last year the government used FCRA provisions to 

harass numerous NGOs, including Greenpeace India, as well as an 

organization run by the activist, Teesa Setalvad that has brought 

legal cases seeking justice for victims of the 2002 Gujarat violence. 

As you know, Prime Minister Modi was the chief minister in Gujarat in 2002, and there are numerous allegations about his complicity in the violence. So you can imagine that when people who 

are seeking justice for that violence are gone after, it very clearly 

looks politically motivated. 

This May, the government suspended for apparently politically 

motivated reasons the FCRA’s status of the Lawyers Collective 

founded by the prominent lawyers Anand Grover and Indira 

Jaising. The Lawyers Collective has represented Setalvad and the 

Greenpeace activists, who are targeted, among others. And just a 

few weeks ago, the government canceled the Lawyers Collective’s 

registration under the FCRA. 

13

Abuse of FCRA has intensified in recent months. In October 

alone, the government refused to renew the FCRA of at least 25 

NGOs without valid reasons, lead us to issue a statement about it. 

Several domestic human rights groups were deregistered. The Ministry of Home Affairs told media that the NGOs were denied FCRA 

registration because their activities were ‘‘not in the national interest.’’

Several of the specific cases from October are outlined in the 

written version of my testimony. But let me give the context. All 

of these new harassments under the FCRA come as attacks on freedom of expression and association in India have been on the rise. 

In the last 2 years, Human Rights Watch has observed how Indian 

authorities have increasingly used the country’s sedition law 

against peaceful critics, including activists and artists and students, for alleged ‘‘antinational’’ speech. 

Other overbroad and vaguely worded laws, including India’s 

criminal defamation and hate speech laws, are also used to harass 

and prosecute those who have expressed dissenting or unpopular or 

minority views. 

The harassment of NGOs is taking place in a context in which 

religious minority groups, in particular Muslims and Christians, 

are at increased risk. Let’s be clear, since the BJP came into power 

in 2014, militant Hindu groups have been increasingly threatening 

and sometimes even physically assaulted Christians and Muslims. 

The consequences of these tensions go beyond human rights concerns, as my copanelists have mentioned, and affect even India’s 

economy. So I think it is important that the U.S. Government and 

incoming administration take this seriously not just from a human 

rights point of view but from an economics of view. 

The basic recommendation my testimony gives are that, first, the 

incoming administration and the incoming Congress and Members 

should raise concerns about the FCRA more publicly. When U.S. officials speak with Indian officials, they be should raise concerns 

about the FCRA directly and mention publicly that they are doing 

so. 

They should enlist the support of U.S. corporations and other private sector actors whose charitable activities are impacted by this. 

I think if U.S. corporate and business leaders are also raising this, 

it will have an enormous impact beyond, you know, groups like 

Human Rights Watch raising these issues. 

And last, just speak out about the rise in violent attacks by 

Hindu nationalists on Christians and Muslims and other minority 

groups. I mean, the Government of India needs to hear complaints 

from outside the country about these issues. 

The written version of my testimony outlines those recommendations in more detail, but thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

And I will be glad to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]

14


22864b-1.eps
15


22864b-2.eps
16


22864b-3.eps
17

Chairman ROYCE. Dr. Nooruddin. 

STATEMENT OF IRFAN NOORUDDIN, PH.D., HAMAD BIN 

KHALIFA PROFESSOR OF INDIAN POLITICS, WALSH SCHOOL 

OF FOREIGN SERVICE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Good morning, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of this distinguished committee, committee 

staff. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to have this opportunity to speak to you. 

The FCRA, or the Foreign Contributions Regulatory Act of 2010, 

which is at the core of today’s hearing, is a revision and amendment of an earlier act that was passed in 1976. The FCRA of 1976 

was passed in the height of India’s Emergency period, which is the 

one brief interlude where India veered toward an autocratic rule 

before coming back to its democratic core. I would say that over the 

40 years since the FCRA 1976 was passed, the India-U.S. relationship has deepened and has become a truly strategic partnership 

thanks in no small part to the efforts of many of you. 

But the FCRA hasn’t improved with time. And, in fact, its antidemocratic roots are very much on display, as has been remarked 

upon by our copanelists today. While I talk about FCRA in civil society, I do think, though, it is important to put into context the 

broadest strategic relationship that has been built, thanks to the 

investments of the United States Government across administrations and by the Indian Government across its governments. The 

defense relationship is stronger and deeper, with more potential 

than at any prior time in either country’s history. 

The signing of the LEMOA agreement earlier, the start of the 

joint exercises in Malabar, the defense procurement potential between India and the United States all represent opportunities that 

even 10 years ago, at the height of that civil nuclear deal that 

Chairman Royce referenced, would have been quite unthinkable to 

have happened so quickly. So this is a really tremendous success. 

In energy and the environment, there is a level of dialogue between the United States Government and the Indian Government 

that I think transcends just energy and environment and has business implications for technology transfer and technical assistance 

that is quite far reaching and transformative. And the fact that between September of this year, when the Indian Government stated 

a position on the Paris Agreement that it could not imagine signing 

it, to today, 2 months later where it has, is really a revelation that 

United States pressure on issues of climate change and energy paid 

dividends. 

The Indian Government recognizes the United States as a crucial 

partner, and I think sees its viewpoints as those that have to be 

taken seriously. This is all enhanced by a very vibrant commercial 

relationship that is in its own way developed by that diaspora population that has now become a prominent part of American society, 

contributing to every aspect of American life. 

So it is against a very promising and optimistic background that 

we come here today to discuss what has remained a sore point, and 

that is India’s record on civil society and on its base core democratic principles. This is especially troubling given that the two 

18

countries are united not just by strategic interests but by a shared 

commitment to principles of democracy and to religious freedom. 

India is among the most religiously diverse countries in the 

world. With one of the largest populations of Muslims, a Christian 

population that dates back millennia, and is home to major world 

religious. And so any strikes against religious freedom in India 

should trouble us all, not just those who are particularly interested 

in India. If religious freedom cannot succeed in India, it has a very 

poor chance of succeeding in other parts of the developing world. 

So what happened? From my perspective, it is important to understand that the FCRA in 1976 was passed so that the Indian 

Government could regulate foreign contributions to pro-democracy, 

antigovernment organizations but in the context of an autocratic 

government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was very afraid 

of domestic dissent, pushing back against the Emergency. 

This has continued and all governments have used the FCRA to 

stifle NGOs. The question, therefore, today is sort of how bad has 

it gotten and what are the implications for religious freedom? 

My colleagues have mentioned a couple of numbers. The one I 

would point to you is that in 2012 there were 43,000 associations 

registered under the FCRA. Today, that number is halved. It is 

down to about 20,000. That is about 20,000 NGOs that either have 

chosen not to reapply for their licenses, or who have had their licenses not renewed by the Indian Government. 

If you go to the FCRA Web site on the Ministry of Home Affairs, 

they list 11,300-plus NGOs that have not had their FCRA licenses 

renewed. 

There are a number of reasons for this. Many of these are undoubtedly in violation of the letter of FCRA regulations. But the 

broader issue here is the transparency or lack thereof of the Indian 

Government and how it has enforced and how it has changed its 

interpretation of FCRA regulations over the last 4 years has placed 

a lot of NGOs in violation of a law that they thought they understood and thought that they were following. This has a chilling effect on civil society that has to be considered. 

So just to close, and I am happy to take questions, I think the 

key recommendation I would make from my perspective is that the 

United States Government has to put pressure on the Indian Government to clarify and make transparent how it understands and 

plans to enforce the FCRA, what are the procedures for due process 

and for appeal for an association found in violation of the FCRA, 

and to assure all parties, both in India and in the United States, 

that it is not being used to target faith-based religious organizations that, I should make explicit, are not in violation of the FCRA 

simply by being faith-based or religious organizations. 

There is nothing in the FCRA that prevents a faith-based organization from doing charitable work in India. I think we can come 

back to this in Q&A, but I think my colleagues have talked about 

the possibility of this being religious discrimination smuggled behind the guise of taxation. I am not sure that I would endorse that 

position fully. That requires deeper analysis, but I think there is 

enough to warrant real concern. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nooruddin follows:]

19


22864c-1.eps
20


22864c-2.eps
21


22864c-3.eps
22


22864c-4.eps
23


22864c-5.eps
24


22864c-6.eps
25


22864c-7.eps
26


22864c-8.eps
27


22864c-9.eps
28

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Dr. Nooruddin. 

I am going to go now to Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Dr. Nooruddin, I just have one quick question. Mr. 

Oakley and Mr. Sifton were talking about Compassion International, and I wondered—the experience that Compassion International is going through—are other NGOs facing this kind of harassment in the magnitude that Compassion International seems to 

be hassled? 

And what should, in your opinion—we have a new administration coming in—what should that administration say to the Indian 

Government, knowing full well that our relationship with India is 

a very important and strategic relationship, getting warmer, getting better. We all like it. We all think it is important, and we 

think the Indian diaspora here in the United States plays a major 

role. 

You know, it is sort of a delicate diplomatic move where you 

want to whisper in your friend’s ear, and you want to tell them 

that you are not happy with certain things, but you don’t want to 

worsen the relationship. You don’t want to ruin it. How do we create that delicate balance? What should we be doing there? 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Thank you for a very good question. Let me 

start with the first one, which is in some sense easier even if it is 

not a very positive answer. Is Compassion International alone in 

its experience, the short answer is no. As I said, over 11,500 NGOs 

have not had their licenses renewed over the last couple of years. 

Now, to be fair, a lot of these are affiliates of foreign-backed NGOs. 

So the FCRA regulations require that any money that is dispersed 

through an association by, say, Compassion International, the recipients of that money have to also have FCRA licenses. So there 

are a lot of associations. 

High-profile examples that have already been mentioned are 

Greenpeace, but others include the National Endowment for Democracy and the Ford Foundation, both of which ran afoul of FCRA 

regulators, lost their licenses, and only after some negotiations has 

the Ford Foundation, for instance, been reinstated though under a 

completely different instrument of the Indian Government that is 

arguably just as stringent and intrusive in managing how the Ford 

Foundation will function. 

So I don’t think this is just about Compassion International. I 

think it is very widespread and quite broad. 

The broader question of, you know, how do we do this in a way 

that recognizes that this is an important relationship, that these 

are very centrally sensitive domestic politics questions in India, the 

core issue, I think, in a lot of this discussion is that the Indian 

Government is deeply concerned and has been across governments, 

but maybe more so today, about religious harmony, or put differently, the risk of communal discord at the local level. 

This communal discord occurs when local actors complain that a 

local association is using its NGO status to proselytize, to evangelize, to convert people to Christianity, even if that is not, in fact, 

what they are doing. This, then, you know, percolates up to Delhi 

where the Ministry of Home Affairs will then choose to investigate. 

So I think the Indian Government is increasing it because of its 

own definition of antinational activities is likely to put a real 

29

damper on many of these sorts of things. And, yet, the diplomatic 

relationship is very deep. There was a great deal of concern in 

India that we will return to a transactional relationship between 

India and the United States as opposed to a strategic relationship. 

This is meant to suggest that what India won’t respond well to is 

being told, if you don’t do this, here is what we are going to pull 

away. Right? They want to see a strong, deep relationship that can 

survive temporary disagreements. But I think on our end, that requires that we take them at their word for it and be willing to ask 

very hard questions about this. 

You mention the diaspora population. So let me say in closing, 

the diaspora population in the United States is an extremely generous, charitable population which gives back to India lots of 

money benefiting education and social services. 

All of that money is also at risk if the FCRA is used to go after 

charitable organizations that the Indian Government sees as being 

unpleasant. 

American businesses doing work in India are going to be held 

under corporate social responsibility requirements. All of those contributions are going to be at risk if suddenly the Indian Government can scrutinize how those moneys are given. So this is not just 

about a particular NGO and a particular agenda. This really becomes a relationship of all American citizens who want to contribute to India’s development suddenly worrying about whether 

their money is going to be impounded, whether their partners in 

India are going to be scrutinized and at the risk of criminal offenses. 

So I think we have a great diplomat—I applaud Ambassador 

Verma for the work he has done while he has been in office. I think 

he should be empowered by you to come here to speak frankly to 

a good friend in India and hopefully the conversation will improve 

rather than worsen. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Well, thank you, Dr. Nooruddin. 

I would follow up maybe also with just a thought. Besides communicating with our Ambassador, and of course, we have communicated with the former Ambassador of India here, do you have any 

other thoughts about how we can dialogue on this issue? Of particular concern to me is what is going to happen, you know, if we 

end up without the ability to have Americans support these 

145,000 Indian families that sort of rely on it in terms of whether 

the children are going to get an education or enough food? 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Chairman Royce, I think that is a fair question. 

I wish I had an optimistic answer to give. As you point out, bureaucracy is a stubborn thing. And it is—the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is, I will give you, the most powerful of India’s ministries, has taken a very strong position on this in ways that are 

going to make it politically difficult for them to back down in any 

way that suggests they are backing down to external pressure. 

There is a strong domestic constituency in India, however, that 

is deeply concerned about Christian missionaries’ activities that 

frankly forms the support base for the current government. And so 

I think they are going to want to pay attention to that. 

Chairman ROYCE. But, doctor, here is the point, and this is a 

conversation I had with the Ambassador: We are fairly familiar 

30

with the operations of Compassion, because they also operate in Indonesia, a country that likewise, would be concerned about conversions in activity. And what we have found is that largely, this is 

a myth. They are not involved proactively in doing that. It is a 

rumor. And so the suggestion, which I think is an easy one, to resolve the issue, is that if you have a particular channel partner—

you know, there are 580 channel partners that are involved in that, 

all right, you take that off the table, but you allow the rest of the 

families here in the United States to write those checks to continue 

to support that effort and to not only give moral support but give 

the opportunity for those younger kids in these families, in situations that are so challenged, where they can actually complete their 

education. I mean, it just seems to me that there are the makings 

here for a compromise in this, which keeps the program open. 

And maybe I could ask Mr. Oakley on that question. Going forward, is there an opportunity to move forward in a way that would 

guarantee the support for the destitute that rely on the contributions that come into the country? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Currently, no, there is 

no path that we see as long as the current MHA order, the prior 

clearance order, which you all have a copy of, is in place. That 

order prevents Compassion’s funds from being credited to the recipients without the prior approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

We have worked for 7 months to obtain that prior approval, and 

we have been unsuccessful. 

Chairman ROYCE. So let us say for a minute, though, that there 

was a change of heart, and a decision to go channel partner by 

channel partner, you have 580 channel partners, and to just review 

the channel partners and those that are not engaged in activities 

of—I mean, it seems rather dogmatic to shut down the largest program, whole scale, that offers financial support to this sector in 

India. 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you. We completely agree. And, of course, we 

have submitted over 120 channel partners for review by the Ministry of Home Affairs. To this point, they have not even responded 

to our requests for that prior clearance for that group. 

And in point of fact, some months ago, when we first heard that 

there were a few—they describe it as a few black sheep in the 

flock. We said, tell us who those black sheep are, and we will within 24 hours separate our partnership with them to alleviate all of 

your concerns. So that was our offer to them. 

Subsequently, we agreed to not partner with any channel partner 

that had not received its NGO before the deadline—excuse me—its 

FCRA before the deadline to receive it, and that too did not 

produce any desired results. Our inability to communicate with 

MHA directly has been a source of significant frustration. 

Chairman ROYCE. So there is the outline, obviously, for a resolution that would fit within their perspective if the decision could be 

made to look individually at these channel partners and then release the funds. 

Well, let me—my time has expired. Let me go to Mr. Bera next. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I think about where we are in the U.S.-India relationship 

in a broad scope, it is at, really, a peak right now in terms of bilatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Jan 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\120616\22864 SHIRL
31

eral trade, in terms of bilateral security cooperation, in terms of—

you know, if you look at where the diaspora is, here in the United 

States as well, it is also hitting a high note. 

I am the only Indian-American Member of Congress currently, 

and I am thrilled that I will be joined in the House of Representatives by three additional members in the 115th Congress and our 

first Indian-American Senator. So in that, the diaspora is starting 

to step up, and as Dr. Nooruddin mentioned, is extremely philanthropic. And I would venture most of that philanthropy is going 

back to India. 

And my concern with how this issue is resolved is that we don’t 

want to decrease that philanthropy. We don’t want to discourage 

folks, not just the diaspora but others that want to do good around 

the world from continuing to contribute and make those donations. 

And in my conversations with the chairman, that is my concern. 

If you have one ministry, if you have someone in the MHA setting 

policy, that potentially becomes disruptive to many other NGOs, 

that is just a bad precedent. I understand the sensitivities in India 

as well, that they don’t want to see the House of Representatives 

or a foreign government dictating what their own domestic policy 

should be. But from my perspective and my review, Compassion 

International has done everything that they can to be transparent 

to meet the guidelines and the compliance here and continue to do 

the work that they do along with other NGOs. 

I would be curious, in terms of just following up on the ranking 

member’s question, Dr. Nooruddin, the role that the diaspora might 

be able to play here in terms of resolving some of these issues, 

again, understanding that the diaspora increasingly is making philanthropic investments in India. 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. The diaspora, I think, especially with four Indian-Americans in Congress, a first Indian-American Senator and 

possibly an Indian-American as the U.S. Representative to the 

United Nations, is a source of great pride in India. Many newspapers reported the day after the election about your success and 

your colleagues’ success as much as they reported on the result of 

the Presidential election. I mean, it is a tremendous source of 

pride. 

So I think that this is, in fact, a great point of leverage. There 

is a population in the United States that is very deeply engaged 

at home in India through their philanthropy. Their philanthropy 

goes through exactly the kind of work that Compassion International does in serving those that are most marginalized, especially children. And so I think the Indian-American community can 

understand that its voice will be heard in India, that it should recognize that if it signals to the Indian Government that an attack 

on Compassion International or any of these other NGOs that are 

doing the work that are trying to abide by the rules is going to be 

perceived as an attack on their own work, that they see that their 

contributions are likely to be addressed. Because I think this is will 

be heard loud and clear. 

This is not a relationship, meaning with the diaspora population, 

that the Indian Government wants to endanger. They do see this 

as a real strategic strength and also as one that has, you know, 

32

crossed domain and that it brings commercial ties and all sorts of 

other things back. 

I also think that, you know, the issue that you kind of hinted at 

in your remarks, Mr. Bera, concern about the definition of 

antinational. One of my colleagues on the panel also remarked 

about this, but really the most worrisome part of the FCRA regulations has been that the Indian Government has adopted a very 

wide interpretation of what constitutes antinational activity. 

In the case of Greenpeace the cited reason was that in highlighting the potential environmental damage of some industrial 

projects, Greenpeace would hurt India’s economy and this is, therefore, antinational. If that is the—if talking about Christianity to 

young children might induce some of them to be attracted to convert thereby upsetting other actors in the village, and that this is, 

then, deemed antinational, in effect, what antinational becomes is 

a license that anything the government doesn’t agree with is 

antinational. 

So there is no end in sight for that. And I think all of us who 

want to see India develop, who want to contribute to the most impoverished have a reason to want to have a much more transparent 

interpretation of that ruling and one that is consistent with principles of freedom of speech and association and of religious freedom. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Royce. 

First of all, to Mr. Oakley, thank you and Compassion for your 

extraordinary work living out Matthew 25, clothing the naked, 

feeding the hungry. I, like many members of this committee, are 

great admirers of your work, and I want to thank you for that 

worldwide, including in India. 

Let me just ask a question with regards to the threat to Compassion International, and I think many of you have already suggested 

this, is really the bitter fruit of a multi-year, ever-escalating attack 

on NGOs. It is happening in India. The International Religious 

Freedom Report in 2016 notes that in April 2015, the Ministry of 

Home Affairs revoked the licences of nearly 9,000 charitable organizations, and it points out that it really is because of their poor 

record, pointing out the poor record of India on human trafficking, 

labor conditions, religious freedom, environmental food issues as 

well, and I would add child abduction where they have scored 

horrifically with the most recent report under the Goldman Act. So 

there are a myriad of issues. And like China, India is just defaulting to throw them out. 

Later I am chairing the hearing as chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, on a look back over the last 

8 years. We have seven people, all of whom have spent time in the 

Gulag, the lao gai as they call it in China, for their faith and for 

human rights causes. And we have had an inferior, weak, feckless 

response to China when it has come to human rights. And the parallels, particularly on the NGO laws, especially on the religious 

faith issue, it takes a turn in the curve, if you will, or a bend in 

the curve or the path, because in China it is to get to atheism. 

33

In India, it is to get to Hinduism rather than allowing, as the 

Constitution of India prescribes, a true robust religious freedom. It 

is being usurped by the current regime, but it does go back some 

years ago. 

In 2014, Hindu nationalists announced a reconvert effort. So, 

again, the bitter fruit of that is being realized. And, of course, six 

Indian states have very, very strong anti-conversion laws. 

And, again, the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom points 

out, and this is 2015, religious intolerance deteriorated, religious 

freedom violations increased, and they point out it is on a poor trajectory. 

It seems to me that the United States has a moral duty, our Government, to put a tourniquet to the greatest extent possible on this 

deterioration. And I would ask you, if you would, maybe Mr. Sifton, 

you might want to speak to this, because you did say the U.S. Government needs to respond. Has it, and has it done so in a way that 

is likely to achieve the results? By CPC designation under the 

International Religious Freedom Act it seems to me, perhaps the 

time has come now to so designate India. 

It does work in some countries to say, look, we are not kidding. 

You can’t do this to Compassion. You can’t do this to all of these 

other faiths including Muslims, and we are just going to turn the 

blind eye. 

Secondly, do you see a parallel, Mr. Sifton, especially, with 

China? It seems like the NGOs become the enemy if they don’t 

comport to the government policies, and to what they conceive or 

believe is the way forward. India is a democracy, unlike China. We 

would expect far more from India than we are getting. 

So if you can speak to those issues, CPC designation and the parallels to China. 

Mr. SIFTON. Well, there is no doubt. There is no doubt at all. 

There is worldwide crackdown on civil society underway, and this 

is but one example. Hindu nationalism in India is at the heart of 

what is going on in India. 

CPC designation, generally, needs to be overhauled. I have great 

respect for the current Ambassador, but the fact of the matter is 

when countries like Vietnam and India are not on the list, it creates huge questions about the criteria that are being used. 

I think the U.S. Government has a way in that is diplomatic and 

polite, the way two democracies can speak to each other effectively. 

The two principles I would recommend to the incoming administration and to this Congress is, A, parity. An Indian tycoon can give 

money to an American NGO like ACLU or pro-life group or prochoice group, no questions asked. As long as it meets tax codes, it 

is fine. There are foreign agent laws, but that is for lobbying. 

The fact of the matter is an Indian NGO can give $1 million to 

an American organization. I, if I were a millionaire, which I am 

not, I cannot so freely give money to the Lawyers, Collective or 

Compassion. That is a question of parity. 

The second is consistency through the foreign investment vein of 

this current government. The Modi government is asking for foreign contributions. It is asking for international money to flow into 

the country from investment and, yet, when it comes to this type 

of money, the door closes. 

34

And I would just say—I mean, you can say this politely, but 

what is the biggest threat to the entity of India? Compassion’s 

work, the Lawyers Collective’s work, or Kentucky Fried Chicken? 

I don’t know. I mean, I think it is a question of consistency. You 

say to them, if you are going to do this, you have to do it consistently, and we have to have parity. U.S. and India are allies, democracies, and we have to have the same approach to be——

Mr. SMITH. Would you recommend CPC designation now? Because it can be done at any time. Normally, it is done on a designated—yes. 

Mr. SIFTON. I would think that the incoming Ambassador should 

give it a very hard look. 

Chairman ROYCE. Congresswoman Karen Bass from Los Angeles. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And let me thank the witnesses for your testimony today. 

And also, I don’t know if it was staff or who put this information 

together, but I was happy to learn that there were several hundred 

sponsors in my district for Compassion’s work. I have a large Indian population, and it is nice to know that they are actively involved in Compassion. 

I really wanted to continue along the responses from Mr. Sifton 

in terms of what is really behind this. And I understand that the 

FCRA was established to keep foreign money out of politics, but it 

seems like you are saying it was far more than that. I was wondering if you could provide a little more of the historical context, 

what was going on that led to it. And then I would also like to 

know more about Compassion’s work. 

Mr. SIFTON. I will just say really quickly, the testimony of my copanelists about the origins of law is correct, it was primarily a political control issue, similar to the legislation that Senator Fulbright moved through in the 1960s on the foreign agents law. 

The great irony, though, is just this year there were amendments 

to the FCRA that loosened the regulations for giving to political 

parties, which is an amazing irony to this whole thing and the history of it. But perhaps my copanelists would like to talk more 

about it. 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Just on the background of the FCRA, I mean, 

and as I remarked and as Mr. Sifton just corroborated, the roots 

of this were to keep money out of politics, but what that really 

meant was to keep money out of civil society that took positions on 

issues that might be deemed sensitive to politicians. 

Ms. BASS. So was there a specific case that was happening in 

India? I understand what you just said. 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Right. 

Ms. BASS. But in terms of the catalyst for it. 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. No, ma’am. The context was in 1976, during 

what in India we refer to as the Emergency period, in 1975 the 

then Prime Minister suspended civil liberties and established what 

was called the Emergency. It was in that period that this was 

passed, and the concern was that money could come into civil society actors that were pushing back against the Emergency legislation. 

Ms. BASS. I see, thank you. 

And then Compassion? 

35

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Briefly, in terms of the work that we do in India, across the 

world really, we believe in holistic child development. So we are interested in the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs of 

the child to break the cycle of poverty. 

I will tell you one of the things I find most interesting about this specific case with India, we push approximately $45 million a year 

in aid just to India, and by their own calculation the income tax 

commissioner of India has evaluated our operations at length and 

determined that merely 4 percent of that $45 million a year is for 

moral and spiritual values education. The remaining 96 percent, 

the overwhelming majority, is for all the types of humanitarian 

interventions you are used to seeing—provision of nutrition, food, 

clothing, medicine, school tuition, et cetera. 

Ms. BASS. So it is my understanding you work with children that 

are designated as undesirable. 

Mr. SIFTON. Correct. Our population, our criteria for entry into 

our program is that you are either a child in poverty, as defined 

by the World Bank, less than $1.90 per day, or extreme poverty of 

less than $1.25 per day. That is the only criteria. There is no condition based upon religion or any other category. 

Ms. BASS. I see. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Congressman Matt Salmon from Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

I just have two questions and they are, I think, very similar in 

nature. Question number one is, does the Indian Government have 

the capacity to fill the void that has happened with these children, 

the services for these children? Do they even have the capacity to 

fill the void? And second, if they do, are they doing anything to try 

to fill that void? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you, Congressman Salmon. 

The answer is no. Currently, the worldwide population of children in poverty is around 300 million, and, unfortunately, one-third 

of those, over 100 million of those are in India alone. So Compassion is actually just dealing with a very, very small fraction of that. 

The 145,000 children that are under our care, there will be no provision for them in the eventuality that we have to exit the country. 

They will become part of that 100 million who are either entirely 

underserved or underreached. 

Mr. SALMON. My experience in dealing with humanitarian crises 

all over the world has been that the best deliverer of services, bar 

none, that I have seen anywhere on the globe are faith-based 

NGOs and faith-based initiatives. And I think it would be really 

tragic, really tragic, if we are not able to get the Indian Government to rethink this whole process in the name of the children. 

And I applaud you for your wonderful, wonderful work. And I think 

it is incumbent on us. 

We do have a great relationship, bilateral relationship with 

India. But even when you have great relationships, even in marriage when you have a great relationship—I have been married 37 

years, I have a great relationship, and my wife still tells me when 

I do things wrong. And I love her for it. It is a great thing. And 

36

I think that even with a great partner like India we should be very, 

very outspoken about resuming the great work that you are doing 

and getting those children cared for. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you for that comment. And I would just like 

to reiterate that our desire is overwhelmingly to work with the 

Government of India to resolve this. We have been there for almost 

50 years and we would love to be there for another 50. We believe 

that the diversity of India, religiously, ethnically, is a strength, not 

a weakness. They should lean into that. And we will help them as 

part of helping all of their poor kids. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. If the gentleman would yield. 

I think have you about 3 weeks left before the decision to just 

have to vacate entirely the program in India? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Correct, Mr. Chairman. We have simply run out of 

funds. We are unable to get funds into the country. We are actually 

faced with the problem that if we depart, we may not have funds 

to pay the legally obligated gratuity and severance benefits for our 

employees there. There are 6,000 people in India who are employed 

by Compassion funds through our channel partners. We have no 

provision for winding up in an orderly fashion if we can’t work with 

the government. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, I want to thank you for your unwavering support for 

what Compassion International is doing and your focus on the children in India. I was proud when Prime Minister Modi came and 

spoke to a joint session of Congress last year, and I want to use 

my time to call on him at this point and the Modi government to 

end the pre-approval requirement for Compassion so that money 

can flow to where the rubber meets the road and where the needs 

are most dire. 

Mr. Oakley, how many children qualify as living in extreme poverty globally? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Currently, extreme poverty would be 300 million, as 

I mentioned earlier. And about a one-third of that exists just in the 

nation of India and a fair bit in the South Asia area as well. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. Does Compassion accept children of all 

faiths? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Absolutely. There is no criteria of religion for admission to our program, simply economic need. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So my understanding is Compassion really focuses 

on holistic child development programs. Is the spiritual component 

of Compassion’s holistic approach contextualized in any way? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you. Absolutely. We operate in 26 countries, 

in all three areas of the world, Asia, Africa and Latin America. And 

we understand, we recognize very well that each of those is very 

different. We have to contextualize our programming, both for the 

region that we are in, and it has to be contextualized from an age 

perspective. 

So to the extent that there is a spiritual and values-driven component to our programming, it is age appropriate, it is culturally 

appropriate. We teach values that transcend all of the world’s great 

37

religions. The values that we are teaching in India would be values 

taught by the Hindu faith, by the Muslim faith, Buddhist faith. 

They would transcend each of those religions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So let me ask you this. If Compassion has to exit 

India, what are the implications for other faith-based NGOs there? 

Mr. OAKLEY. This is the concern I mentioned at the outset that 

troubles me greatly, because so many NGOs that are operating in 

India are doing so on budgets that are much smaller than ours, 

they don’t have the network that we have. Certainly access to this 

forum is not something that is available to them easily. 

And if Compassion were to exit India, I really do feel that we 

sort of represent the canary in the coal mine, that if we go, the Indian Government has taken down the largest child sponsorship 

agency in the world, the largest importer of foreign NGO funds into 

India. They understand at that point there is very little to stop 

them from taking the same type of action against other NGOs. 

And I appreciated the comments of my colleagues earlier that if 

anti-national activity is anything the government doesn’t agree 

with, it is not just the faith-based NGO community, it is a number 

of civil society organizations that have expressed opinions or have 

policies and platforms that are in opposition to those of the government, or perhaps simply not as aligned as the government would 

prefer. That is not—I hope that is not anti-national activity in 

India. 

So the trend here—I like to look at trends, where is it going—

the trend is heading in the wrong direction. And this would be a 

significant bellwether to the Indian Government that their effort to 

stop NGOs that have positions with which they do not agree is 

working. 

Now, the Government of India, we do not intend to tell them 

what to do or how to do what they do. They are a sovereign nation. 

But they are also signatories and have ratified the ICCPR, and 

those provisions, by signing and ratifying that document, they have 

agreed to allow the freedom of expression of religion, freedom of political speech, all of those freedoms. 

So those are under attack and they fail to recognize that using 

policy in this fashion and using regulatory requirements and legal 

requirements in this fashion and then not following their own legal 

requirements in doing so, it is in violation of their own law and it 

is in violation of international law. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I co-chair the Sovereignty Caucus here in Congress, 

and I fully respect the sovereignty of nations to do what is in their 

best interest and what they feel like they need to do, so I don’t intend any of my comments to trample on the sovereignty of India. 

But this is an urging of the United States Congress to the Modi 

government to embrace an organization that is filling a void. 

To piggyback on what Mr. Salmon said, the Indian Government 

doesn’t have the capacity to help the children that Compassion and 

other NGOs help. 

And so let me ask you this. Are there any other pre-approval requirements in any other countries that Compassion helps? 

Mr. OAKLEY. No, we currently do not have a pre-approval requirement in any of our 26 countries. And I can tell you from personal experience, I have spent the last 3 years working on this 

38

case, this is our hardest country to work in from a political and 

regulatory perspective. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am about out of time. Let me just ask this final 

question. Has Compassion broken any laws in India? 

Mr. OAKLEY. None. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you so much, sir. 

And now we will turn to Mr. Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Oakley, is there any there any action that the Indian Government could take to enable Compassion to continue its operations 

in India? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Yes, there is. Thank you, Congressman. I believe 

the immediate step that would allow us to restore operations in the 

next 3 weeks would be rescinding the MHA’s prior approval order 

of February 2016. That would allow funds to move directly from us 

to the 500-plus channel partners that are supporting the 145,000 

children. 

Secondarily, we have to be able to pay our field staff on the 

ground. We have two locally incorporated entities, one in Kolkata, 

one in Chennai. Presently, both of those charitable entities have 

had their FCRAs revoked, although they had been in place for 

more than a decade. If those were restored—because we think the 

revocation was in violation of law, certainly there was no notice, no 

indication as to why they were revoked—if those were restored, we 

could continue to pay our people who are assisting the children 

under our sponsorship. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And if they would take that action, how 

many children would be affected and what would that effect be on 

their lives? 

Mr. OAKLEY. So presently, we had 145,000 children under our 

care as of this summer. Because of our decision to unilaterally, as 

a gesture of good faith, drop our partnership with any channel 

partner that had not received its FCRA as of the end of September, 

we actually departed 15,000 children at that time. So the 130,000 

that are remaining are still under our care, although the operations for many of them are suspended at this time. 

If those operations could be restored quickly, the aid that we 

give, the food, the medicine—the school tuition is critically important because the school year is just about to commence in February 

in India and you have to enroll your kid and you have to pay tuition there, they have uniform requirements, all of these things—

all of that could be restored quickly. 

And our commitment to the Indian Government would be we will 

be as transparent, as open, as cooperative as we can with you. If 

you are concerned about any project and whether or not there is 

anti-national or conversion activity going on at that location, tell 

us. We will work with you. We will eliminate that partner for as 

long as you have a concern about that partner. That dialogue has 

been something that has an eluded us thus far. 

Mr. CHABOT. So if the Indian Government would take the action 

that you have recommended and that is the number of children 

that would be affected, on, say, a typical day, what are the types 

39

of things that you all do and what impact on a daily basis would 

it have on these children’s lives? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Absolutely. In India that is a fairly high-touch country for us, U.S. dollars go a long way. That is a very efficient place 

for us to operate. So the contact time with a child is quite high. 

Our programs run 5 to 6 days a week. These are child development 

centers that are attached to the local Christian church. They will 

receive one to two meals a day there. They will receive medical 

treatment if they need it, evaluations as to their health. They will 

also receive tutoring that is age appropriate related to the studies 

that they are doing. 

In some cases, we have medical interventions that are much 

higher need, surgeries, those types of things. Those will occur as 

well on a regular basis, particularly given the size of the population 

that we have in India. It is our largest country at present. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And then finally, if the Indian Government does not take this action that we have discussed here, is there some other organization 

that is ready to step in and aid those children in the ways that you 

have just described. 

Mr. OAKLEY. That is a fantastic question. We have wrestled with 

that at length. As part of withdrawing, if we are forced to withdraw, we would very much desire to do so in an orderly fashion 

that is compliant with the law, as well as make provision for the 

transfer of some of those children to other NGOs operating in country, secular, faith based, just provide for them. 

We have done some preliminary analysis on that point. We think 

we could transfer potentially 10,000 to 15,000 children, nowhere 

near the 130,000 that we currently care for. The primary problem 

is distance. You have to be able to travel by foot typically to a child 

development center to receive the services we provide. So we have 

to find an equivalent somewhere within foot distance, and that can 

be very hard. 

Mr. CHABOT. So it would be safe to say that if the government 

doesn’t take that action, there are some children that are going to 

inevitably fall through the cracks here. 

Mr. OAKLEY. Not some. It will be more than 80 percent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. Randy Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sifton, you said earlier in your remarks you suggested parity, there needed to be some parity there, in talking about the fact 

that they wouldn’t allow U.S. dollars to go to Indian NGOs. By parity, are you saying that we should not allow any Indian money to 

come in? Explain that. 

Mr. SIFTON. Certainly not. I think that would violate U.S. law. 

Mr. WEBER. Move your mic over in front of you. There you go. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SIFTON. No, certainly not, it is not a threat, but rather an 

exhortation to the Indian Government that your wealthy or more 

fortunate citizens are entitled to give money to nonprofits and 

churches and educational institutions here in the United States, we 

should be allowed—our citizens should be allowed to give money to 

the same institutions in India. 

40

Mr. WEBER. It is almost like a trade agreement, isn’t it? 

Mr. SIFTON. I mean, the great irony here is that Prime Minister 

Modi is making enormous efforts to attract foreign investment, 

bring foreign money into India, but not this kind of money. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Oakley, you said earlier the ICCPR was ratified by India. 

What is that? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Apologies for using the acronym. It is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. India is a country 

that has ratified it. And those obligations, countries commit to 

those obligations understanding that they supersede their local 

law, that they are committing to those, that those commitments 

will then be embedded in their national law. 

Mr. WEBER. When did they sign that? 

Mr. OAKLEY. I do not have the date, Congressman. 

Mr. WEBER. How many countries have signed it? Do you know? 

Mr. OAKLEY. I believe the vast majority of the countries of the 

world. There are perhaps one or two that have either not ratified 

it or done so with reservations that have gutted it. 

Mr. WEBER. Any teeth to that agreement? I mean, if they don’t 

hold up their end of the bargain or live up to that agreement what 

happens? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Well, functionally, and this is true with most of the 

international covenants, enforcement is difficult, at least at a legal 

level. Typically what happens is there is dialogue around it raising 

awareness of the violations. It is almost an approach of shaming 

a country into abiding by their international commitments. 

The other approach, which we do not desire, is to litigate this 

issue, which would take more than a decade, and it would really 

be on behalf of the other NGOs who are remaining in India. 

Mr. WEBER. In your opinion, would it be worthwhile to have a 

resolution expressing the sense of Congress that they think India 

has violated this and it is going to have a dire effect on their most 

unfortunate? 

Mr. OAKLEY. I think a resolution like that would be incredibly 

helpful from our perspective. But we are not alone. I think this 

would be incredibly helpful from the perspective of my colleagues 

here today and the broader civil society community. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. Nooruddin, you also made the comment that your colleagues 

said that this was ‘‘discrimination disguised behind taxation,’’ but 

that you didn’t necessarily agree with that. Did I mis-hear that? 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. I think you did not. If I may expand. I think 

to demonstrate that this is discrimination would require a much 

more systematic analysis. Eleven and a half thousand NGOs have 

lost their licenses in the last year and a half. They are not all 

Christian faith based. 

Mr. WEBER. So they are equal opportunity discriminators is what 

that means. 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. Well, maybe from their perspective they are 

equal opportunity appliers of a regulation that is not very transparent and is not very clear as to how you fall afoul of it. I think 

it is quite clear, and you can glance in my written testimony, I proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 Jan 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\120616\22864 SHIRL
41

vide a link to the Indian Government Web site which lists the 

NGOs that have lost their licenses. 

Just anecdotally, I just glanced at page one. There are 22 listed 

on page one. Nine of them have very obviously Christian names to 

them, invoking the Virgin Mary and invoking particular saints, et 

cetera. 

So my guess, Congressman, is that the particular application of 

this law across the 11,500 might quite possibly have a religious dimension to it, but it is not only that. It is very much environmental 

organizations, it is pro-democracy organizations. 

And of course there are a lot of organizations, as I mentioned up 

front, that were likely in violation of the law. They hadn’t filed income taxes for 3 consecutive years that are required of the law, 

money had been channeled to places who had not gotten FCRA approval, et cetera. 

So there is a big bag of associations that have run afoul of this 

particular regulation, and I just wanted to suggest that we want 

to think of the whole picture. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. I am out of time. I appreciate it. 

Chairman ROYCE. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. 

Dr. Nooruddin, if a citizen in India donates money to a religious 

organization, is it tax deductible there? Or if a corporation does, is 

it tax deductible there? 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. No, sir. 

Mr. RIBBLE. It is not? 

Mr. NOORUDDIN. No. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. 

I want to go back to be Mr. Oakley. Each of us were given a map 

like this, I appreciate you providing, I am assuming you provide 

the data. I am one of these sponsors. And Compassion just does 

amazing work in Wisconsin and around the world. My son Jared 

is a Compassion artist, has been for 10 years, and has raised tens 

of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for your work. 

But I will guarantee you before this day is out I will either have 

someone tweet at me or put a Facebook posting who has seen this 

and they are going to ask this question. I would like you to give 

you the opportunity to answer it, because you are going to be better 

equipped to answer it. And this question is not based in cynicism, 

it is just going to be a question they are going to ask. 

And they are going to ask me, if the Indian Government doesn’t 

want you there, and given that the needs around the world are so 

great, why would you not just redirect the money to other needs, 

to the Bolivians or the Hondurans or the Ethiopians? Would you 

mind answering that question for those folks? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, and thanks 

for your support and your son’s support as well. 

There are several answers to the question. One is simply, as I 

mentioned earlier, the extraordinary need in India. It has more 

children living in poverty than any other single country on Earth. 

So it is a great place for us to work with the poorest of the poor. 

We could exit and apply those funds elsewhere, and certainly 

those funds would be well utilized elsewhere. That is not our hope. 

42

We have been in India for a very long time. We see that the people 

of India, the people that we work with, the parents, the people 

within the poorest communities that we operate in, they want us 

to stay in India. They are incredibly grateful for the services we 

provide. 

And so I think Compassion, I am speaking for myself, but I believe for my organization as well, we go where the greatest need 

is. To the extent we can work in conditions of extreme poverty that 

is where you get the most bang for your buck in terms of outcomes. 

By working with children, you have a longer runway for those outcomes to be effective. 

We have had independent, third-party, peer-reviewed analysis of 

our program which determines that it works. So by operating in a 

country like India, which has over 130 million Muslims, it has got 

more than 50 million Christians, it is a diverse country religiously, 

in terms of ethnicities, languages, this is an extraordinary opportunity to help change the face of India by raising up its poorest 

children. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you for that answer. 

And, Chairman Royce, I want you to know I would be completely 

supportive of whatever action this committee wants to take in relationship to this issue. It would be unfortunate indeed for the children of India to suffer the moral hazard of this choice if it results 

in you redirecting that money elsewhere in the world. Now, those 

other children would be the beneficiaries for sure, but that doesn’t 

alleviate the problem in India. And so thank you for your work 

there and thank you for the work of Compassion. 

I yield back. 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First of all, I would like to thank the chairman for focusing our attention on this issue. Mr. Chairman, you 

could have focused on any number of issues, and let me just say 

it speaks highly of you and your values that we have focused on 

something that 130,000 kids are going to have an immediate impact on. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am trying to understand the overall issue here as well as the 

specific issue and challenge that you are facing here in Compassion. Is this part of a bigger picture? Look, we are suffering in 

parts of world of radical Islam, okay, and in this part of world 

maybe is this a result of Hindu fanaticism? 

Mr. OAKLEY. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

It is difficult for me to get into the mind of another individual, 

let alone a political party in a country. I can tell you that based 

upon the timing of our challenges, having operated successfully for 

45 years, and then to have a series of incredibly rigorous challenges in a very compressed period of time, in the last 3 years, in 

multiple contexts, so across different divisions of the Indian Government, and then looking at our own operation and recognizing 

that nothing has changed, everything that we are doing is the 

same. 

And then personally I have sat with six different law firms and 

multiple chartered accountants in India and asked this very question, are we legally compliant? Is there something that we are 

43

doing that in fact breaks the law? And to a person I have heard 

that, no, you are operating within the law. And again, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to the extent that the law is being 

broken, it is being broken by the Indian Government. 

Now, motive is difficult to understand. I will tell you that we operate in 26 countries, so I get a fairly high-level view of what is 

happening around the world and I see the rise of nationalism as 

being particularly concerning. It is very concerning in the Indian 

context, in part because of the numbers of minority groups that I 

mentioned earlier. 

And my view, and I believe the view of our organization, is that 

a test of a democracy is how it treats its poorest, its most vulnerable, its smallest minorities, not whether or not it is pandering to 

the desires of the majority. 

So from my perspective, I think something has changed in the 

last 3 years and the trend is going in the wrong direction. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There are repercussions on these type of 

changes that we are talking about in the world, whether it is not 

just Hindu nationalism, not just radical Islam, but as you are expressed it today, you might say an upsurge of nationalism. 

I would have to say I disagree with you as to whether or not that 

is something that is inherently going to take people in the wrong 

direction. Quite frankly, nationalism in the United States, for example, has I think really accomplished some great things, and that 

is overcoming local prejudices and local challenges where we face 

that we are a country of everybody, of so many different type of 

people that it is the nationalism that keeps us together as a country. 

But with that said, I could see that some NGOs might actually, 

if they come in conflict with that spirit of nationalism, could basically end up in a conflict in that society where there were not conflicts before, which doesn’t seem evident in your case. 

But, for example, if you have NGOs that are focused on government policy rather than providing charitable givings to people in 

need, that would be, I could understand, where a newly nationalistic government would not want someone from the outside coming 

in and being financed, asking them for a change in their law. However, obviously the change in law that did happen in your case has 

resulted in 130,000 kids being put in jeopardy. 

Let me again echo what my colleague just said in that whatever 

action this chairman would like to take on this to help you and 

your efforts to keep this charitable activity going in India, you will 

have our support and my support. 

However, I do think that it is time, Mr. Chairman, for us also 

to put into perspective as we see nationalism rising around the 

world what NGOs are supposed to be about and what some 

NGOs—I mean, if we are talking about a country that has 30,000, 

did you say, NGOs? 

Mr. OAKLEY. No, more like a million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A million NGOs. Something is wrong there. 

Maybe many of those NGOs could be classified here as political organizations. And I know that in several other countries that is 

what we have. I will have to just say in one country that I asked—

well, I asked about the political prisoners in Russia. I asked for a 

44

list of all the political prisoners. For years I could not get that list, 

because everyone wants to portray Russia as having thousands of 

political prisoners. 

Well, I got the list and there were a couple hundred people on 

the list, but a large percentage of them were on the list because 

they were part of Greenpeace. But they were not just part of 

Greenpeace, they were part of groups of people who went onto drilling platforms in the Arctic to try to prevent Russia from having 

Arctic drilling. 

Now, sorry, that would be illegal in our country as well. That is 

not what an NGO should be all about, is forcing a policy on someone, as compared to even advocating it. 

So I think that we need to have a closer look at NGOs, but I 

think your testimony today and this issue that we are talking 

about today really is valuable to us, because to understand that 

with—don’t let us focus on some of these NGOs that are engaged 

with policy versus NGOs that are engaged with charity and how 

we must step forward. If we are going to save 130,000 kids, we 

need to get behind you. And that is a really important message for 

this hearing. 

And thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for taking us here. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

And on behalf of the committee, I want to recognize the outstanding work of Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin, who will, unfortunately, 

be retiring from the committee, as he is retiring from Congress. 

And I wanted to share with everybody how much I enjoyed working 

with him during his time here. 

We traveled together to the Congo. He has a passion for children 

and children abroad. He has personal experience with adoption. 

And he used that to good effect to help us bring some ultimately 

400 children who had been adopted to get them out of the Congo 

where they had been stuck. 

He cares deeply about our Nation and its security. But also there 

is this private side of him that you saw a little bit about today, 

which is the fact that he is one of these donors. He and his family 

and his son donate to Compassion in order to reach a family 

abroad, in order to do what Amy Porter, my chief of staff, and her 

daughter do, which is to reach out to children in India and to provide them the means, the help, so that they can get an education 

and so that they might have enough food to eat. 

I want to thank the witnesses also for their participation and the 

committee members. I think we have a better understanding of the 

issue. As we heard today, Compassion is helping Indian children 

who are living often on less than a dollar a day. And they are in 

desperate need and we are all very worried that their support, support coming from our constituents, several thousand constituents, 

for example, in my district, will end in a matter of 3 weeks if we 

do not figure out a resolution to this, and that would be a tragedy. 

I mentioned the bureaucracy in my opening statement. It is the 

committee’s sincere hope that this problem can be resolved in a 

way that allows for humane generosity to continue. The two great 

countries have so much in common. So many bridges have been 

built over the last 15 years. The ranking member, Eliot Engel, and 

I have been involved so much in this bridge building. And on top 

45

of it, we have the vision from the Prime Minister who leads India 

and his background as well. 

So I think I can speak for the committee in asking that those in 

India involved in this decision focus on this immediate resolution 

so that we can then go on to focus on all the other issues that bring 

our two great democracies together. 

Thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

48

f


22864n.eps
49


22864m-1.eps
50

f


22864m-2.eps
51


22864d-1.eps
52

Æ


22864d-2.eps