India Labels Greenpeace A ‘Threat To National Economic Security’

From The Indian Express, 11 June 2014

Priyadarshi Siddhanta & Amitav Ranjan

An Intelligence Bureau report on foreign-funded NGOs “negatively impacting economic development” in India has called Greenpeace “a threat to national economic security”, citing activities ranging from protests against nuclear and coal plants and funding of “sympathetic” research, to allegedly helping out an Aam Aadmi Party candidate in the recent Lok Sabha elections.

The allegations are part of the IB’s report, dated June 3, submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office. As reported first by The Indian Express, the IB claims the negative impact of the NGOs’ role on GDP growth to be “2-3 per cent per annum”.

The report, signed by IB Joint Director S A Rizvi, accuses Greenpeace of contravening laws to “change the dynamics of India’s energy mix”. The bureau says Greenpeace’s ‘superior network’ of numerous pan-India organisations has helped conduct anti-nuclear agitations and mounted “massive efforts to take down India’s coal fired power plants and coal mining activity”. Greenpeace will take on India’s IT sector over e-waste among other “next targets”, the report says.

While several NGOs are named in the IB’s 21-page report, that lists seven sectors/projects that got stalled because of NGO-created agitations against nuclear power plants, uranium mines, coal-fired power plants, farm biotechnology, mega industrial projects, hydroelectric plants and extractive industries, the main international one singled out for criticism is Greenpeace.

Throughout, the IB report sees Greenpeace as the prime mover of mass-based movements against development projects. “It is assessed to be posing a potential threat to national economic security… growing exponentially in terms of reach, impact, volunteers and media influence,” it notes. The efforts are focused on “ways to create obstacles in India’s energy plans” and to “pressure India to use only renewable energy”.

The report also accuses Greenpeace, “actively aided and led by foreign activists visiting India”, of violating the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010 (FCRA), and financing “sympathetic studies” at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and at IIT-Delhi.

While FCRA provisions debar organisations getting foreign funding from political activity, former Greenpeace consultant Pankaj Singh stood as an Aam Aadmi Party candidate from Sidhi Lok Sabha seat in Madhya Pradesh in the recent general elections. Mahan coal mines, against which Greenpeace has been protesting, fall under this constituency.

Full story

About these ads

58 thoughts on “India Labels Greenpeace A ‘Threat To National Economic Security’

  1. Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation run by the elite and used as a front by Marxist politicians like Obama.

  2. I’m in Mumbai at the moment and this story has just been a topic on the evening national TV news debate programme. It is being reported as a security threat and the “Foreign hand ” conspiracy.

  3. If Greenpeace were founded during the stone age, we would never adopt fire as a technology, not sustainable enough.

    Good for India, now the rest of the world.

  4. Ironic when the pendulum starts to swing the other way. Hey! Maybe that AGW Game where that University got federal funds to create some weirdo AGWers are hunted in the future/ apocolypse game won’t go to waste after all! lol

  5. The alarmist for climate change have been calling for skeptics to be put in jail the last few years. But after this finding, if I were them, I wouldn’t vacation in India any time soon or they might find themselves in an over populated Mumbai jail. Wouldn’t that be karma?

  6. The anti-capitalist NGOs use insidious covert influence techniques to infiltrate a society.

    The key is to understand how they operate–they build front organizations that attract participants with a “cool” message.

    Outlawing them is a first step. But it is very useful to monitor their activities, their local contacts, and their networks, just as you would foreign intelligence operative. Just like a foreign intelligence operative, these fanatics want to destroy your society, economy, and culture.

    It’s time we took the same approach in the US.

    This is fantastic news.

  7. “India Labels Greenpeace A ‘Threat To National Economic Security’”

    I label them similarly with respect to the U.S.

  8. Wonderful analysis.
    Hopefully the current free run these anti-humanist clowns are getting in our society, will be a a precursor to the trials and punishments due to them, under RICO.

  9. I don’t sympathize with Green Peace Warriors, but the headline does not make sense: Does any country have a National Economic Security?

  10. From whom did Greenpeace get the foreign funds to support an Indian politician’s candidacy?

    Did the Source of these funds know for what purpose the money was going to be put, and that the activity was illegal?

    Alternatively, did Greenpeace solicit the funds and misrepresent the final destination and purpose to which it would be put?

    INTERPOL may have to sort this out.

  11. The only “green” Greenpeace is interested is the money they can collect for the faux cause. The only “peace” Greenpeace offers is that of their anti-democratic unlawful rule.I hope india dismantles them, siezes their assets and jails their leaders and workers.
    And then they can work down the list of so called not-for-profit parasites.

  12. You have to remember that Greenpeace was started as a joke and then things got steadily out of hand.

    It is difficult to understand why – unless you are an ecoloon and/or seriously retarded – just why governments fund and trust this organisation to screw up their economies for no economic and environmental benefits whatsoever.

    So, India leads the way while western politicians just look goofy.

  13. Absolutely one of the best articles that I have seen on WUWT. If only more would stand up.

  14. Six non-governmental organisations, which figure in an Intelligence Bureau report on NGOs stalling development projects, operate out of a single building in Katwaria Sarai in South Delhi.
    The IB report on the ‘Impact of NGOs on Development’ said inquiries into “pattern, design and funding of protests at nuclear plants and uranium mines” revealed a “superior network” of pan-India organisations closely linked to territorial outfits that were also indulging in agitation against GM foods and the POSCO steel plant in Orissa.
    “The manner of free-funding for these NGOs is observed from the fact that ASHA and its IFSF campaign are headquartered with four prominent anti-nuclear NGOs at a single address — A-124/6, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi — which is an unmarked, small, two-room flat,” the report stated.

    “These four NGOs are Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace (CNDP), Popular Education & Action Centre (PEACE) and Jan Sangharsh Samanvaya Samiti, the latter being the focal point for anti-Fatehabad nuclear power plant,” it added.

    http://www.ngoreporter.com/ngo-scare/

    Websearch also comes up with:

    Gopal Krishna
    ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
    A-124/6, First Floor, Katwaria Sarai,
    New Delhi 110 016

    For more information contact Peoples Forum Against ADB secretariat:
    INSAF, A-124/6, Katwaria Sarai
    New Delhi 110016

    KAVITHA KURUGANTI
    Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)
    A-124/6, First Floor
    Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi 110 016

    This from a copied email addressed to about 50 world wide NGO types.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/punjabeco-crisis/angLpnuPoyg/YnfDX8ZiY_MJ

    Not so sure about the 2 room flat as other reports call it 2 of 3 floors are occupied by NGO’s.

    Maybe Putin was right, impound the ship and jail the crew.

  15. I’m not sure Greenpeace as such is the problem, but rather the groups providing their funding.

  16. It is no secret that the ultimate consequence (objective?) of the “carbon-solving” proposals is to maintain the global economic status quo and, if the poor get even poorer, so much the better. See the activists’ work in economically vulnerable areas in Africa and Asia. Every time these poor folk are denied the same access to energy you and I have, you know the activists score a victory because they celebrate it publicly.

    It is an issue of control. The poorer a people are, the more vulnerable and manageable they are. Jehovah’s Witnesses naively tell you all about it if you bother to hear, for example. They only remain truly successful wherever humanity is struggling to feed itself.

  17. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First and several more of that ilk, are all a threat to economic development and the prosperity of advanced societies. Their ‘science’ is so biased it is a joke, but sadly, they are in the top ranks when it comes to spreading propaganda and misinformation which is eagerly lapped up by the useful idiots who are all to keen to rush out waving placards, or storm some corporate HQ in ‘protest’ against some ephemeral risk they can’t even spell. Their agenda is purely political, anti-industrial, anti-wealth, anti-progress and to a large extent anti-people. I suspect they are useful to our current crop of politicians as a way to distract the marching and protesting classes.

    But the damage they do to economies is mounting steadily. Someone will have to take them on in the not to distant future, or they will succeed in destroying everything in our society.

  18. Note, Aam Aadmi Party is not the Green Party. They are primarily running on an anti-corruption line. They managed to win one state with a good turnout operation. It turned out they were really only good at campaigning as protest candidates, and their newly elected chief minister(equialent to governor) ended up resigning within months. In the most recent elections, they ran protest candidates against top leaders of other parties, but failed to even win again in Delhi.

  19. Greenpeace and Green Parties, generally, are the fragments of the Communist Parties hoovered up from the left over fragments of the Communist Implosion. They are terrorist organisations run by the fanatical urban elites and encouraged as a front by Neo-Marxist politicians like Obama.

  20. Fine,but unless the Indian Government makes membership of Greenpeace [and similar organisations] illegal, so what?! [six months minimum I would suggest!]

    CAGW is essentially a white middle class thing. Interventions by Green organisations in India [and Africa] can be viewed in many ways : neo-colonianism, racism, or simply Western government funded efforts to destroy any competiition. Who knows?

    It is amazing how many white people have no problem with jobs or funding to make these efforts.

    I read that tens of thousands of activists will soon be invading Paris. What percentage will be white.

    Prof. Caleb Rossiter was ‘sacked’ because he was more concerned with the lives of people in Africa while thousands of white activists living in their comfortable Western lifestyle do their best to ensure the Africans stay in the utmost poverty. Except of course for people like Mugabe who is claiming compensation for the effects of CAGW. After all, those Swiss bank accounts don’t fill themselves!

  21. I’ve been preaching this all along. Label them (Greenpeace, WWF etc) domestic terrorists, jail their top leaders and seize all their assets, end of the problem.

  22. Curious George asks “Does any country have a National Economic Security?“. Yes, all do. National security is often seen as military, but it has to be much wider than that. Just do a web search for “National Economic Security”.
    PS. The USA (plus allies) defeated the Soviet Union economically more than militarily. Both were crucial, but the economics did the trick.

  23. Every quarter I am asked to be a guest lecturer in an economics class. I work in the electric utility field. I show a slide of a young African woman cooking dinner over a dung fire in a hut. I ask the ladies what they believe her life expectancy is. They are shocked when I tell them 45 vs. their 79. Then I ask if they think for an instant that she doesn’t want affordable electricity so she can have the chance to live as long as you?

    They usually respond with silence…

  24. Peter Miller says:
    June 13, 2014 at 11:15 am
    You have to remember that Greenpeace was started as a joke and then things got steadily out of hand.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    No it wasn’t. I was in Vancouver, BC going to University when it started. The initiating action was protesting the US underground atomic tests at Amchitka, an Alaskan Island, Many of us felt the US was doing something very silly in a fault zone

    I met many people who were involved in the early years. And in the early years, I supported them as they had decent ideals. But it morphed as the originators lost control of the organization they started and Greenpeace became radicalized.

    Read Patrick Moore’s book: “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”. I don’t agree with everything in the book, but I can agree with much of it. The book presents a decent perspective on what happened to Greenpeace – and a lot of other organizations that get taken over by zealots after being started by some folks with genuine concerns.

    See also:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#more-103850

  25. Mike Jonas says:
    June 13, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    PS. The USA (plus allies) defeated the Soviet Union economically more than militarily. Both were crucial, but the economics did the trick
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I think we won a battle, not a war. The battle is ongoing and it is looking like the BRICS countries may win the next battle.

    Empires rise, empires fall.

  26. Interestingly I just wrote to our foreign minister about the lawlessness of international NGOs and the UN and what could be done to make them transparent and subject to redress by the citizenry for their actions. For example making it so that you could sue the UN in an international court for damages if a treaty was enacted that damaged you and that all payouts became a burden on all signatories to the treaty, International organisation FOI and anti-corruption watchdog, were other suggestions.

    Greenpeace are verging on terrorism and piracy, not quite but nearly, Putin was right in prosecuting for piracy for example. Greenpeace have been given far too long out of the cot, and need to be called in for dinner, and put to bed for the night. Expect stamping of feet.

  27. Years and years upon years ago when I was a greenie, beardie, weirdo I thought about sending Greenpeace a donation but before doing so I decided to take a closer look at them.

    Who were the movers and shakers, where were they, how were they funded, what was their institutional structure, how did they make decisions as to what campaigns to run, did they have a coherent strategy and what were they up to in different countries around the Globe?

    After much casting about I could only find an answer to the last question. Greenpeace USA were posing as radicals campaigning to ban the import of PVC toys, presumably that was damaging the US chemicals industry, while everywhere else they were campaigning to damage local economic activity.

    I never sent the donation but subsequently applauded the French for sinking Rainbow Warrior and that despite my antipathy towards nuclear testing.

    Prima facie the Indians have got it right.

  28. I am not surprised by this finding.

    2% to 3% of GDP is huge. Just think of the current GDP growth in developed nations. If only they could have seen annual growths in GDP of this order these past 6 or so years.

    I suspect that NGO have a similarly adverse effect on the prospects of developed nations. Certainly in the UK they have hindered the development of shale, and the promotion of costly renewables, and the adverse effect that this has on consumer spending and industrial competitiveness, must have lost the UK at least a loss of 2% GDP.

  29. bobl says:
    June 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    ///////////////////////////
    Once protest reaches the pioint of physical interference, then there is a strong argumenet that it is right to hold the protestors accountable for their actions. Personally, I do not consider that Russia overstepped the mark.

    Lobbying and protesting raises difficult issues. For example, in the UK, there have been a number of studies suggesting that due to the recent run of cold winter weather and high energy costs, some 25,000 to 40,000 people have each year needlessly died prematurely.

    Now we have seen much protesting against fracking. If this has delayed extracting cheap gas by fracking by say just 1 year, and if fracking were to go ahead and if as a result gas prices would significantly fall (as seen in the US) leading to lower energy bills, then these protestors have directly or indiirectly resulted in the neddless premature deaths of about 25,000 to 40,000 people. If these protest have delayed exploitation of fracking by 2 years then about some 50,000 to 80,000 premature deaths etc.

    Why should protestors be entitled to ravage such missery and suffering on people with impunity. Protestors rarely have the moral high ground when one considers the full (but possibly consequential) implications of their actions. The true victims of their actions are all too often not faceless large multinational corporations. Perhaps it is time that society considers a new law to hold protestors accountable for their actions (although it would be difficult to strike the right balance).

  30. A good move as far as it goes; but I’ve wondered for a while if India is violating similar laws here in the US, by funding PETA which is mainly about trying to get the meat industry outlawed. Who else but Hindus would want to do that?

  31. jdgalt says:
    June 13, 2014 at 9:51 pm
    A good move as far as it goes; but I’ve wondered for a while if India is violating similar laws here in the US, by funding PETA which is mainly about trying to get the meat industry outlawed. Who else but Hindus would want to do that?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    WHOA! Not all Indians are Hindu and not all Hindus don’t eat meat. Cows are off the list, but other meats, including related species like buffalo, are not, depending on location. About 80% of Indians are Hindu, and about 75% of that 80% are vegetarian or 60% of the population. Can’t speak for the other religions. If you are interested, look it up. Where did you get the PETA reference?

  32. Today’s Greens are yesterday’s Reds. Well done India, now for WWF, FoE…………

  33. I lived in India for a while. One of its great virtues is that it is ‘old-fashioned’ – it does not buy into all the trendy political and cultural fashions of the West and views them with a mixture of wry amusement and amazement that supposedly sensible people in the West fall for such claptrap.

    It is also ‘old-fashioned’ in that it has an education system like the US used to have. Children are expected to behave and are punished if they do not. The assumption is that a problem lies with the naughty child, not the teacher or the schools or the system. Similarly criminals are punished and the fact that the criminal grew up in poverty or their mother did not love them are not considered extenuating circumstances when sentence is passed.

    So I am not surprised that they see Greenpeace as yet another crazy Western import that must be controlled.

  34. Greenpeace is more threatening than Greenhouse Gases?

    That can’t be good news for the following.

  35. Interesting.

    The EU is not an empire. It is an organisation devoted to international brotherhood and world peace. And yet it has recently destabilised the international situation and come close to starting a major war.

    Greenpeace is not a terrorist organisation. It is a group of concerned people dedicated to saving the planet. And yet it has been declared a threat by the Indian government.

    Whatever next?

  36. I once shared a lift with a Greenpeace delegation coming away from a meeting with the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. They couldn’t stop congratulating themselves for having got exactly what they wanted without having to negotiate. Who needs ‘reds under the bed’ when there are already watermelons in the cabinet?

  37. Wayne Delbeke says:
    June 13, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    I met many people who were involved in the early years. And in the early years, I supported them as they had decent ideals. But it morphed as the originators lost control of the organization they started and Greenpeace became radicalized.

    If the founders of an organization want it to remain true to their ideals, they should not allow the entire membership to elect its officials. Rather officials should be either elected by the original membership (or their designated successors) and/or “co-opted” from above by the original inner circle of founders.

  38. India understand that the CAGW global movement, despite having Barak Obama as its de facto Pope, is fundamentally racist. It is about wanting to keep Europe and America richer and the rest of the world poorer, and driven by disquiet over globally equalising economic growth. They wish to stamp on economic growth of south Asia, south America and Africa. They label their opponents “deniers” with all the ugly implications of that word. However it would be truer to their own racist nature if they were to label carbon-emitting enemies of the people whom they despise as “carbonniggrs”, or “co2ns”. That is who they are.

Comments are closed.