“Amnesty International has been criticized often for its dubious funding, anti-national agenda and its alleged links with pro-jihadi groups. … It repeatedly released reports that sided with Islam in regards to Middle East politics. When Gita Sahgal resigned from Amnesty, she further warned, Islam is trying to whitewash its terrorist image by ‘buying’ organizations she thought were defenders of human rights, democracy and freedom.” – Poonam Patil Kalra
Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty and AI) is a non-governmental organisation supposedly focused on human rights. It boasts of over 7 million members and supporters around the world.
The stated objective of the organisation is “to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated.”
The organization has been criticized often for its dubious funding, anti-national agenda and its alleged links with pro-jihadi groups. The organization says on its website, “We neither seek nor accept any funds for human rights research from governments or political parties and we accept support only from businesses that have been carefully vetted. By way of ethical fundraising leading to donations from individuals, we are able to stand firm and unwavering in our defence of universal and indivisible human rights.”
Despite this claim, Amnesty did receive grants from the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the United States State Department and other governments. It is also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Senior human rights activist, Gita Sahgal, who has worked with Amnesty for seven years for women’s’ rights, warns that Amnesty International is too closely linked to pro-jihadi groups. Sahgal spoke of Amnesty’s links with Moazzam Begg, a former inmate at Guantanamo Bay, and his organisation Cageprisoners. According to her, Islam, and in particular the Sharia law, treat women as second-hand citizens are not the worst sides of this religion. However, Amnesty International repeatedly released reports that sided with Islam in regards to Middle East politics. When Gita Sahgal resigned from Amnesty, she further warned, Islam is trying to whitewash its terrorist image by “buying” organizations she thought were defenders of human rights, democracy and freedom.
Recently, when the Indian government came down harshly on foreign funded NGOs, Amnesty put the following posters in Germany.
The hoarding says: “Threatened, Evicted, Robbed – India’s economy is growing with disadvantage for the indigenous population and poor parts of the society. Entire villages are being displaced to create room for industrial sites. People are forcibly evicted from their homes.“
This is a clear attempt by the organization to show the Indian government and its policies in poor light in front of the western populace. India and its progressing economy seems to be a threat to the NGO.
Amnesty International has been exposed in the past of ideological bias by many governments of non-Western countries, including those of, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, and Russia who have shown Amnesty International for one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor.
Well, it appoints Aakar Patel as its India head. Who is he? Aakar Patel is a jounalist who writes for several dailies including LiveMint and DNA. He specializes in creating vilifying and malicious write-ups especially against Modi. He is famous for making casteist comments, stereotyping people based on their ethnic backgrounds and anti Hindu rhetoric.
If there is Modi-hating company, Aakar Patel is the boss. Not only does he beat others, he betters himself with every new article, thus ascending to new summits of Modi-bashing and in turn plunging to newer depths of moronity. Here are some gems showcasing the twisted logic and Hindu-phobia that Aakar Patel proudly shows off :
1) He wrote an article for Scroll.in, titled “Most extremists in India are not Muslim – they are Hindu”. In the article, Aakar linked Giriraj Singh’s comments on Indian obsession with white skin to extremism and terrorism by Hindus.
2) Narendra Modi is the most famous single man in India. He has a wife, a villager, whom he discarded very early on. He does not respond to stories about her. Gujarati women find Narendra Modi very attractive sexually and, even more than the man, it is the urban Gujarati woman who has made Modi a heroic figure in that state. An ageing woman does not have appeal in society because man is instinctively trained to see that her utility is low. It’s banal but true: To improve their odds in the love market, men need to focus on making more money and women on looking more beautiful.
3) Modi has never been to college and his degree is from a correspondence course. His writing, which is all in Gujarati, is mainly hagiography. It is mediocre and shows little awareness of the world. He has not travelled much outside India. His poetry is shockingly banal. Personally, I am not enamoured of a man who thinks up such rubbish. Unfortunately, his English is also poor, which, in my opinion, has contributed to leaving his mind unopened because there is little access to the world for the Gujarati-only individual. Modi would not have reached the position he is in today, within striking distance of becoming the prime minister, in a civilised nation because he isn’t qualified.
4) His writing is all in Gujarati and—I can claim to know something about this—it is mediocre. He’s not well-read, has little idea about the world or its history. It will be embarrassing, if he becomes prime minister, to have him in the same meeting as US President Barack Obama.
5) So is our dynastic culture all bad? I would say our problem is the opposite. We do not have enough dynasty in India. Indians are unusually good at picking quality dynasties, whether it is the Kapoors or the Nehru-Gandhis. The Congress president has always presented herself as being very moral and upright. So is our dynastic culture all bad? I would say our problem is the opposite. We do not have enough dynasty in India. Indians are unusually good at picking quality dynasties, whether it is the Kapoors or the Nehru-Gandhis. The Congress president has always presented herself as being very moral and upright.
6) Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment. We got a half-literate Catholic woman, but even she has been so good at trying to undo the damage we inflict on ourselves.
In one of his articles Mr. Patel has called Gujarat “money minded, intellectually barren, segregated, ghettoized, non-drinking and vegetarian utopia” that some like him have fled from.
Well Mr Patel, you haven’t been able to flee from the intellectually barren bit. It is the hallmark of your writings. And yes, we are bracing ourselves to counter the venom that you will be spitting, as you align with Amnesty. – ShankhNaad, 20June 2015
Filed under: amnesty international, communism, hinduphobia, india, nehruism, secularism, yellow journalism Tagged: | aakar patel, amnesty international, hinduphobia, media bias, modi-bashing, nehruvian secularism, politics of communalism