Mr. Moore, India's laws are not written in Washington
Total Views |
India's Parliament is once again confronted with an all-too-familiar phenomenon: foreign politicians attempting to influence the country's legislative process. This time, the trigger is the proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. US Congressman Riley Moore has described the proposed legislation as "a clear attack against Christians" and has even warned that it could affect India-US relations. Such remarks deserve the strongest possible condemnation.
Congressman Riley Moore's intervention amounts to a candid confession of a long-standing allegation that foreign funds are being used not merely for charity but also for religious conversion. Had the proposed amendments concerned only financial transparency, such vehement opposition would have been unnecessary. His remarks have only strengthened public suspicion.
The proposed amendments neither prohibit Christianity nor restrict the constitutional right to profess, practise and propagate religion. They do not close churches or target any particular faith. Their objective is to strengthen the regulatory framework governing foreign contributions received by organisations operating in India by ensuring greater transparency, stricter accountability and more effective oversight. These are legitimate functions of every sovereign state, and the Government has categorically clarified this position.
Despite these assurances, Christian organisations have mounted an aggressive campaign against the proposed law. It is astonishing that a measure dealing with financial regulation has been portrayed as an assault on an entire religious community. Such a reaction inevitably raises uncomfortable but legitimate questions.
_202608061243522021_H@@IGHT_400_W@@IDTH_600.jpg "Mr. Moore, India")
The more fundamental question is this: if the proposed amendments apply uniformly to every organisation receiving foreign contributions, including NGOs, charitable trusts, educational institutions and religious bodies why has the loudest opposition emerged almost exclusively from Christian organisations? This is neither a communal nor a prejudicial question. It is a perfectly legitimate public policy inquiry. Citizens have every moral and democratic right to seek an answer.
If foreign contributions are utilised solely for education, healthcare, humanitarian relief and other charitable purposes, greater financial transparency should not become a matter of existential concern. Every institution handling public or foreign money is expected to maintain proper accounts, disclose sources of funding and submit itself to regulatory oversight. The same standards apply to corporations, trusts, universities and voluntary organisations. Religious institutions cannot reasonably claim exemption from principles that govern every other recipient of foreign funds.
The intensity of the opposition has therefore naturally generated debate about whether some organisations fear greater scrutiny of activities extending beyond genuine charitable work. The Government's position is that stronger oversight is necessary to ensure that foreign contributions are utilised strictly for the purposes for which permission has been granted. Parliament alone will determine whether the proposed amendments strike the appropriate balance between regulation and freedom.
_202608061245228899_H@@IGHT_400_W@@IDTH_600.jpg "Mr. Moore, India")
At its core, this is not merely an argument over the FCRA. It is about the sovereignty of the nation. Every nation possesses the unquestionable authority to regulate foreign money flowing into organisations operating within its borders. Every democracy zealously guards that right. India cannot and must not be treated as an exception simply because certain foreign-funded interests find greater regulation inconvenient.
Indian political parties must clearly state whether they consider Congressman Riley Moore's remarks to be an unwarranted interference in India's domestic affairs. Silence or ambiguity on such an issue would only deepen public suspicion. This assumes greater significance because, over the years, several political parties and organisations have faced allegations and scrutiny over receiving foreign funding or maintaining links with overseas entities. At a time when Parliament is debating amendments to the FCRA to strengthen transparency and accountability, every political party owes the nation an unequivocal position on the principle that India's legislative process should remain free from external pressure or influence, irrespective of its source or ideological orientation.
Congressman Riley Moore would do well to remember that India is not a legislative extension of the US Congress. India's Parliament neither seeks nor requires certification from foreign politicians before enacting laws in the national interest. If Mr. Moore truly believes in democracy, he should first demonstrate respect for the democratic choices of another sovereign nation instead of attempting to influence its legislative process through public pressure. Mr. Moore must refrain from interfering in matters that fall exclusively within the constitutional domain of India.
India is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution and its Parliament. Laws enacted by Parliament are intended to safeguard national interests and ensure accountability within Indian territory. Whether one supports or opposes the proposed amendments must be decided through democratic debate within India and not through political pressure exerted by elected representatives of another country. Mr. Moore's statement is not merely an ill-informed observation; it is a direct and unwarranted intervention in India's internal affairs. Worse, by portraying a regulatory measure as an attack on a particular religion, he has sought to communalise a legislative issue.
The proposed amendments neither prohibit Christianity nor restrict the constitutional right to profess, practise and propagate religion. They do not close churches or target any particular faith. Their objective is to strengthen the regulatory framework governing foreign contributions received by organisations operating in India by ensuring greater transparency, stricter accountability and more effective oversight. These are legitimate functions of every sovereign state, and the Government has categorically clarified this position.
Despite these assurances, Christian organisations have mounted an aggressive campaign against the proposed law. It is astonishing that a measure dealing with financial regulation has been portrayed as an assault on an entire religious community. Such a reaction inevitably raises uncomfortable but legitimate questions.
The intensity of the opposition, coupled with Congressman Moore's intervention, has reinforced a long-standing public suspicion that foreign funds are being utilised for purposes extending beyond charitable activities, including religious conversion. In many ways, Mr. Moore's statement appears to validate precisely those concerns. If a law intended to regulate foreign funding immediately provokes allegations of persecution, people are bound to ask why. The responsibility now lies with Indian Christian organisations to ask their self-appointed well-wishers abroad to refrain from interfering in India's domestic affairs. Silence in the face of such external intervention is only likely to deepen public suspicion regarding their intentions.
It is a matter of public record that allegations regarding the misuse of foreign funds for conversion activities have surfaced repeatedly over the years. Several investigations and judicial observations have questioned the manner in which certain organisations have operated under the guise of social service while allegedly pursuing religious objectives. Whether such allegations are ultimately established in individual cases is for the law to determine, but they are certainly not inventions born out of prejudice. Mr. Moore has merely reinforced concerns that already existed among many Indians.
The more fundamental question is this: if the proposed amendments apply uniformly to every organisation receiving foreign contributions, including NGOs, charitable trusts, educational institutions and religious bodies why has the loudest opposition emerged almost exclusively from Christian organisations? This is neither a communal nor a prejudicial question. It is a perfectly legitimate public policy inquiry. Citizens have every moral and democratic right to seek an answer.
If foreign contributions are utilised solely for education, healthcare, humanitarian relief and other charitable purposes, greater financial transparency should not become a matter of existential concern. Every institution handling public or foreign money is expected to maintain proper accounts, disclose sources of funding and submit itself to regulatory oversight. The same standards apply to corporations, trusts, universities and voluntary organisations. Religious institutions cannot reasonably claim exemption from principles that govern every other recipient of foreign funds.
Equally disturbing is the attempt to invoke the ancient history of Christianity in India as a defence against a law dealing with financial regulation. Such arguments deliberately divert attention from the real issue. History itself contains numerous accounts of missionary expansion accompanied by coercion, deception, violence, brutal killings and cultural destruction in different parts of the world, including India. Before lecturing India on religious freedom, Mr. Moore would do well to acquaint himself with this historical record and the legacy left behind by those who claimed to spread civilisation while undermining indigenous cultures and faiths.
Every nation has the right and indeed the responsibility to know who is sending foreign funds, who is receiving them and how those funds are being utilised. Accountability is not hostility. Regulation is not discrimination. Transparency is not persecution. Any attempt to portray routine financial oversight as an assault on religious freedom is intellectually dishonest and politically motivated. What should never become acceptable is the notion that foreign legislators can dictate the limits of India's law-making powers. The proposed FCRA amendments debate must be led by Indians, guided by the Indian Constitution and decided by India's democratic institutions. Parliament is accountable to the people of India not to politicians in Washington.
At its core, this is not merely an argument over the FCRA. It is about the sovereignty of the nation. Every nation possesses the unquestionable authority to regulate foreign money flowing into organisations operating within its borders. Every democracy zealously guards that right. India cannot and must not be treated as an exception simply because certain foreign-funded interests find greater regulation inconvenient.
ALSO READ: US Republican lawmaker voices against India’s FCRA Bill, calls ‘attack on Christians’; here's how he spreads fake information
Congressman Riley Moore would do well to remember that India is not a legislative extension of the US Congress. India's Parliament neither seeks nor requires certification from foreign politicians before enacting laws in the national interest. If Mr. Moore truly believes in democracy, he should first demonstrate respect for the democratic choices of another sovereign nation instead of attempting to influence its legislative process through public pressure. Mr. Moore must refrain from interfering in matters that fall exclusively within the constitutional domain of India.