I am reproducing in full the rejoinder sent by Shri Prakash Singh, the chairman of “Indian Police Foundation” in response to my “Open Letter to the Home Minister, Shri Amit Shah” seeking an enquiry into some of the objectionable aspects of the functioning of the NGO, Indian Police Foundation Since he feels wronged by the facts I brought to light but has not answered any of the questions I posed, I have embedded my responses to his rejoinder after he each point he raises. The text of Prakash Singh ji’s rejoinder is indented and in italics. My responses are in blue font.
Read my "Open Letter to HM Amit Shah: Dangerous to Outsource Police Reforms to Foreign Funded NGOs" in response to which this rejoinder has been sent.
Prakash Singh:
Dear Madhu Kishwar,
I read your letter addressed to the Union Home Minister with a sense of shock and dismay – shock because it contained slanderous allegations against the Indian Police Foundation, of which I happen to be the Chairman, and dismay because if you had any reservations or misgivings about the IPF, you could have easily contacted me for clarifications, and I would have been too happy to remove your doubts. We have had very cordial relations and shared the same views on several topical matters. However, for reasons not clear to me, you chose to fire your letter without talking to me or any other senior functionary of the Police Foundation.
You claim to have carried out an investigation into the functioning of the Police Foundation. A very simple and cardinal principle of any investigation is that you give an opportunity to the party you whose work or conduct you are investigating to present his side of the story. Unfortunately, you did nothing of the sort and sent your letter to the Union Home Minister. This is just not understood and is against all principles of any inquiry or investigation….
Madhu Kishwar:
Mr Prakash Singh ji, you are right in feeling hurt because we have always had a warm personal equation. But while offering your defence, you have not answered any of the questions I have raised. Even though I chose not to talk to you before publishing my Open Letter to HM Amit Shah, whatever information I published comes from your own website or my personal knowledge. I did not make any charges based on hearsay…
Prakash Singh:
Anyway, you have done whatever you had to. Under the circumstances, I do not owe you any explanation. However, as you have posted the letter on the Manushi website and promised to post my response also thereon, I shall clarify the position on some of the salient points raised in your letter lest those who read your letter form a wrong impression about the Police Foundation.
The Indian Police Foundation (IPF) and the Indian Police Institute (IPI) are subsidiaries of the registered Society, the Police Foundation and Institute. The IPF is a think tank and the IPI is a professional body and research institute. The Indian Police Foundation and the Indian Police Institute were inaugurated on October 21, 2015, by Shri Rajnath Singh, then Union Home Minister. Independent think tanks for police exist in several countries of the world…
Madhu Kishwar:
I have no issues with the registration of IPF as an “independent think tank”. I have no problem with Mr Rajnath Singh inaugurating an NGO. The question I posed is: When the NGO is registered in the name of Police Foundation & Institute India” with the Registrar of Societies in 2014 ( Registration Number is S/ND/490/2014( and the registration address is at a flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, why is it misleading the public by using the prefix 'Indian' before 'Police Foundation' and masquerade as an official body?” Such misleading use of “Indian” is an offence under Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. IPF is also using the official colours of Indian Police to add to its pretense.
If any ordinary citizen took this liberty, the person could land in serious trouble with law…
Prakash Singh:
You have demanded a judicial inquiry into the functioning of, what you call, “foreign-funded” Police Foundation. Let me say this with all the force at my command that we have not received any foreign funding from any source whatsoever. In the very initial stages, a conscious decision was taken by the Society’s Board that we shall not accept any funding from foreign sources. I am proud to say that in spite of the tremendous financial constraints which we have faced ever since the Foundation was started, we have stuck to our decision. Our primary source of funding is the personal contributions of our members and a few individual well-wishers. Our donors include even constables and subordinate police officers. The office-bearers of the Foundation do not accept any remuneration.
The Foundation, to tell you the truth, has been having a hand-to-mouth existence. Every time we plan an event, we start looking for sponsors and donations. More than once, we discussed amongst ourselves if we should wind up because it was proving very difficult to undertake the various projects. However, we decided to carry on and have managed to keep afloat. Some of the retired officers have gone out of their way to contribute part of their pension, savings or post-retirement earnings. Such being the state of our finances, any allegation that we are getting funds from foreign sources is adding insult to injury.
Madhu Kishwar:
If the organization has clean funding, why is it opaque about its sources? Why are audited accounts, however modest not posted on the website? In the statement filed by IPF on Niti Aayog’s Darpan portal, the society has declared that for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, expenses were met by contributions made by members. No information regarding its funding has been provided for subsequent years. At the website #GivingTuesdayIndia, there is a page for IPF which mentions annual expenditure of Rs 10.9 lakhs. But it’s not clear, which year is covered by that. (See https://www.givingtuesdayindia.org/ngo-detail/21513).
The IPF claims to have several persons employed as regular staff and they organize glamorous meetings with top-notch VIPs invited as speakers and guests. Is the BPR&D/Home Ministry paying their salaries and for their glamorous functions? IPF maintains a studious silence on their income and expenditure…
Prakash Singh:
You have accused us of defending the Zakat Foundation which is said to be linked with the ISI and Lashkar-e-Toiba. Frankly, I have no knowledge of the Zakat Foundation, much less about its links. If there is any such Foundation which plans to infiltrate its students in the civil services, its activities must be probed and appropriate action taken. There could be no two opinions on that. We had expressed our objection only to the criticism of members from other communities qualifying for the Civil Services. India being a plural society, we should encourage all sections of people to be partners in contributing to India’s progress. Government of India is today providing lacs of scholarships to students belonging to minority communities. These schemes are going to boost minority representation in the civil services in future. Their long-term impact is going to be far greater than that of the Zakat Foundation. What would you say to that?
Madhu Kishwar:
Shocking to Claim Ignorance about Zakat Foundation: Both Sudarshan TV as well as I had made it amply clear that we have nothing against Muslims entering the civil service in growing numbers. Our concern is related to their political orientation since a large number of Muslim candidates are being handpicked, trained and groomed by Zakat Foundation to appear in the UPSC exam in order to qualify for IAS/IPS/IFS and other elite services of India. The links of Zakat Foundation with international terror groups, including LeT and Zakir Naik's Jehadi Foundation are well known and acknowldged by the organization. I picked up information about their terror links from their own website and those of related organizations.
The normal response of police officers to such an expose would be to feel alarmed about the national security implications of such a plan by front organizations of Islamic terrorists. Instead, I was shocked to find senior IPS officers —both serving and retired— connected with the Indian Police Foundation, jump in to defend Zakat Foundation of India and attack us, the whistleblowers. If Zakat foundation trained UPSC officers support or endorse Mission Ghazwa-E-Hind of Zakat Foundation,then their presence in high positions of power endangers India.
When the worthies that run IPF know nothing of Zakat Foundation, why did you jump to their defence while demanding action against those of us who are exposing their terror links?
Partisan Agenda of IPF: It can’t be a mere coincidence that IPF has NEVER uttered a word against the cold-blooded lynching of Sadhus at Palghar by Maoists with the brazen collaboration of police. Likewise, IPF has never condemned proven actions of Islamic Jehadis. But you jumped to the defence of a terror-linked organization about whose credentials you claim ignorance when challenged!
I am also amused at your new-found concern for “minorities”, a euphemism for 20 crore strong Muslim community. I still remember how way back in 2003-4 you had given me a long tutorial on the well planned demographic invasion in the North East by Islamic groups leading to serious threat of mini Pakistans mushrooming on our Eastern border. It seems a closeness with foreign-funded NGO’s has changed your entire orientation….
Prakash Singh:
 George Soros: Open declarationof war against nationalist upsurge in India |
The Police Foundation has fraternal relations with all the NGOs campaigning for police reforms. These include the CHRI and other NGOS like the Common Cause, Federation for Restoration of National Values (FRNV), Public Concern for Governance Trust, etc. It is true that in 2016 we organized the Police Reforms function in collaboration with the CHRI, but we did not accept even one rupee from them. Expenses of the function were shared item-wise between the Foundation and the CHRI. The CHRI is, of course, foreign-funded. We have no idea about the funds they receive or how they spend it. We have no links whatsoever with the Ford Foundation. You have also mentioned about one George Soros. I had never heard his name and have no clue about his activities. The IB should be having all the information him.
Madhu Kishwar:
Links with CHRI & Ford Foundation: Nothing wrong in having close collaboration with other likeminded NGOs, Prakash Singh ji. But your NGO consists of senior police officers, IAS officers—both serving and retired. Therefore, you need to be careful about who you collaborate with. I have personally attended quite a few events that you and CHRI organized together. So your claim of organizing just one event with CHRI in 2016 doesn’t hold good. CHRI happens to be a plant of foreign donor agencies. Between 2012 and 2017 alone, they received 53.17 crores by way of funding from Ford Foundation and other agencies—almost all patronising India-Bashing, Hindu-Bashing groups.
By merely signing a petition to the home minister along with several other organizations, including CHRI, to advise the home minister– that enacting a draconian anti-rape law without a serious overhaul of the decadent and corruption-ridden police system will not yield results– does not amount to collaborating with CHRI. In any case, I began to examine CHRI’s political affinities and funding sources only after the recipients of grants by Ford Foundation and other foreign funding agencies started showing their true colours after Narendra Modi’s rise to the office of prime minister.
 One of the many joint events by Police Foundation andforeign-funded Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative |
Ford is well known for its CIA links. CHRI has no roots in the civil society of India but they have systematically infiltrated the government machinery—both at the Centre as well as in many states thanks to their financial political clout. And IPF has assisted their infiltration.
You and CHRI are leading police reforms which are all about internal security. For you to claim that you have never heard of George Soros and his myriad outfits with which Maja Daruwala is involved, is truly shocking. The least one expects from senior police officers and internal security experts is to be well aware of all those within and outside India whose stated and openly declared agenda is Break Up India. Daruwala herself openly comes in the defence of Maoist insurgents and Islamic jehadis. But she too won’t utter a word against the killers of Palghar Sadhus, Swami Lakshmanand or Kamlesh Tiwari.
As for Common Cause, the less said the better. It was founded by Mr Shourie with a very different intent than what it has come to represent in recent years. You and I were invited to join the Governing Board of Common Cause at the same time. But I resigned after I witnessed a complete takeover of the organization by Urban Naxals led by Prashant Bhushan. At one time, you were not happy with the direction Common Cause was taking. But in recent years you seem to have fallen in line with Prashant Bhushan’s politics. If I am not mistaken, the current team running Common cause has now opened their doors to foreign funding because its Director Vipul Mudgal has for long been associated with organizations set up with Ford patronage….
Prakash Singh:
You have said that the Police Reforms are of “dubious value”. I am really surprised and disappointed at your observations. The reforms we asked for and the directions given by the Supreme Court represent the distillation of all the wisdom which has gone into thinking over police problems of the country during the last fifty years. Your observations amount to questioning the wisdom of the profound brains who prepared the National Police Commission Report. It also indirectly amounts to casting aspersions on the learned judges of the Supreme Court. If the reforms have not led to the expected changes, the reasons need to be analysed and understood. I could explain all that to you in any face-to-face meeting….
Madhu Kishwar:
It is time we have an open debate on the police reforms you and CHRI have advocated. You have bypassed the parliament and the due process required for amending the laws governing the Indian police by simply getting periodic farmans issued from the Supreme Court. This amounts to reform by stealth.
Sadly, the Supreme court has blundered too often on too many issues to command unconditional reverence.
Among the many instances where the Supreme Court grossly erred and failed in its bounden duty is the infamous Habeas corpus case during Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, in which the majority of the five-member bench–, Chief Justice A. N. Ray, Justice M. H. Beg, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud and Justice P. N. Bhagwati, agreed with the government's lawless view that even the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India like the right to life and liberty stood abrogated during the period of national emergency. Justice Khanna's was the lone dissenting vote.
I celebrate SC judges when they actually do justice but we have not had too many “profound brains” in the SC. Your close comrade and colleague at Common Cause, Prashant Bhushan, has time and again made serious charges against the moral and intellectual calibre of several SC judges. Why don’t you discipline him?
Prakash Singh:
In any case, how can you forget that Manushi, along with CHRI, FRNV and Common Cause submitted a joint memorandum to Justice JS Verma Committee, emphasising that “any proposals and efforts to change laws around sexual assaults will yield no results until police organizations that are the first port of call for every victim of sexual abuse are reformed” and that “fundamental and core changes in policing are the need of the hour”. You had no problem collaborating with the CHRI then. You may have forgotten, but I still remember you saying on telephone some years back, “Prakashji, Agar aap police reforms ke liye kahiyega to main jhadoo lagane bhi aa jaungi (Prakashji, if you ask me, I will come even to sweep the floor for police reforms). What has happened to the Madhu Kishwar that I knew?…
Madhu Kishwar:
True, I signed the petition warning Justice Verma Committee against making the anti-rape law dangerously draconian, thus giving more arbitrary powers of abuse in the hands of a hideously corrupt, inefficient and compromised police force. But that was a solitary appeal, not close collaboration. But overall, I have steadfastly opposed and stayed away from foreign-funded NGOs from the very start of my public life. However, I began to seriously investigate the funding sources and shenanigans of these NGOs only after their Break Up India agenda became brazen.
No doubt, I feel strongly enough about police reforms to have told you some years ago that I would willing sweep the floors for the cause of police reforms. But the fact is you chose to ally with well-heeled foreign-funded CHRI, not a self-supporting modest organization like MANUSHI. At best, I would be invited to sit in the audience in your events!
Prakash Singh:
An important project on which the IPF has been working with the BPR&D is about the development of policing standards of service delivery to citizens and transformation of the police station. This is in alignment with and in pursuance of the SMART policing vision of the Hon’ble Prime Minister to develop sensitive, responsive and citizen-centric police services in the country. The IPF has signed an MoU with BPR&D to implement this project without charging any fee from the BPR&D. It would also interest you to know that the IPF is engaged in developing policing standards for the safety of women and children. In this connection, it has been holding stakeholder consultations with citizens, police and women’s groups in different states to identify and map the issues and to develop standard policing procedures to deal with sexual assaults on women and children. All these activities are done free of cost by our members in the public interest only.
Madhu Kishwar:
IPF Relationship with BPR&D: While one can have no objection to a private NGO working together with Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPRD) on issues of police reform, how can BPRD, an outfit of the home ministry, allow an NGO to operate out of its sarkari building? Is IPF paying rent to BPR&D? The nature of the relationship between the two needs to be transparent. Is there any official contract between the two organizations regarding the use of BPR&D premises? What is the qualifying criteria for BPR&D to allow the use of its premises to any other NGO working on police reforms? You do not answer any of these questions that I raised in my letter to HM Amit Shah.
You don’t clarify how a private NGO using a misleading name gets office space in a building housing a department of the Home Ministry. You don’t explain whether you are their tenant or have been officially included in the BPRD set up.
Getting rent free office space and other facilities in a prestigious government facility in the heart of Delhi amounts to generous support for a private NGO. YPlease tell us whether this support has the formal sanction of the home ministry…
Prakash Singh:
I am sorry to say, Madhu, that in writing the letter that you have sent to the Home Minister, you have damaged a cause which was and should still have been very dear to you – the cause of Police Reforms with which is linked the safety, the welfare and the happiness of the teeming millions of India. You letter mentions “breaking India” forces. I share your concern. Such forces have always operated at two levels: inimical forces from across the borders trying to disrupt India and all that it stands for and – what is worse and has always been the bane of India – infighting and differences amongst ourselves. Should we not close our ranks and be unitedly fighting the external threats?…
Madhu Kishwar:
Yes, we need to wage a united war against enemies of India—both within and without. But in my experience, foreign-funded NGOs are almost all propped up by “enemies of India.” Therefore, I am doubly suspicious when they hijack important issues, especially those with national security implications. If I was running the Police Foundation, I would not let Ford Foundation or Open Society of George Soros have any role in defining or pushing police reforms.
Prakash Singh:
May be, you were misinformed and misguided. I sincerely hope you realise your mistake and, while withdrawing the letter, would lend us your support in what is a very laudable mission.
Let me assure you that we in the Indian Police Foundation have the most transparent intentions and that we have been working very cleanly without compromising on principles. The objective is to bring about such transformational changes in the police as would make it people-friendly and uphold the rule of law under all circumstances.
Hope, you would think over the matter coolly and review your idea and assessment of the Police Foundation…
Madhu Kishwar:
Prakash Singh ji, nobody has misled me. I studied the documents carefully before I wrote that letter to the Home Minister. You know very well, I have no personal angst against you. In fact, we have always had a warm equation at a personal level. You have also been supportive of Manushi. In fact, a few months ago you sent Manushi Trust a donation of Rs. 5000. And I profusely thanked you for that gesture of support. I would never get upset if you attacked my views or actions on any issue. However, you invited trouble by jumping in defence of Zakat Foundation—which is brazen in its anti-India politics- and demanding action against us whistleblowers.
Your saying that you know nothing about Zakat Foundation makes you doubly culpable. Why jump to defend an organization you are ignorant about, especially after we exposed their subversive agenda with proper documents? And you attacked those like me whose track record you personally know to be above board?
If you are serious about running a transparent organization, please answer all the questions I have posed instead of accusing me of being misled. Could it be that it is you who has been misled by your Common Cause and CHRI comrades?
