Hindu Vivek Kendra

19. To whom is the Report addressed

19.1 It may appear that the intention of the authors of the Report is to mount a judicially sustainable case so that the USA government would take the necessary action. After the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, just like many of the so-called charities run by Muslims which have been found indulging in channelling money to terrorist organisations, IDRF could be similarly banned. Of course, it is after a great deal of effort applied by the various governments all over the world, the fronts for the Islamic terrorists were identified. The Report relies only on twisting the publicly available information gleaned from the websites of the IDRF and the recipient organisations, innuendos, and blatant lies.

19.2 The primary objective of the authors of the Report is to sow confusion, and so create a doubt amongst the less informed sections of the society about the work being done by the IDRF. Many of the organisations in the USA do not want to get themselves involved in any type of media controversy, irrespective of the merits of the case. So, such a type of Report can easily frighten them into taking an action of the type desired by the authors of the Report, without even making an attempt to even try and understand if there is infinitesimal justification provided.

1) We want to expose the link between IDRF and the sangh, so that well-intentioned donors are not misled into thinking they are giving money for "development and relief" while their funds actually go towards supporting sectarian POLITICAL work.

2) We want U.S. corporations to stop their matching donations to the IDRF based on their formal, stated policies of not supporting any religious and political organization.

3) We also want to make it clear that while we are politically and morally opposed to the Sangh Parivar, and by extension, the IDRF, we hold that individuals who want to send their money to the Sangh Parivar through the IDRF, they should be able to do so, based on informed consent. Our Campaign is directed against the deception that the IDRF employs to cloak its political affinity.

19.4 In a legal challenge, it is necessary for a person to be proven guilty, and not for the person to prove his/her innocence. The USA government has applied such rigid standards in the past, as is evident from the following news item in the San Jose Mercury, September 13, 1999:

· "In terms of a determination, we have not reached a legal conclusion that Pakistan has received full M-11 missiles," the official said. He noted that the United States has a responsibility to impose "very high evidentiary standards" before imposing sanctions, especially when a government like China has denied providing Islamabad with complete missile systems.

19.5 Perhaps the authors of the report were forewarned in the way the USA government dealt with accusations of serious nature.

19.6 Earlier in this analysis we had pointed out that people like Rekhi-Rowen, Hathaway, etc., have never said what evidence they have to make their accusations against the IDRF. And even if they have some evidence, they have not stated that they have made them available to the concerned authorities in their country. We think that they are resorting to subterfuge only because they have no case to make, except on the basis of innuendos and falsehoods. This is nothing new, if one has to see the record of the debate on issues surrounding Hindutva, not just in India but also all over the world.