The crux of Delhi Police’s terrorism case against NewsClick and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha, centers on the accusation that he received financial support from an American entrepreneur, Neville Roy Singham. These funds are alleged to have been funneled through US-based entities to India, with the alleged purpose of inciting unrest, disrupting essential services, causing property damage, and aiding a banned terrorist organization. The FIR, dated August 17, 2023, is founded on a thorough analysis of emails extracted from Purkayastha’s accounts, which had been seized during a previous Enforcement Directorate raid.
Nonetheless, several crucial questions arise regarding the actions and response of the Indian government:
1. Has the Government of India formally requested the United States government to take action against or extradite Neville Roy Singham, a US citizen implicated in financing NewsClick as an act of terrorism by the Delhi Police? Despite being listed as the third party in the FIR, there seems to be no effort to interrogate Singham, leading to inquiries about the government’s motives. Is this reluctance linked to concerns that the fund transfers might have originated from legitimate investments sourced from Singham’s company’s revenue, potentially resulting in India’s extradition request being declined?
2. Has the Government of India officially informed the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) secretariat in Paris about Neville Roy Singham and his companies’ alleged involvement in terror financing? Such notification would allow countries worldwide to take action against him. Additionally, is there any intent to request Interpol to issue a red-corner notice against him? Given India’s reliance on the FATF process for addressing terror financing, the absence of action in this case is puzzling and raises doubts about the strength of the evidence.
3. Does the Indian government publicly assert that the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government sponsor terrorism in India? If so, will New Delhi suspend all dialogues with Beijing and endeavor to reduce the number of Chinese diplomats stationed in India? These allegations imply a significant diplomatic crisis, necessitating clarification of the government’s stance on this matter.
4. In light of NewsClick’s alleged indirect receipt of funds from China, will Indian investigative agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate, the NIA, and the Special Cell of the Delhi Police commence UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and money laundering investigations into all Indian companies that have received direct or indirect Chinese investment over the past decade? This would constitute a substantial undertaking with wide-ranging consequences.
5. If Neville Roy Singham is now a resident of Shanghai, has the Indian government officially requested the Chinese government to take action against him, akin to its requests to Canada regarding anti-India terrorist elements? The potential lack of cooperation from China and India’s response should be addressed.
6. Given the alleged involvement of Xiaomi and Vivo in the conspiracy to destabilize India, will the Modi government contemplate implementing measures to restrict or expel these companies from India? This decision could impact their significant presence and investments in the country.
The answers provided by the Indian government to these inquiries will illuminate the depth and nature of the terrorist conspiracy underlying the police action against NewsClick.