125கோடி -ஜல்லிக்கட்டு தடை கோரிய தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் பெற்ற வெளிநாட்டு நிதி - Animal Activist Murali

The FCRA records of Wildlife SOS, associated with Kartick and Geeta Seshamani, tell an interesting story.

From 2014–15 to 2020–21, I repeatedly exposed their FCRA-related issues. Then, suddenly, the Rajamata got involved and the data was removed from the public domain by the Foreigners Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Shame on Mr. Amit Shah. How could such important information be removed from the public domain without his knowledge? Rajmata has apparently had more influence in Delhi than even Modi ji, having been there for nearly 40 years. 🤦

Until the data disappeared, however, the records showed what they had been receiving year after year. In 2019–20 alone, the figure was ₹2,275 lakh, that's ₹22.75 crore, not some insignificant amount.

I had been raising these FCRA irregularities and repeatedly urged the Home Ministry to take action against NGOs that failed to maintain proper accountability. Many of the reforms I suggested in 2016 were eventually incorporated into the FCRA amendments.

Wildlife SOS was subsequently permitted to operate as a wildlife rescue facility. Vantara appears to have followed a similar model on a much larger scale, with its operations subsequently being regularised by the Modi government.

In my view, several wildlife and environmental policies of the Modi government have been detrimental to India's environment, from Wildlife SOS and Vantara to concerns surrounding the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, mining in Uttarakhand and elsewhere, and developments in Assam.

Now Vantara is seeking to establish rescue centres and expand its footprint. Such developments must be examined carefully to ensure that they do not result in the transfer or commercialisation of forest resources in violation of environmental law and judicial directions.

The environment cannot be treated as an afterthought. Wildlife, forests and wetlands are our natural heritage, and governments, whether at the Centre or in the States, must be held accountable when environmental safeguards are compromised.