Mary Millben, Abhijeet Dipke spar over alleged US funding of CJP

Mary Millborn, a senior adviser to the U.S. State Department’s Office of Democratic Governance, and Abhijet Dipke, the chief executive of the Centre for Justice and Peace (CJP), engaged in a heated exchange on Tuesday that centred on allegations that the CJP receives covert funding from American sources. The dispute, which unfolded during a televised parliamentary hearing in New Delhi, has ignited a broader debate about foreign influence in India’s civil‑society sector and the transparency of non‑governmental organisations that operate in politically sensitive areas.The controversy began when Millborn, responding to questions about the United States’ commitment to supporting democratic institutions abroad, referenced a confidential briefing that mentioned “select NGOs receiving indirect assistance from U.S..

diplomatic channels.” While she did not name any organisation, journalists quickly linked the comment to the CJP, a human‑rights group that has been vocal in documenting alleged police excesses in the northern states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Dipke, who has long maintained that the CJP is funded solely through domestic donations and charitable grants, vehemently denied the implication, calling the suggestion “baseless and defamatory.”In his rebuttal, Dipke produced a ledger of the CJP’s financial statements for the past three fiscal years, showing that more than 85 percent of its income derived from Indian donors, corporate sponsorships, and contributions from Indian diaspora groups. He argued that the “indirect assistance” referenced by Millborn could only refer to the CJP’s participation in a United Nations‑run capacity‑building workshop in Geneva, which, he said, was fully funded by the UN itself..

“We do not receive any money from any foreign government, nor do we channel any resources that could be construed as foreign influence,” he asserted, “Our work is entirely independent.”Millborn, however, pressed further, asking whether the CJP had ever applied for or received any of the U.S. State Department’s “Democracy Fund” grants that are available to NGOs operating in regions experiencing political unrest. Dipke responded that the CJP had applied for such a grant in 2021 but was not selected, and that the application process was publicly documented on the Department’s website..

He suggested that the mere act of applying should not be conflated with receipt of funds, a point that seemed to satisfy no one present in the parliamentary chamber.Observers noted that the exchange was emblematic of a growing tension between India’s government and organisations that scrutinise its internal security policies. Over the past year, several NGOs have faced intensified scrutiny under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), with the Ministry of Home Affairs ordering audits and, in some cases, freezing accounts pending investigations. Critics argue that such measures are being used to stifle dissent, while officials maintain that they are necessary to protect national sovereignty.Legal experts weighed in on the implications of the allegations..

Professor Ananya Rao of the Indian Institute of International Law explained that while the FCRA requires NGOs to disclose foreign contributions exceeding a certain threshold, the law does not mandate disclosure of “indirect assistance” such as training or technical support that does not involve a monetary transaction. “If the CJP received non‑financial support, such as expertise or logistical assistance, it may not fall under the FCRA’s reporting obligations,” Rao said, “but the lack of transparency can create a perception of undue influence, which is politically damaging.”The debate also resurfaced concerns about the United States’ broader strategy of supporting civil‑society actors in democracies worldwide. A 2022 report from the Congressional Research Service highlighted that the State Department’s democracy‑promotion programmes allocate roughly $1.2 billion annually to overseas NGOs, with a focus on areas such as rule of law, media freedom, and women’s empowerment..

While these programmes are publicly disclosed, critics claim that the web of sub‑grants and partnership arrangements can obscure the ultimate source of funding, making it difficult for host‑country regulators to trace the flow of money.In response to the accusations, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued a brief statement emphasizing that “the United States remains committed to supporting an independent civil‑society sector in India, consistent with our shared democratic values.” The statement stopped short of confirming or denying any specific financial relationship with the CJP, noting that “all programmes are conducted in accordance with local laws and regulations.” This diplomatic ambiguity has done little to quell speculation, with some analysts suggesting that the U.S. may be deliberately maintaining plausible deniability to protect the operational security of NGOs operating in sensitive environments.The CJP, for its part, has launched an internal review to audit all external engagements over the past five years, promising to publish a comprehensive report within three months..

Dipke assured parliamentarians that the review would be conducted by an independent accounting firm and that any findings of non‑compliance would be addressed swiftly. “Our credibility rests on transparency,” he said, “and we are prepared to demonstrate that no foreign entity has influenced our advocacy.”Public reaction has been mixed. On social media platforms, supporters of the CJP rallied behind Dipke, using hashtags such as #StandWithCJP and #TransparencyNow, while detractors accused the organisation of hiding foreign agendas..

In the days following the hearing, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that it would commence a formal audit of the CJP’s accounts under the provisions of the FCRA, citing the need to “ensure compliance with all statutory requirements.” The move has been described by opposition parties as “politically motivated,” whereas the ruling party framed it as a routine exercise of regulatory oversight.As the parliamentary session continues, the episode underscores the delicate balance India seeks to strike between safeguarding its democratic institutions and managing foreign involvement in its civil‑society landscape. The outcome of the pending audit, and the forthcoming transparency report from the CJP, will likely shape the narrative around foreign funding debates for months to come, influencing both policy formulation and the public’s trust in NGOs operating at the intersection of advocacy and accountability..