By Nevin Kallepalli
In early June, a gurdwara in Fremont, California, shared a potential bombshell document on X. Obtained through public records requests, the legal note implied that the Hindu American Foundation—an advocacy group for the Hindu diaspora in the United States—maintains a “fiduciary” relationship with the Indian embassy in Washington, DC.
It could have massive consequences: If HAF, one of the wealthiest and most controversial nonprofits to organize on behalf of American Hindus, is financed by the embassy, it could trigger a violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).
It is not illegal to operate as a “foreign agent” in the United States. But organizations must register. And with the filing comes a series of significant requirements. If HAF were to register as a foreign agent, it would be compelled to publicly disclose detailed information about any alleged dealings with the Indian government.
Ben Freeman, the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, described the registration act as somewhat “murky” when it comes to dictating what think tanks or nonprofits can and cannot do. Still, establishing a “fiduciary relationship is really key for FARA.”
On its surface, HAF looks like a typical advocacy group. Created in 2003, it purports to provide school boards, law enforcement, college campuses, and journalists with “a better understanding and inclusion of Hindu Americans.” On an ideological level, many have said HAF is to India what the Anti-Defamation League is to Israel. The foundation—increasingly influential as the South Asian population increases in the US—operates aggressively to help shape a particular consensus on the most divisive political issues in the diaspora. HAF has publicly condemned caste abolitionists in California, Sikhs rallying for self-determination, and reporters who frame India’s military and human rights abuses in Kashmir as an occupation.
Any organization is free to support the policy of a foreign government, but the Department of Justice lays out several criteria that the government would use to establish a relationship between the “agent” and “foreign principal.” As outlined in a 2020 memo from the DOJ, “the purpose of FARA is not to restrict speech, but rather to identify it as the speech of a foreign principal (when fairly attributed), and thus to enable American audiences to consider the source in evaluating the message.” Finances can play a key part. “Frankly, the DOJ hasn’t done a good job of making it clear when think tanks should and shouldn’t register under FARA,” Freeman explained, “but there are a couple red lines that have been drawn.”
One of these criteria is somewhat objective: If the agent is receiving compensation for their activities. The other criteria are more subjective. If HAF were to be investigated by the DOJ, it would have to be established that the Indian government or embassy yields “some level of power by the principal over the agent.” The government would then consider if the foundation had an “ongoing relationship” with the foreign principal, whether their activities are “coordinated with the foreign principal,” whether their relationship is “documented in a written agreement,” or whether their actions are “a one-off or part of a pattern.”
The recent allegation of FARA violation began amid a flurry of paperwork. An activist requested email correspondences between the Indian Embassy in Washington and HAF, under India’s Right to Information Act. The embassy refused to release this information. But it did so in an odd way. According to the documents provided to Mother Jones, the embassy replied to the information request with a denial, and wrote that the disclosure of such emails would “irreparably breach” the trust between HAF and the embassy’s mission. They added that “some of the information” sought by the requesters contained “fiduciary” information that the embassy is entitled to withhold under Indian law.
This story was originally published in motherjones.com. Read the full story here.
