The Federation of Indian American Christians of North America (FIACONA) has recently made headlines by urging the U.S. government to designate India as a “country of concern” due to alleged religious violence against Christians. FIACONA’s demands include integrating human rights issues more proactively into U.S. policies and allocating 10,000 asylum visas annually for Christian victims of religious violence from India. However, there are significant controversies and questions surrounding FIACONA’s intentions and its founder’s background.
FIACONA has proposed that the U.S. Congress pass a law allowing victims of religious violence to sue perpetrators, whether non-state actors or government officials, in U.S. courts for criminal and civil negligence. This demand extends U.S. legal jurisdiction to acts committed in India, potentially straining diplomatic relations between the two nations. Furthermore, FIACONA’s call for 10,000 asylum visas for Indian Christians annually suggests a systemic targeting of Christians in India, a claim that is not universally acknowledged or substantiated.
Additionally, FIACONA urges the U.S. administration to classify funds sent by U.S.-based charities to Hindu nationalist organizations in India as terror funding. They advocate for sanctions against individuals and organizations allegedly attacking Christians in India. These actions indicate FIACONA’s aggressive stance against specific religious groups and its willingness to influence U.S. policy to achieve its objectives.
The driving force behind FIACONA is John Prabhudoss, a neo-convert with Tamil and Keralite roots who migrated to the U.S. Before establishing FIACONA, Prabhudoss founded the Policy Institute for Religion and State (PIFRAS) in 2000. This organization operated within the U.S. Green Zone in Iraq, a region controlled by the CIA and Pentagon, where it was involved in teaching governance. PIFRAS remained active until 2012, coinciding with the end of the U.S. war in Iraq, after which FIACONA became Prabhudoss’s primary focus.
Prabhudoss’s connections with CIA, Pentagon, and U.S. Army officials have raised eyebrows, particularly given his work with companies headed by retired U.S. Army personnel. These affiliations suggest a deeper, possibly strategic, intent behind FIACONA’s activities, which might extend beyond mere advocacy for religious rights.
FIACONA has been actively promoting the narrative that Christians in Manipur are under threat, citing the displacement of Christians as evidence. The organization has even set up a Manipur Relief Fund specifically for Christian victims. However, this portrayal oversimplifies the complex ethnic conflict in Manipur, which primarily involves the Meitei and Kuki communities. The situation in Manipur is a socio-political conflict rather than a straightforward religious one, and framing it as an assault on Christians alone risks misrepresenting the broader dynamics at play.
Given FIACONA’s activities and the controversial nature of its demands, there are calls within India to scrutinize and counteract FIACONA’s influence. Some suggest that the Indian government should reject visa applications from U.S. pastors, particularly Evangelicals, to prevent external religious interventions. Others argue that India should place FIACONA and its Indian associates under surveillance, especially concerning the funds sent to Manipur by FIACONA’s Manipur Relief Fund, which could be perceived as financing instability in the Northeast region of India.
While FIACONA presents itself as a defender of Christian rights in India, its actions and affiliations raise several questions about its true agenda and the potential implications for India-U.S. relations. The organization’s demand for U.S. intervention in Indian internal affairs and its attempt to frame complex socio-political conflicts in religious terms exposes its questionable agenda to foment trouble in India.
There is no doubt that human rights and religious freedom are important, but they should not be used as tools for foreign interference in domestic affairs. The Indian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, must take decisive steps to protect India’s interests and ensure that organizations with potentially malicious intent are kept in check.
