On the 7th of August, a clip was shared by leftist propaganda portal The Wire showing Archbishop Joseph D’Souza, president of the All India Christian Council (AICC) and primate of the Good Shepherd Church of India, calling the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 (FCRA Bill 2026), “loot and theft of Christian institutions” and “a Sangh Parivar agenda.”

The podcast where Karan Thapar interviewed Joseph D’Souza was aired 4 months ago, on the 2nd of April 2026. D’Souza, who is a scam accused, foreign funded Christian pastor is being used by TheWire repeatedly to target the Modi government over the FCRA amendments, which would tighten the screws on nefarious and illegal funding, illegal conversions and more.

FCRA Amendment Bill is "loot and theft of Christian institutions – a Sangh Parivar agenda": Archbishop Joseph Dsouza, President, All India Christian Council, to @kthaparoffice for The Wire.#Replug | #TheInterview pic.twitter.com/otlYmHkxOi

— The Wire (@thewire_in) August 7, 2026

By sharing the clip, The Wire joined the chorus of allegations and lies being peddled against the FCRA Bill by several vested interests. The clip was from an interview given by D’Souza to ‘journalist‘ Karan Thapar. In the interview, Thapar begins by declaring the FCRA Bill as containing “draconian and seemingly unconstitutional measures”, to which D’Souza adds his own unfounded claims regarding the Bill.

Concurring with Thapar, D’Souza claimed that if the Bill is passed, it would enable what he termed as “the legalised loot of the Indian Christian community and the global Christian community”. Explaining his grave allegation, D’Souza claimed that the Bill is a ruse to grab the properties and assets of Christian institutions. He further claimed that the Designated Authority envisaged under the Bill is given sweeping powers to “take permanent control of the foreign contributions and assets of any organisation whose foreign contribution registration is cancelled, surrendered or lapses.”

Joseph D’Souza further claimed that the Bill violates the principles of natural justice as the decisions of the Designated Authority are not subject to judicial review or judicial scrutiny.

D’Souza alleged that the provision could be misused by the government by denying or not acting on the renewal application of an organisation on time, which would lead to the seizure of the organisation’s assets. He termed the FCRA Bill a direct assault on minority rights in furtherance of “an RSS agenda to grab the Christian institutions of the nation”.

He attributed ideological motive to the government behind the introduction of the Bill. He claimed that the RSS’s “historic animosity towards Mother Teresa and towards the Christian church” is the reason behind the FCRA Bill. Describing the Bill as a threat to minority rights, the Archbishop equated it with the Office of Jewish Affairs called Referat IV B4 created in Nazi Germany to grab the assets, institutions, synagogues and everything belonging to Jewish people.

The Archbishop alleged that the government’s conspiracy to carry out an “economic loot” and “cripple the Christian community” was disguised as the FCRA Bill. He dismissed the concerns of national security linked with foreign funding and accused the RSS of “terrorism”, claiming that the scrutiny of foreign funding of Christian organisations is unnecessary as Christians are not involved in acts of terrorism.

D’Souza dismissed the argument that the Bill intends to regulate foreign money and proceeds coming to churches which are used for conversion purposes. He went on to claim that Christian organisations in India do indulge in conversion activities and that the government has “no understanding of modern Christianity”.

He threatened that by introducing the Bill, the government would open “a can of worms globally and in the UN”. He said that the action will attract global repercussions and backlash from international organisations. The Archbishop threatened that the Christian organisations will “approach the courts nationally and globally, let the global partners go to their courts” if the bill is passed in the Parliament.

D’Souza, who presents himself as a voice for Dalits and marginalised communities, is not a neutral voice in the discussion about the FCRA Bill. He has faced scrutiny for his foreign funding and financial irregularities in the past. He and his Western associates are notorious for pushing a narrative on international platforms that they belong to oppressed, backward, or untouchable communities in India who later converted to Christianity.

His network of institutions, which includes schools, hospitals and social-service organisations under the Good Shepherd Church and affiliated bodies, receives foreign funding and has, like thousands of other NGOs, faced FCRA compliance checks over the years. Joseph D’Souza co-founded the Dalit Freedom Network, later rechristened as the Dignity Freedom Network (DFN). The network operates major branches in the United States (DFN USA), Australia (DFN Australia), Canada, and the United Kingdom. Its websites and promotional material associated with these organisations present a highly negative picture of India by peddling lies like “Dalits and Christians in India are being killed like insects”.

Joseph D’Souza came under scrutiny after the Telangana CID and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed charges in connection with serious allegations involving money laundering and financial misappropriation. He and his son Josh Lawrence D’Souza were accused of diverting approximately ₹296.6 crore of foreign funds, originally raised for the free education and welfare of poor Dalit children, into private bank accounts, fixed deposits, and luxury real-estate investments through fake invoices and shell companies.

D’Souza is one of the key elements who peddled the “rising hate against Christians” lie to demonise India. OpIndia had conducted a detailed investigation on D’Souza, his scam and his foreign funding.

Who is the kingpin of the lie about ‘Christian persecution in India? #OpIndia is going to reveal the nefarious designs of a scam tainted Christian pastor funded by the international Church network, now under the ED scanner, to defame India and Hindus.

His name? Archbishop… pic.twitter.com/FLRktChhYM

— OpIndia.com (@OpIndia_com) May 19, 2026

The fear-mongering regarding the FCRA Bill is coming from the sections which might face legitimate scrutiny under the new law. However, the reality is far from what is being portrayed by certain vested interests. The proposed Bill explicitly protects all Places of Worship from government conversion, secularisation or repurposing.

The falsity of the claims that the government has been given sweeping powers to take over churches and religious institutions can be ascertained by a plain reading of the text. Here is a clause from the proposed Bill:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), the Designated authority shall, where any asset permanently vested in it or portion thereof is a place of worship, entrust the management or operation of such asset or portion thereof to such person, in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed and ensure that the religious character of such place of worship is maintained.”

As is clear from the clause, the Designated Authority cannot dismantle or shut down a physical place of worship of a church even if it loses its foreign contribution license. Under the proposed law, the role of the Designated Authority is restricted to managing foreign-funded commercial or developmental assets when an FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or allowed to expire. The objective is to ensure continuity of public services.

Contrary to what D’Souza claimed, any order passed by the Designated Authority remains subject to administrative review and judicial appeal before a District Judge. Besides, state-level agencies are barred from initiating local prosecutions without prior approval from the Centre. This is a clear safeguard against arbitrary local action.

The FCRA Bill does not prohibit foreign funding for any religion, including Christianity. Places of worship, including churches, temples, mosques and gurudwaras, will continue to receive foreign donations for genuine religious work. The Bill comes into play only when the foreign funds received are not utilised in the manner that was declared. This may lead to the recipient organisation losing its licence or FCRA registration.

The central government has been reaching out to all the stakeholders to address their concerns regarding the Bill. The government has repeatedly clarified that the law is free from any kind of religious bias and is non-discriminatory in nature.

According to investigators, even after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suspended and later cancelled the FCRA licenses of key organizations associated with the network for alleged regulatory violations, foreign funds reportedly continued entering India through indirect channels.

The cancellation of FCRA licenses meant that the organizations could no longer directly receive foreign donations. Investigators alleged that D’Souza then used his commercial entity, OMBF (OM Books Foundation), as an alternative route.

According to allegations, inflated and fabricated invoices for printing and publishing services were generated and sent to associated or allegedly affiliated organizations overseas. These transactions were presented as legitimate commercial activities, creating the appearance that foreign organizations had commissioned books and publications. Investigators claim that this mechanism was used to continue routing foreign funds into India despite restrictions on direct foreign contributions.

Investigators alleged that approximately Rs 296.6 crore generated through the above-mentioned activities was laundered through investments in real estate and other assets.

While investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) reportedly found that Joseph D’Souza, his son Josh Lawrence D’Souza, and close associates had acquired expensive land parcels, commercial properties, and luxury villas using funds allegedly linked to these activities. 

As part of its action on what it classified as “proceeds of crime,” the ED reportedly attached and froze 12 major immovable properties whose combined market value was estimated at over Rs 15 crore.

The alleged operational model of this financial network was straightforward but sophisticated: portray India’s poverty and social problems in alarming terms to foreign audiences in order to attract donations, then allegedly divert those funds through paper transactions and fabricated invoices into private assets and an affluent lifestyle rather than using them for the intended beneficiaries.

Joseph D’Souza’s critics argue that his influence extends beyond religious activities and that he has maintained close links with sections of India’s political and media ecosystem. They claim that whenever legal action intensifies around financial allegations, political support systems become active in framing such actions as politically or ideologically motivated.

Joseph D’Souza’s association with senior Congress leadership goes back many years.

Following the 2004 general election, when the government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee was defeated and the United Progressive Alliance came to power under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, D’Souza reportedly wrote to church networks in the United States describing the outcome as “Divine Justice” and “a great miracle.”

At that time, D’Souza was serving as the global president of the All India Christian Council. According to Breaking India, these claims and related documentation are discussed in Chapter 8 of the book. 

It also point to more recent developments as evidence of continued political alignment. During debates around reforms concerning Waqf administration, Rahul Gandhi echoed concerns raised by some bishops and church groups, stating that after the Waqf Bill the government might potentially target church properties.

Such political statements serve to frame ongoing ED and CID investigations involving figures like Joseph D’Souza as issues of “religious persecution,” thereby creating a protective political narrative. However, this remains a matter of political interpretation and competing viewpoints rather than an established legal conclusion.

Essentially, TheWire not only platformed, but also peddled over and over again the baseless allegations and outright lies of a bishop who spearheaded an anti-India, anti-Hindu campaign lying about Christian persecution, is accused of a scam worth crores and violated FCRA rules himself, to lie about the proposed FCRA amendments which would tighten the screws around scamsters like him.