Is the new executive director of Greenpeace a hot seat, considering events over the last year?

I don't view it as a hot seat—which is not to undermine the challenges or seriousness of the situation. Given the nature of our work, we will always challenge the dominant view on what development should be. Economic policies made by the rich and powerful, to aid the rich and powerful, invariably create problems for the environment. Their dominant view tries to separate environmental issues from larger socio-political concerns, which is what we disagree with.

But your critics say Greenpeace itself is rich and powerful—that you accessed funds from overseas, you have resources at your disposal too.

What is a "powerful" and "wealthy" NGO needs to be seen in a context. To compare national governments and international agencies with NGOs is to compare apples with oranges. Greenpeace is, in fact, supported by hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens paying us small amounts of money, between 350 and 750 rupees. We continue to be a legitimate voice because these people stood by us through difficult times.

What's the first thing you'll do as ED?

My priority is to make sure that our staff feels secure, inspired and passionate about the work we do. I think it's time my colleagues renew their focus on the organisational and their own individual missions and aspirations. There are a lot of external and institutional issues I need to address but I am basically telling our people—don't get distracted, stay true to your mission, keep doing what brought you to work for Greenpeace, leave the rest of it to me.

There was a question of whether money would come into your accounts so that salaries could be paid.

The question was not whether money would come in or not. Because you budget expecting a certain amount of revenue, let's say 100 per cent, and suddenly 30 per cent of that revenue goes missing, something has to give. The challenge was the fact that while there were questions raised—I'm not saying legitimately—about our FCRA account, the government went overboard and froze our non-FCRA bank accounts also. It was not a question of fund availability. It was more like having your personal bank account closed so that you simply cannot access your funds.

Has this been resolved?

We've been consistently given relief by the courts which translates to the weak legal grounds on which the government has initiated action against Greenpeace. On all our important issues, which we sought relief from the court on, we have got relief.

What relief did you get?

The court has said, essentially, that while the FCRA matter is being resolved, do not interfere with our bank accounts dealing with Indian funds. Therefore, until the FCRA matter is sorted out the money in our FCRA bank accounts cannot be accessed. Nor can fresh remittances come from abroad. So, for around a year, we have essentially been operating only using Indian funds. It is important to note that, currently we are purely, 100 per cent, functioning using only Indian money.

Will local funding convince your detractors? Couldn't they accuse your Indian donors of the same anti-national intent as your foreign donors?

Who defines what is 'national interest'? My personal view is that as long as people are going to bed hungry we have not served our national interests. I think the matter goes back to the economic model—it is the rich and the powerful who find value in using nationalism as a rallying point. Why would we otherwise spend so much on arms, ammunition or fencing borders if people don't even have access to clean air and water or safe sanitation?

To me, a large, diverse, rich country like India really needs to focus on the betterment of its people and that includes caring for the environment. No country can afford to neglect the environment today. How can you be secure with an increasingly degraded, polluted and dysfunctional environment? It is like saying that the outer body looks all good while the internal organs are rotting. You can have as many power plants and flyovers and industries as you want, if you'll not have clean air, clean water and safe food—what national interest are you then going to defend?

Are you also facing problems in Tamil Nadu with respect to your registration?

Last summer we got various queries from the registrar of societies in the Chennai district where we are registered, and we had been answering them. In autumn a show cause notice came, to which we gave a detailed submission as well. We were surprised in November to get an order cancelling our registration without engaging with the details we had provided. Based on that we went to court and it has indefinitely stayed the cancellation order.

So Greenpeace is a legal entity in India but cannot access funds from overseas.

Yes, though the issue of accessing foreign funds is an independent matter, under the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi, which regulates the FCRA.

In the FCRA case, is your 'foreign funding', per se, made an issue against Greenpeace?

The FCRA case has to do with our accounting—and we have provided reams of information stating that this is a complete misinterpretation of the situation.

Has the charge ever been leveled against Greenpeace in India that it is not proper for it to access funds from abroad?

Even if it is leveled against us I won't even consider it a charge because why is then the FCRA in place? Is Greenpeace the only organisation getting money through FCRA's legal framework? If FCRA is the legal framework that allows you to get money from overseas, then who are you to question us for getting this money legally from abroad? If it's impermissible to access foreign funds in India, why are we allowing for-profit entities to get in foreign funds and why is so much importance paid to Foreign Direct Investment? What is the exact charge against us is my question. There is no charge here, in fact. There is just loose talk. To say 'you should not get foreign money' is loose talk—not a charge. There are more than 32,000 FCRA-recognised institutions and more than 2,300 organisations with prior permission, who are getting foreign funds into India, each listed on the home ministry's web site. Why was this question even being asked of Greenpeace?

Do you know yet what your next campaigns for India will be?

Well, we are at a critical juncture: The Paris Accord has its weaknesses and limitations but it's still remarkable that humanity could agree on something—because we seldom agree on anything now. To translate that text into action, to move beyond pieties uttered at the Paris meet, is really going to be a challenge. This is because countries hope to continue on a normal development track, when it is this very 'development' which is causing environmental problems. The budgets for both simply work against each other—development budgets are a hundred, if not thousand, times higher than conservation budgets. It's as if we cut our leg with an axe and then buy a band-aid to resolve the problem.

Accordingly, your first priority in India...

...has to be climate change. It has to be issues related to that including air pollution, renewable energy, and so on.

Which Greenpeace campaign suffered the worst impact of last year's events?

From what I know so far, it clearly had an overarching impact. I don't think it has affected independent projects—it has affected the institution as a whole. This is simply because nobody likes to wake up in the morning and look at the newspaper having only negative things said about the organisation. Imagine any organisation facing one salvo after the other and what impact that would have. If each time you get some relief, another salvo is fired at you immediately then you have a problem.

Are Indians donating regardless of these issues?

People in general have been very positive. In fact, from my limited early understanding, the overall quantum in terms of numbers of people supporting and the amounts they are donating has actually been increasing rather than decreasing.

Greenpeace is accused of being too active in its activism; your style seen as unconventional by Indian norms. Is that style going to be moderated?

First of all, I don't know if there is anything called the Indian way, given India's diversity. That said I think the Greenpeace style of activism, of creative non-violent protest, fits in with our country's rich tradition of finding ways to spark important conversations.

Unfurling protest banners from rooftops of a corporation would be regarded as a new form of protest, and unusual. That doesn't make it un-Indian, right?

It is unusual...

We are an unusual organisation. We are a unique organisation. Expect unusual things from us.

That's not going to change?

Why should it? As long as it's within the legal framework, why should it change?