Squeezing Civil Society of their Foreign Contributions

Arshad Shaikh tries to find why the government is clamping down on NGOs by choking their foreign funding. What is the larger political message behind the move, and whether the NGOs are guilty of breaking the law.

Written by

Arshad Shaikh

Published on

Arshad Shaikh tries to find why the government is clamping down on NGOs by choking their foreign funding. What is the larger political message behind the move, and whether the NGOs are guilty of breaking the law.

 

Former Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and our National Security Advisor (NSA), Ajith Doval is said to have a great influence on government policies and is reputed to have the Prime Minister’s ear. In a recent speech, while presiding over the IPS passing out parade in Hyderabad, Doval said: “The new frontiers of war what we call as the fourth generation warfare is the civil society. Wars have ceased to become an effective instrument for achieving their political or military objectives. They are too expensive and unaffordable and at the same time, there is an uncertainty about their outcome. But it is the civil society that can be subverted, that can be suborned, that can be divided, that can be manipulated to hurt the interest of a nation”.

Given this perception regarding civil society, it should be no surprise that the government cancelled the foreign contribution licences of nearly 6000 NGOs, including Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity (MoC). According to the government, either these NGOs did not apply for renewal of their FCRA licence or the Union Home Ministry rejected their applications. Some of those whose licences ceased to exist include Oxfam India, Hamdard Education Society, India Islamic Cultural Centre, Godrej Memorial Trust, The Delhi Public School Society, Nuclear Science Centre in JNU, India Habitat Centre, Lady Shri Ram College for Women and All India Marwari Yuva Manch.

The case of Mother Teresa’s MoC caused a flutter in the media given its high-profile nature. The Ministry of Home Affairs did not renew the FCRA licence of MoC, claiming that it had some “adverse inputs” and the Missionaries of Charity too confirmed that their FCRA renewal had been rejected. (However, the Union Home Ministry restored the licence of MoC after it had submitted more papers.)

How should one look at this issue? Are the cancellations a purely routine administrative matter or does it involve a well-crafted government policy that is intended to send a political message to be encashed during the hustings? It is also possible that many NGOs could not comply with the FCRA regulations and hence did not apply for the renewal of their licences. Nevertheless, it is essential to have a more informed opinion about the whole issue.  Most NGOs and civil society have played a stellar role in nation-building. It would indeed be a tragedy if they are hounded and treated as tools of foreign powers in the alleged fourth-generation warfare against the state.

 

AMENDMENTS TO FCRA AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 is a law that was meant to regulate the funding of NGOs and to check and prevent their use for activities detrimental to the national interest and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The FCRA was amended in 2020 through the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020.

Some of the key provisions of the amended FCRA are: (1) people in government service or being paid by the government are prohibited to accept foreign contributions. Likewise, certain individuals like election candidates, editors and publishers of media publications/newspapers, judges and lawmakers should not accept any foreign funding. An important clause of the amended FCRA is the prohibition of transfer of funds from a person registered to accept foreign contributions to any other ‘person’ who is defined to be an individual, either an association or a registered company.

The FCRA stipulates that the foreign funds can be received only in one account designated as the FCRA account in such branches of the SBI, New Delhi. Another important rule states that the NGO can use only up to 20% of the foreign funds received for administrative purposes. Earlier the allowance was 50%.

 

A SPANNER IN THE WORKS

The restrictions on the use of funds for administrative purposes have almost choked the NGOs and disabled their day-to-day functioning. Many have been forced indirectly to lay off their staff and virtually dismantle operations. Many NGOs are involved in research activities and data collection, most of which require them to collaborate with other agencies and make payments to smaller NGOs. The new constraints virtually signal an end to such endeavours.

According to human rights NGO, the International Commission of Jurists (icj.org), the FCRA 2020 “fails to comply with India’s international legal obligations and constitutional provisions to respect and protect the rights to freedom of association, expression, and freedom of assembly.” It goes against Resolution 22/6 on Protecting Human Rights Defenders passed by the UN Human Rights Council, which declares, “No law should criminalise or delegitimise activities in defence of human rights on account of the origin of funding.” The FCRA amendments follow the time-tested policy of authoritarian governments to hold voices that are inimical to their interests as guilty unless they prove otherwise.

 

PROPAGANDA AND VILIFICATION

In a three-piece article for the Times of India, Dr. P.P. Deshpande analyses the NSA’s declaration of Civil Society as the new frontier of war against the state. His article is a virtual endorsement of the NSA’s doctrine about civil society and a justification of the crackdown on NGOs by the government. He writes that the IB submitted a report to the government in 2014 that alleged a “concerted effort by select foreign-funded NGOs to take down Indian developmental projects”.

The IB report named several agitations as pursuing anti-developmental activities, including the Narmada Bachao Andolan and those against nuclear infrastructure, coal-fired power plants, genetically modified organisms. The article says: “The report put the estimated negative effects of such anti-developmental activities on GDP growth to be 2-3% per annum.”

In his third piece, Dr. Deshpande says: “Amnesty International is said to be one of those NGOs that have a shadowy past and have been trying desperately to meddle with the internal affairs of India. In a video featuring the actor, Naseeruddin Shah, the NGO had claimed that the Constitution was under threat, and dissent is being suppressed in the country. It painted a grim picture of the country, as opposed to the real picture.”

 

THE WIDER GOAL

Therefore, it is apparent that the choking of civil society has two intentions. One is to get rid of all possible opposition that stands up to the neo-liberal agenda being imposed by crony capitalists who want a free hand for market forces and who hate being called to account for their business practices that damage the environment and exploit the labour market.

The other motive appears to be putting down all who dare to confront the communal and divisive forces in the country. These forces covet political glory through the route of subversion of the Constitution and suppression of the fundamental rights of the minorities. It is well-known that the ruling party has a well-oiled propaganda machinery that runs on the back of social media.

These steps to throttle civil society are marketed as examples of how this government is brave enough to stand up against the conspiracies of the West and has stopped the appeasement of minorities who have been stereotyped as ‘unpatriotic’ and a nuisance and obstacle to the growth and development of the country. In an editorial New Target (17 November 2021), The Telegraph India suggested: “This calibrated witch-hunt must be resisted. One way of doing so would be to facilitate greater cohesion between Opposition parties and NGOs fighting for the rights of the dispossessed. The political consequences of such a cohesion could be significant.”