What is FCRA, the law related to NGO funding?

 The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has removed some crucial data from the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) website.

The information removed includes the annual returns of NGOs and a list of NGOs whose licences have been cancelled.

The FCRA website used to maintain detailed data on NGOs granted licences; NGOs granted prior permission for receiving foreign contribution; NGOs whose licences have been cancelled, and the ones whose licences are deemed to have expired. It also had the annual returns of NGOs.

The list identifying these NGOs is no longer there and their annual returns can longer be accessed.

While the MHA has not commented on the move, officials say that the removed data was considered “unnecessary” for public viewing.

For several years, FCRA clearances have been a fraught issue, and the government has often been accused of targeting NGOs for political or ideological reasons by cancelling or not renewing their clearances.

Earlier this year, in a petition filed by the NGO Global Peace Initiative, the Supreme Court had asked thousands of NGOs to go back to the government for redressal of their grievances on non-renewal of their FCRA registrations. The registrations of about 5,900 NGOs had ceased to be active after December 31, 2021, owing to either the NGOs not applying for renewal before the due date, or the MHA refusing their renewal for alleged violation of the FCRA.

On December 25 last year, the MHA had refused to renew the FCRA registration of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, based on “adverse inputs”. The registration was, however, restored on January 6, and Missionaries of Charity’s FCRA certificate was made valid until the end of 2026.

What is the FCRA?

The FCRA was enacted during the Emergency in 1976 amid apprehensions that foreign powers were interfering in India’s affairs by pumping money into the country through independent organisations. These concerns were, in fact, even older — they had been expressed in Parliament as early as in 1969.

The law sought to regulate foreign donations to individuals and associations so that they functioned “in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign democratic republic”.

An amended FCRA was enacted under the UPA government in 2010 to “consolidate the law” on utilisation of foreign funds, and “to prohibit” their use for “any activities detrimental to national interest”.

The law was amended again by the current government in 2020, giving the government tighter control and scrutiny over the receipt and utilisation of foreign funds by NGOs.

Broadly, the FCRA requires every person or NGO seeking to receive foreign donations to be (i) registered under the Act, (ii) to open a bank account for the receipt of the foreign funds in State Bank of India, Delhi, and (iii) to utilise those funds only for the purpose for which they have been received and as stipulated in the Act.

They are also required to file annual returns, and they must not transfer the funds to another NGO.

The Act prohibits the receipt of foreign funds by candidates for elections, journalists or newspaper and media broadcast companies, judges and government servants, members of legislature and political parties or their office-bearers, and organisations of a political nature.

In the first week of July this year, the MHA effected changes to FCRA rules through two gazette notifications and increased the number of compoundable offences under the Act from 7 to 12. The other key changes were exemption from intimation to the government for contributions less than Rs 10 lakh – the earlier limit was Rs 1 lakh — received from relatives abroad, and increase in time limit for intimation of opening of bank accounts.

Under the new rules, political parties, legislature members, election candidates, judges, government servants, journalists and media houses among others – all barred from receiving foreign contribution – will no longer be prosecuted if they receive foreign contribution from relatives abroad and fail to intimate the government within 90 days. However, the recipient will be required to pay 5% of the foreign contribution received.

How is FCRA registration granted?

NGOs that want to receive foreign funds must apply online in a prescribed format with the required documentation. FCRA registrations are granted to individuals or associations that have definite cultural, economic, educational, religious, and social programmes.

Following the application by the NGO, the MHA makes inquiries through the Intelligence Bureau into the antecedents of the applicant, and accordingly processes the application.

Under the FCRA, the applicant should not be fictitious or benami; and should not have been prosecuted or convicted for indulging in activities aimed at conversion through inducement or force, either directly or indirectly, from one religious faith to another.

The applicant should also not have been prosecuted for or convicted of creating communal tension or disharmony; should not have been found guilty of diversion or misutilisation of funds; and should not be engaged or likely to be engaged in the propagation of sedition.

The MHA is required to approve or reject the application within 90 days. In case of failure to process the application in the given time, the MHA is expected to inform the NGO of the reasons for the same.

For how long is approval granted?

Once granted, FCRA registration is valid for five years. NGOs are expected to apply for renewal within six months of the date of expiry of registration. In case of failure to apply for renewal, the registration is deemed to have expired, and the NGO is no longer entitled to receive foreign funds or utilise its existing funds without permission from the ministry.

The FCRA registration of close to 5,900 NGOs, including Oxfam India Trust and Indian Medical Association, lapsed on December 31 last year. According to sources, the registration of as many as 5,789 NGOs had lapsed after they failed to apply for renewal before the due date. The rest, who had applied for renewal, were refused as the MHA found their operations or accounts to be in violation of the FCRA, sources had said at the time.

According to the MHA, NGOs failing to apply before the due date can petition the ministry with cogent reasons within four months of the expiry of registration, following which their applications can be reconsidered.

Many NGOs do not apply for renewal for a variety of reasons, which include either completion of the project for which the FCRA registration had been taken or the NGO itself folding up.

On what basis is approval cancelled?

The government reserves the right to cancel the FCRA registration of any NGO if it finds it to be in violation of the Act.

Registration can be cancelled if an inquiry finds a false statement in the application; if the NGO is found to have violated any of the terms and conditions of the certificate or renewal; if it has not been engaged in any reasonable activity in its chosen field for the benefit of society for two consecutive years; or if it has become defunct.

It can also be cancelled if “in the opinion of the Central Government, it is necessary in the public interest to cancel the certificate,” the FCRA says.

Registrations are also cancelled when an audit finds irregularities in the finances of an NGO in terms of misutilisation of foreign funds.

According to FCRA, no order of cancellation of certificate can be made unless the person or NGO concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Once the registration of an NGO is cancelled, it is not eligible for re-registration for three years.

The ministry also has powers to suspend an NGO’s registration for 180 days pending inquiry, and can freeze its funds.
All orders of the government can be challenged in the High Court.

Which NGOs have been accused of violating FCRA provisions?

Several international and well-known NGOs such as Compassion International, Greenpeace India, Sabrang Trust, Lawyers’ Collective, Amnesty International, and Ford Foundation have come under the government’s scanner for alleged violations of FCRA.

Most have been accused of financial irregularities or “political activity” for cancellation of their registration. Amnesty was forced to shut its operation in India in 2020 following investigations launched by the Enforcement Directorate in 2018 into its financial dealings. Amnesty called the government action “witch-hunt of human-right activists…and a crackdown on dissent”.

Greenpeace India has scaled down its operations after its FCRA registration was cancelled in 2015 on grounds of opening multiple bank accounts, and movement of funds.

Lawyer Indira Jaising’s NGO Lawyers’ Collective is facing a CBI probe. In 2016, the MHA had cancelled the FCRA licence of the NGO for allegedly using foreign contributions for “political purposes”.

Activist Teesta Setalvad’s NGO Sabrang Trust had its FCRA registration cancelled in 2016 for allegedly mixing foreign and domestic funds, and for spending funds on publishing the Communalism Combat magazine.

In April 2015, the MHA put the Ford Foundation under the “prior approval category”, which meant that all funds from the organisation to recipients in India would have to be cleared by the government. The international NGO was also put on the Home Ministry’s watch list for some time in the interest of “national security”.

In 2016, Compassion International was barred by the government from funding NGOs in India over allegations of conversion.

Has the FCRA been used to target certain NGOs?

Until 2011, there were more than 40,000 NGOs registered under FCRA in India. That number now stands at 16,000.

Over the past few years, the government has faced allegations of targeting NGOs. Over the past seven years, the Narendra Modi government has cancelled the registration of more than 16,700 NGOs. Over 10,000 of these cancellations were carried out in 2015.

The previous UPA government had cracked down on NGOs following protests against the Kudankulam nuclear power project in Tamil Nadu. In 2012, the Manmohan Singh government cancelled the registration of almost 4,000 NGOs — up from just four the previous year.

It was under the UPA government that Greenpeace India first came under the scanner. Also, Amnesty International, which was first granted FCRA registration in 2000, was not allowed renewal of its registration by the UPA government.

Written by Deeptiman Tiwary

Source: Indian Express, 14/07/22

What is FCRA, the law related to NGO funding which certain MHA officials are accused of violating?

 The CBI on Tuesday (May 10) carried out searches at 40 places and questioned six officials of the Foreigners Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for allegedly accepting bribes to give clearances under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010 to certain NGOs.

A CBI spokesperson said the operation was conducted “to nab representatives of NGOs, middlemen and public servants of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) division of MHA for committing violations of FCRA provisions and facilitating illegal clearances in lieu of bribes”.

Sources in the investigating agency claimed some of the accused, including public servants, have been apprehended while exchanging bribes. “Around half a dozen public servants and others are being questioned. During searches so far, transactions of around Rs 2 crore through hawala channels have been found,” a CBI officer said.

FCRA clearances have been a fraught issue for several years, and the government has often been accused of targetting NGOs for political or ideological reasons by cancelling or not renewing their clearances.

Earlier this year, in a petititon filed by the NGO Global Peace Initiative, the Supreme Court had asked thousands of NGOs to go back to the government for redressal of their grievances on non-renewal of their FCRA registrations. The registrations of about 5,900 NGOs had ceased to be active after December 31, 2021, owing to either the NGOs not applying for renewal before the due date, or the MHA refusing their renewal for alleged violation of the FCRA.

On December 25 last year, the MHA refused to renew the FCRA registration of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, based on “adverse inputs”. The registration was, however, restored on January 6, and Missionaries of Charity’s FCRA certificate was made valid until the end of 2026.

What is the FCRA?

The FCRA was enacted during the Emergency in 1976 amid apprehensions that foreign powers were interfering in India’s affairs by pumping money into the country through independent organisations. These concerns were, in fact, even older — they had been expressed in Parliament as early as in 1969.

The law sought to regulate foreign donations to individuals and associations so that they functioned “in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign democratic republic”.

An amended FCRA was enacted under the UPA government in 2010 to “consolidate the law” on utilisation of foreign funds, and “to prohibit” their use for “any activities detrimental to national interest”.

The law was amended again by the current government in 2020, giving the government tighter control and scrutiny over the receipt and utilisation of foreign funds by NGOs.

Broadly, the FCRA requires every person or NGO seeking to receive foreign donations to be (i) registered under the Act, (ii) to open a bank account for the receipt of the foreign funds in State Bank of India, Delhi, and (iii) to utilise those funds only for the purpose for which they have been received and as stipulated in the Act.

They are also required to file annual returns, and they must not transfer the funds to another NGO.

The Act prohibits the receipt of foreign funds by candidates for elections, journalists or newspaper and media broadcast companies, judges and government servants, members of legislature and political parties or their office-bearers, and organisations of a political nature.

How is FCRA registration granted?

NGOs that want to receive foreign funds must apply online in a prescribed format with the required documentation. FCRA registrations are granted to individuals or associations that have definite cultural, economic, educational, religious, and social programmes.

Following the application by the NGO, the MHA makes inquiries through the Intelligence Bureau into the antecedents of the applicant, and accordingly processes the application.

Under the FCRA, the applicant should not be fictitious or benami; and should not have been prosecuted or convicted for indulging in activities aimed at conversion through inducement or force, either directly or indirectly, from one religious faith to another.

The applicant should also not have been prosecuted for or convicted of creating communal tension or disharmony; should not have been found guilty of diversion or misutilisation of funds; and should not be engaged or likely to be engaged in the propagation of sedition.

The MHA is required to approve or reject the application within 90 days. In case of failure to process the application in the given time, the MHA is expected to inform the NGO of the reasons for the same.

For how long is approval granted?

Once granted, FCRA registration is valid for five years. NGOs are expected to apply for renewal within six months of the date of expiry of registration. In case of failure to apply for renewal, the registration is deemed to have expired, and the NGO is no longer entitled to receive foreign funds or utilise its existing funds without permission from the ministry.

The FCRA registration of close to 5,900 NGOs, including Oxfam India Trust and Indian Medical Association, lapsed on December 31 last year. According to sources, the registration of as many as 5,789 NGOs had lapsed after they failed to apply for renewal before the due date. The rest, who had applied for renewal, were refused as the MHA found their operations or accounts to be in violation of the FCRA, sources had said at the time.

According to the MHA, NGOs failing to apply before the due date can petition the ministry with cogent reasons within four months of the expiry of registration, following which their applications can be reconsidered.

Many NGOs do not apply for renewal for a variety of reasons, which include either completion of the project for which the FCRA registration had been taken or the NGO itself folding up.

On what basis is approval cancelled?

The government reserves the right to cancel the FCRA registration of any NGO if it finds it to be in violation of the Act.

Registration can be cancelled if an inquiry finds a false statement in the application; if the NGO is found to have violated any of the terms and conditions of the certificate or renewal; if it has not been engaged in any reasonable activity in its chosen field for the benefit of society for two consecutive years; or if it has become defunct.

It can also be cancelled if “in the opinion of the Central Government, it is necessary in the public interest to cancel the certificate”, the FCRA says.

Registrations are also cancelled when an audit finds irregularities in the finances of an NGO in terms of misutilisation of foreign funds.

According to FCRA, no order of cancellation of certificate can be made unless the person or NGO concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Once the registration of an NGO is cancelled, it is not eligible for re-registration for three years.

The ministry also has powers to suspend an NGO’s registration for 180 days pending inquiry, and can freeze its funds.
All orders of the government can be challenged in the High Court.

Which NGOs have been accused of violating FCRA provisions?

Several international and well-known NGOs such as Compassion International, Greenpeace India, Sabrang Trust, Lawyers’ Collective, Amnesty International, and Ford Foundation have come under the government’s scanner for alleged violations of FCRA.

Most have been accused of financial irregularities or “political activity” for cancellation of their registration. Amnesty was forced to shut its operation in India in 2020 following investigations launched by the Enforcement Directorate in 2018 into its financial dealings. Amnesty called the government action “witch-hunt of human-right activists…and a crackdown on dissent”.

Greenpeace India has scaled down its operations after its FCRA registration was cancelled in 2015 on grounds of opening multiple bank accounts, and movement of funds.

Lawyer Indira Jaising’s NGO Lawyers’ Collective is facing a CBI probe. In 2016, the MHA had cancelled the FCRA licence of the NGO for allegedly using foreign contributions for “political purposes”.

Activist Teesta Setalvad’s NGO Sabrang Trust had its FCRA registration cancelled in 2016 for allegedly mixing foreign and domestic funds, and for spending funds on publishing the Communalism Combat magazine.

In April 2015, the MHA put the Ford Foundation under the “prior approval category”, which meant that all funds from the organisation to recipients in India would have to be cleared by the government. The international NGO was also put on the Home Ministry’s watch list for some time in the interest of “national security”.

In 2016, Compassion International was barred by the government from funding NGOs in India over allegations of conversion.

Has the FCRA been used to target certain NGOs?

Until 2011, there were more than 40,000 NGOs registered under FCRA in India. That number now stands at 16,000.

Over the past few years, the government has faced allegations of targeting NGOs. Over the past seven years, the Narendra Modi government has cancelled the registration of more than 16,700 NGOs. Over 10,000 of these cancellations were carried out in 2015.

The previous UPA government had cracked down on NGOs following protests against the Kudankulam nuclear power project in Tamil Nadu. In 2012, the Manmohan Singh government cancelled the registration of almost 4,000 NGOs — up from just four the previous year.

It was under the UPA government that Greenpeace India first came under the scanner. Also, Amnesty International, which was first granted FCRA registration in 2000, was not allowed renewal of its registration by the UPA government.

Written by Deeptiman Tiwary

Source: Indian Express, 11/05/22

By banning NGOs from foreign funds, the govt is crippling its own services, laws

It was at an airy, well-equipped hospital of 100 beds on a sylvan hilltop in tribal Tamil Nadu that N Devadasan realised how, even when it appears prepared, India’s public health system is not. Catering to about 17,000 tribals at the tri-junction of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka, the government hospital could not stop the deaths of many pregnant women. There was no follow-up care after admission, and there were only two doctors, usually loath to physically examine their tribal patients. “There was a local saying,” said Devadasan. “‘You come in on your own, and you are carried out by four people’.”

A soft-spoken, earnest doctor determined to work “in a place of need”, Devadasan spent a decade with his wife in the late 1980s and ’90s catering to the primary healthcare needs of tribals whose children died from reasons difficult to comprehend in prosperous, emerging India, including diarrhoea, measles, respiratory infections and malnutrition. These illnesses continue to kill Indian children by the thousands. Although India has steadily improved its infant-mortality rate (a 53% drop over a quarter century), a million babies die every year at a rate higher than the average of 154 low- and middle-income countries.

Living on the forest edge in the town of Gudalur, initially in a leaky house with no TV, fridge or running water, except in the toilet, the Devadasans represented many idealistic folk who try to fill the country’s biggest governance gap: The last-mile delivery of services, particularly to disadvantaged communities. The Devadasans set up a system of immunising children, monitoring growth and delivering babies, but they could not handle complicated deliveries or treat disease, such as pneumonia. Financed by British and Dutch donors, the NGO they worked for asked the government: Could they volunteer at the hilltop hospital? No. Could they get vaccines to deliver to remote tribal villages? No.

This perverseness is an Indian quality. It also explains why many NGOs that work on governance failures report that Indian donors want to see buildings or tangible things — they are reluctant to donate money for research or training, and, largely, flee from anything that spells “r-i-g-h-t-s”. After a decade with the tribals of Gudalur, the Devadasans left to see if they could address the knowledge gap at the district and state level in the government health system by working with public health services. If they could be strengthened, the poorest would benefit.

Today, Devadasan’s decade-old NGO, the Institute of Public Health (IPH) — run from a modest house in a Bangalore suburb — generates data from within district hospitals to help evidence-based decision making. It shares the data to influence policy — in other words, advocacy (which, Devadasan admitted, is now a “bad word”), and provides on-the-job training and professional education for government health officers.

Some IPH recommendations have become part of India’s public-healthcare improvements. Devadasan was part of the Karnataka government’s task-force on reorganising primary healthcare and the national health assurance mission; a colleague was part of India’s official delegation to the UN in October on anti-tobacco laws; and IPH training programmes — for the police, education, urban development, information, infotech/biotech and other departments — have led to Karnataka, which has tasked the NGO with being the implementing agency, being furthest along in giving life to the country’s anti-tobacco law, more than eight years after it came into force, 13 years after it was passed.

Helping the government implement its own laws in a country full of high-quality legislation but poor execution is an important role that NGOs like the IPH fulfil. That argument did not stop Narendra Modi’s government from banning, “in the public interest” or for “anti-national activities — to use the vague, official reasons — foreign donations to IPH and 24 other NGOs in November. The real reasons, of course, are clearer. 

Some of the NGOs forbidden from foreign donations have helped implement laws in a manner inconvenient to Modi in the past, such as the Sabrang Trust of Teesta Setalvad, which fought cases on behalf of Muslim victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the Lawyers Collective, run by former Indian additional solicitor general Indira Jaising, who defended Sabrang. Another banned NGO includes Gujarat’s 27-year-old Navsarjan Trust, which has built facilities for disenfranchised Dalits and fought legal cases, most notably on behalf of four Dalit tanners flogged by Right-wing Hindu vigilantes for skinning cows.

The IPH had rocked no boat associated with the BJP (although, its anti-tobacco work, I heard, could have riled the tobacco industry). Its foreign-donations ban further illustrates the inherently arbitrary and opaque nature of the government’s actions. Devadasan first got to know of the cancellation of the IPH’s foreign-contribution licence from the newspapers. An appeal to ministry of home affairs, got this reply on December 26: “It is (sic) to inform that the application for renewal is refused in the public interest.”

With four donors (Belgian, German, the United States, and the Red Cross) cashiered, so to say, the IPH’s Rs 2.5-crore annual budget is in disarray, and 30 of IPH’s 40 public health professionals and other staff will leave by the end of this month. Only one donor remains: The World Health Organization, which does not require government clearance.

To use the public-interest justification against respected organisations that work in the public interest, delivering the government’s own laws and services, is an act of irony (consider, the IPH works with the health ministry and faces action from the home ministry). To provide no clear justification is not only perverse but sets yardsticks others can similarly misuse — the precedent for the hounding of NGOs was established by the previous Congress government. And to argue that these NGOs can do without foreign donations — which political parties are free to receive — hides the uncomfortable fact that Indian donors aren’t exactly lining up.

One prospective Indian donor told Devadasan the most it would do was sponsor a bag of medicines — provided IPH carried their logo and name.

Samar Halarnkar is editor, Indiaspend.org, a data-driven, public-interest journalism non-profit

Source: Hindustan Times, 8-02-2017

Foreign funds pour in; 3,000 NGOs get over Rs. 22,000 cr.

TOPICS

politics

As of July 2016, 33,091 NGOs were registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, which regulates foreign funding to these bodies.

A total of 3,068 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) received foreign funding above Rs. 22,000 crore in 2014-15, according to government data presented in response to a question in Parliament.

These are NGOs who reported receiving more than Rs. 1 crore from foreign donors. This amount was 83.3 per cent (nearly double) more than the Rs. 12,000 crore received by 2,301 such NGOs during 2013-14. As much as Rs. 7,300 crore — or 33 per cent of the total — went to NGOs based in Delhi and Tamil Nadu alone.

In fact, 80 per cent of this funding went to NGOs based in seven States — Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal.

As of July 2016, 33,091 NGOs were registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, which regulates foreign funding to these bodies.

Delhi, T.N. NGOs get chunk of foreign funds

The total funds received from abroad during the last three years and the current year is Rs. 51,000 crore, the Home Ministry said in response to a question in Parliament last week.

“Delhi has always been the top recipient as many international charities are registered in the capital and funds are then passed on to other States. Similarly, Maharashtra figures [high] on the list as many organisations register in Bombay,” Mathew Cherian, Chairperson of Voluntary Action Network India told The Hindu.

Granular data with details of funders and recipients is not available after 2011-12. In that year, the highest foreign contribution was received by the World Vision of India, Tamil Nadu, (Rs. 233.38 crore), followed by the Believers Church India, Kerala (Rs. 190.05 crore), Rural Development Trust, Andhra Pradesh (Rs. 144.39 crore), Indian Society Of Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, Delhi (Rs. 130.77 crore) and Public Health Foundation of India, Delhi (Rs. 130.31 crore).

Faith-based charities tend to attract more foreign funding, Mr. Cherian said. “Southern States get more foreign money due to the presence of Christian organisations,” he added.

U.S., U.K. and Germany were among the top donor countries in 2011-12.

The highest amount of foreign donor money was utilised for rural development, followed by the welfare of children, construction and maintenance of schools and colleges and research, the annual FCRA report of 2011-12 said.

Keywords: Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, non-governmental organisations, Voluntary Action Network India

Source: The Hindu, 3-08-2016

NGOs: An extension of the government, not an adversary

Those who question the government’s policies are targeted. It is a pattern,” said lawyer Indira Jaising after her NGO — Lawyers’ Collective — was barred from receiving foreign funds for six months and its licence suspended for alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) by the government last week. Ms Jaising is not the only one who thinks that the government is using the FCRA as a tool to silence dissenting voices; there are many others. In this case and several earlier cases — Greenpeace being a well-known one — the government’s timing of issuing strictures and its targets have been injudicious, to say the least. In the case of Greenpeace, the NGO’s employee was going to Britain to speak on tribal rights and mining; and in the Jaising case, she had just returned from a release function of a book on the 2002 Gujarat riots. The timing and choice of targets have led to the criticism that the Centre cannot stomach dissent. While no one holds any brief for corrupt NGOs, in both these cases, the motives are less than benign.

Read | Indira Jaising’s NGO ‘Lawyers Collective’ suspended for 6 months

In fact, the Centre’s run-in with foreign-funded NGOs started in 2014. Last year, it proposed new rules that would require banks to report every transaction made by these organisations within 48 hours. Additionally, the NGOs will have to pledge that the money won’t be used for activities that go against national, public, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests — with the government retaining the right to interpret what these are.

Last week, Union Minister for Urban Development, Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, and Parliamentary Affairs Venkaiah Naidu wrote a piece in a national daily describing what kind of ‘activism’ the government will accept from NGOs. Saying that the government respects dissent and freedom of speech and expression but they are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions, the minister said that NGOs must practise “evidence-based advocacy”. The minister, more than anyone else, knows that in many cases, especially when it comes to the rights of the people, “evidence-based advocacy” is not always possible. In Bastar, getting people to speak against the high-handedness of the security forces and government can be a challenge. Should NGOs not raise issues because there is no evidence, at least the type the government wants.

The Centre must realise that raising uncomfortable questions has its value. Moreover, NGOs can work as an extension of the government and help it in implementing social schemes effectively. Looking at them as adversaries will only lead to more tension and criticism.

Source: Hindustan Times, 5-06-2016

NGOs outnumber cops 2:1

Dhananjay Mahapatra

New Delhi





But Only 10% Of The 30 Lakh Organisations Submit Accounts: CBI

For a country ranking low in social indices, the data provided to the Supreme Court on Friday by the CBI on non-government organisations was both startling and heartening -there are two NGOs for every policeman.On a petition filed by advocate M L Sharma alleging misuse of funds by an Anna Hazare-led NGO in Maharashtra, the SC had asked the CBI two years ago to count the number of NGOs and how many were filing annual income and expenditure details with the Registrar of Societies.
At the last count on September 1, the CBI found that there were 30,81,873 NGOs operating in India which would indicate a heartening trend of so many organisations working for the uplift of a large population.
But this heartening finding was accompanied by a startling feature -only 10% of the 3 million NGOs submit accounts of their funding and expenditure to the authorities as mandatorily required under the Societies Registration Act. This means no one knows how more than 27 lakh NGOs spent their funds. Of the total 30.81 lakh NGOs registered under the Societies Registration Act, only 2.9 lakh NGOs filed annual returns with the authorities indicating their fund inflow and expenditure details. Jammu & Kashmir with 147 NGOs and Mizoram with 34 NGOs were fully compliant with the law requiring annual filing of funding and expenditure details. The NGOs outnumber the total police force by almost two to one. Total policemen, both civil and armed, in India number 15.85 lakh.
Sharma's PIL had alleged misuse of funds by Hazare's NGO Hind Swaraj Trust (HST). After the state government provided details of misuse of funds, a bench headed by Justice H L Dattu had on September 2, 2013, asked the CBI to find out details of funding of NGOs across India.
Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology , which functions under the rural development ministry , had given a grant of Rs 1 lakh to HST for watershed development in three villages in 1999-2001, but more than 90% of the money was spent on honorarium, travelling, printing and stationery , the court was told.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com

The gag on Greenpeace

For a while now, Greenpeace has been in the cross hairs of the government, first under the UPA and now under the BJP, as it championed civil liberties and causes. Its activists have been prevented from travelling abroad. The non-governmental organisation (NGO) stands accused of concealing and mixing foreign contributions with local contributions. The latest step by the Ministry of Home Affairs simply cancelling Greenpeace’s registration was but an expected next stage in the chain of events leading to a gag that is meant to choke. The obvious assumption is that without funds Greenpeace in India will not be able to function. This has come even as a petition from Greenpeace seeking release of funds to pay its staff, and alleging arbitrariness in the government’s action, is before the Delhi High Court. The action taken under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) — which many NGOs say is a bad application of a poorly drafted piece of legislation — means Greenpeace will not be able to receive any foreign donations. The move has made other NGOs vulnerable too; they face a tough choice, of either complying with the government’s line, or fading out. The media have reported that the invoking of the provisions of the Act followed certain actions by Greenpeace that were deemed inimical to the economic interests of the state. Everything from placing advertisements in newspapers to organising protests against the Kundankulam nuclear plant to anti-nuclear activism, was deemed inimical. Already there is word of some NGOs trying to tailor their activities to suit the interests of the government. What can a democratically elected government possibly achieve by enforcing such compliance and conformity?

Also, it is time to have another look at the FCRA. Passed in 1976 and amended in 2010, it has come in for criticism not only for the overarching control it seeks to have over people-based movements but also for the guidelines framed around it. The MHA is now changing the rules, spelling out what NGOs are required to do, even seeking to scrutinise their social media engagement. Whether the MHA should be looking into expenditure incurred by an NGO to teach street children, for instance, is a moot question. There is hypocrisy involved when some political parties are free to receive corporate donations, especially from abroad, without any questions asked. Equally, all NGOs must respect the law of the land, maintain transparency and remain above board: admittedly, there are some black sheep. Most of them comply; some don’t. But that should be no excuse to gag. Civil liberties and free speech go hand in hand. The government will be ill-advised to trample on these.

Keywords: Greenpeace, NDA government, FCRA

NGO performs in city to bring about social change in villages

Ankita Bhatkhande TWEETS @aanks





Through street plays and traditional dances, the Jharkhand group is urging people to make calls to officials and help solve grievances of rural folk, whose complaints are uploaded on their website

A group of Gond adivasis, from Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh, are performing in the city to spread an initiative of CGNet Swara, a Jharkhand based NGO that works for the welfare of advasis, and to bring about social change in maoist affected villages of central India.Through street plays and traditional dances, the group is spreading the initiative “Chattis se Trisath“, that emphasises on looking at each other rather than looking away, and hopes to bridge the communication barrier between urban and rural India.
The initiative was the brainchild of Shubhranshu Chaudhary, a journalist born and brought up in Koriya District, Chattisgarh, where there was a huge disparity between people, the administration and the government.This was not only a result of the power equation and hierarchy, but also arose from the language barrier.While the initiative was launched five years ago, it is only recently that the group began visiting urban areas to spread the message. They will be performing in Mumbai till mid-September.
“Most officials did not understand what tribals said, and people were unable to voice grievances. They started befriending maoists as they knew the language, but it did not help solve problems of food, water and shelter. I wanted to devise a communication system that would be free and solve the issues of distance and language for the people. Thus Swara was born,“ said Chaudhary.
HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS
Villagers can call Swara's toll free number and record grievances in their own language. They will be prompted to give contact details of the official in charge at the administrationgovernment level. The grievances will be translated into English by Swara and uploaded on their website. People across the country -and the world -can make calls to the officials to remind them about the villagers' problems. “We realised that adivasis can be trained to register complaints, but sometimes their complaints get trivialised. But if people like you and me make calls, officials will be pressurised to acting,“ said Chaudhary.
THE IMPACT
Over the years, the initiative helped solve various problems, from basic demands for a hand pump, to major issues like not getting pension. People from all walks of life called officials, requesting them to act on complaints.
After having performed in villages, the group is now visiting institutions across Mumbai, urging people through traditional songs, dance and puppet shows to make calls for social change. “We want to bridge the barrier of language and distance, so that the world is a better place for tribals in the remotest parts of India,“ said Pawan Satyarthi, group leader at Swara.

Dissent and democracy

Date:Jun 25, 2015

Forty years after the Emergency was declared, India must revisit its legacy of dissent. Calling foreign-funded NGOs ‘foreign agents’ is disrespectful to citizens who are no less patriotic than those working in the industry or government, writes Chandra Bhushan

This is a bad season for NGOs. Two weeks ago, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a Bill allowing foreign NGOs to be banned on grounds of national security. Individuals working for banned organisations could face fines and jail terms, and bank accounts of such organisations could be frozen.

China's legislature, the National People's Congress, is currently debating a draft law to regulate foreign NGOs.

Though the new law claims to fill an important gap in China's legal code by formally listing requirements for registration of foreign NGOs, it also prohibits a broad range of ill-defined activities, including those that could undermine “ethnic harmony”, violate "Chinese society's moral customs" and incite resistance to state laws or regulations. These are so vaguely defined that they could prohibit NGOs from working in areas like environmental protection, health and cultural exchange. Interestingly, the proposed law puts the management of foreign NGOs under the jurisdiction of the national police ministry.

Closer home, Pakistan is putting a stricter regime in place for monitoring and scrutiny of foreign NGOs currently operating in the country. All foreign NGOs have been asked to re-register in the next three months. Pakistan has accused foreign NGOs—including some allegedly funded by India—for “anti-state activities”.

In India, we read every day about some government policy or the other to “regulate” foreign and foreign-funded NGOs.

So, why are governments worried about NGOs?

Let’s begin with Pakistan.

In 2012, an intelligence report linked Save the Children, an international NGO that works in 120 countries on children’s health and education, to Pakistani doctor Shakeel Afridi. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had allegedly used Afridi to carry out a fake vaccination programme as it searched for Osama bin Laden.

Save the Children was recently asked to leave Pakistan even though the group has denied any links with CIA or Afridi. Pakistan has now hardened its policies towards foreign-funded NGOs, accusing them of being covers for spying operations of countries like the US and India.

In Russia, it is a different story. Putin is clamping down on all kinds of dissent; unsanctioned mass demonstrations are being prohibited and huge fines are being imposed on participants. The Ukraine crisis and the sanctions imposed by the US and other Western countries have given Putin an opportunity to clamp down on any dissenting voices in the name of national security.

China, on its part, would rather have GONGOs than NGOs. GONGOs, or “government-organised non-governmental organisations”, are set up by the government and are generally believed to represent an indirect means of state control. They get funds from the state as well as from national and international donors. China wants to slowly push foreign and domestic NGOs out and replace them with GONGOs. China’s discomfort with NGOs is driven by fear that foreigners are secretly plotting to overthrow its one-party state.

What about us? Why is our own government fearful?

Governments in India—the current NDA one included—have always had uncomfortable relations with NGOs, especially with those working in areas like environment, human rights and minority and tribal rights. Many regressive policies on NGOs were actually initiated by the erstwhile UPA government and its home minister, P Chidambaram. Interestingly, Chidambaram, now again a lawyer, recently wrote a “lawyerly” article exhorting people to speak up for tolerance and dissent!

It was the UPA government which provided a new—and convoluted—definition of NGOs in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010, and its Rules, 2011, and then in the Income Tax Act. As per the present definition, industry bodies such as CII and FICCI can be deemed NGOs, can receive foreign grants, and need not pay taxes. A bonafide NGO working for environment protection, on the other hand, might get rejected. It was also the UPA government that brought in vaguely-worded conditions in the FCRA, which provide the government with the tools to harass NGOs.

Most importantly, it was the UPA government that asked the Intelligence Bureau to prepare the report on NGOs. The report, now used by the NDA government, identified several foreign-funded NGOs for “negatively impacting economic development”. The present NDA government is continuing with the past policy, but with a new vigour.

The question is, can a few NGOs undermine Indian democracy and cause negative economic development? Are the Indian democracy and its institutions so weak that they cannot counter this “negative campaign”? Finally, is our country so intolerant that it cannot hear or bear dissent?

I believe the answer to all the above questions is negative.

We are a country that worships people who have expressed dissent against majoritarian viewpoints. Our heroes are dissenters—Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, B R Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi. A country with such a rich culture of opposing majoritarianism cannot be intolerant of different voices.  

I believe we are a democracy because we permit different viewpoints. I believe that our democracy will be strengthened and our nation will prosper if we give space for alternate points of view to flourish. I believe that our institutions are strong enough to accommodate and act upon different points of view.

The question we all need to ask is why NGOs opt for foreign funding. The answer is simple: because domestic funding is not available when it comes to many causes for the advancement of society. Will the Indian government and private foundations fund NGOs to fight against industrial pollution? The answer is no. Will some philanthropic foundation give money to an NGO to protest against the hazards of nuclear power plants or mindless building of dams in the upper reaches of the Ganga? The answer is a resounding no. What about protecting rights of minorities and tribals? Absolutely not!

The list is unending. Today, NGOs can either sustain themselves by becoming consultants to industry or governments, or close shop.

It is important to understand that NGOs protesting against hazards of nuclear power or industrial pollution or human rights violations are not anti-national. They do this because they believe these are bad for the nation. We, the majority, might not agree with them, but we cannot muzzle their voices.

Clamping down on NGOs that speak and advocate differently will only breed intolerance. Today, it is the foreign-funded NGO. Tomorrow, it will be domestically-funded cultural groups. The day after, it could be any group that has a dissenting voice. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Arbitrary actions against NGOs will make Indian democracy intolerant and feeble. Our founding fathers would have been dismayed by these developments.

We should not forget that our tallest leaders supported and established NGOs. All the institutions set up by Mahatma Gandhi are NGOs. Many of the Gandhian institutions receive foreign funds. Even the hyper-nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its associate institutions are NGOs. Many of them receive foreign funds too. Targeting foreign-funded NGOs by calling them “foreign agents” is disrespectful to a large number of citizens who are no less patriotic than those working in the industry or the government.

It is important to remember that FCRA was enacted during the Emergency in 1976 to counter the “foreign hand” in activities of the opposition parties. Many of those who were in opposition then are in power now. It is a pity that the tools they are using to silence their critics today are the same tools that were used against them 40 years ago.  

On the 40th anniversary of the Emergency, it is worth reminding ourselves that India is India because it is not Russia, China or Pakistan. Democracy and dissent go together.

Tightening screws on NGO sector to push development

TEAM TOI





Modi government's relationship with NGOs, par ticularly those funded by foreign donors, has been troubled from the word go. But home ministry officials say the action against NGOs in the past year is an extension of UPA's policy of tightening the screws on organizations against development projects, negatively impacting GDP growth. Work on the IB report that prepared the ground for action against Greenpeace, for example, was undertaken during UPA's tenure. The report's damning revelations left the Modi government little choice but to invoke FCRA to put Greenpeace International funding under prior permission category .One is bound to look at the action against NGOs through the prism of the troubled relationship that Modi had with them during his days as Gujarat CM. That was when NGOs targeted him for his alleged “complicity in the 2002 riots“.
Although a large number of NGOs are associated with the Sangh Parivar, it's always eyed foreign-funded organizations with suspicion, see ing them as a nuisance for India's sovereignty . VHP has issues with NGOs that get funds from abroad working in environment, which insist on implementing norms that aren't seen as feasible.This, it points out, impedes growth. Some of these organizations, the Parivar objects, are allegedly involved in proselytasation.
While UPA may have felt that NGOs were too big -22,702 of them together received Rs 11,546 crore in 2011-12 -to be left unpoliced, one gets the impression that under Modi, there's a new-found keenness to enforce the rules, winked at by earlier governments.
Ford Foundation has been in the NGO funding business for long. But it's only now that it's being asked to comply with FCRA.It had defaulted on these provisions, funding non-FCRA registered NGOs in Gujarat, some of which had associated with campaigns against Modi when he was CM.
The offloading of Greenpeace India activist Priya Pillai from a London-bound flight in January was part of the government insistence on making NGOs play by the rules. Though Delhi HC directed the government to expunge the `offload' remark in her passport, home ministry says they were right in restraining her from indulging in an anti-national campaign on foreign soil, briefing British MPs on the “negative“ impact of the Mahan coal project at Singrauli.
Add to this the cancellation of licences of 10,117 NGOs, inspection of accounts of 165 and freezing of accounts of 34, civil society's mistrust of the Modi government has only grown deeper.

Special Education course by NGO

Vidya Sagar, an NGO that works with children and adults with neurological impairments, is offering a one-year, full-time PG Diploma course in Special Education-Multiple Disabilities (Physical and Neurological). The course includes a three-month internship to generate trained resource persons in special education.

The course is recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India and affiliated to Madras University. Applicants should be a graduate or above in any discipline from a university/ college recognised by University of Madras.

A study informs that in India, the prevalence rates of the spectrum of neurological disorders from different regions of the country ranged from 967-4,070 with a mean of 2394 per 100,000 population, providing a rough estimate of over 30 million people with neurological disorders