For most of my life, I have been part of the NGO sector and barring one, all of them are majorly dependent on Foreign funds for their operations. So I have more than a passing interest in tracking the gradual evolution of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act which regulates how an entity may receive and then utilise foreign funding. While it is no secret that the government of the day, in furtherance of its vision of an Atma Nirbhar Bharat would like to see a civil society operating solely with Indian resources, it is also clear that certain kinds of organisations are being given a shorter leash than others. The examples of Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Lawyers Collective among others indicate that organisations asking the government for some kind of accountability or questioning government policies and priorities would not be tolerated. Organisations like the Missionaries of Charity doing classical charity work such as operating orphanages, looking after the destitute, and adopting other welfarist postures might get a longer rope. However, numerous organisations involved in traditional charity work, particularly those from the minority Christian community have also been affected indicating that several factors are at play.
The Law in question of course was enacted at the height of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. At the time, the law prohibited political parties and ‘organisations of a political nature, civil servants and judges, as also correspondents, columnists and editors/owners of registered newspapers and news broadcasting organisations— and even cartoonists—from receiving foreign contributions. More than NGOs these called out entities were considered most likely to use foreign funds to speak or write about subjects of embarrassment to Mrs. Gandhi’s government. These were the thought leaders of the day; those most likely to speak inconvenient truths to power. As was to be subsequently revealed, there were plenty of inconvenient truths that the establishment wanted to be buried then.
When the law was passed, Mrs. Gandhi’s government had a genuine paranoia vis-à-vis the ‘invisible hand’ of foreign powers. During a Rajya Sabha debate on the proposed bill on 9 March 1976, the term ‘CIA’ (Central Intelligence Agency) was mentioned at least 30 times by different legislators, while ‘Lockheed Martin’ (a military aerospace corporation) came up at least six times in the context of alleged instances of Americans pumping dollars into governments worldwide to buy influence during the Cold War. That all this also happened and not just in India as the superpowers vied for influence is also known to be a fact today.
The first major amendment to the law happened, not under the Modi government which has been in power since 2014 but earlier. In 2010, when the law was amended in a series of measures that would make it more Draconian, the political leadership had changed as had of course the times. The Cold War and the Emergency were now histories. A different parliament, with opposition members who had not been imprisoned like those in 1976, unanimously voted to update the law by passing the amended Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The Parliamentary Standing Committee that examined the bill was headed by the BJP’s Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and it had no major objections.
In the 2010 discussions, there was no talk of the CIA or Lockheed Martin. Instead, concern was focused on the increasingly influential role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other institutions of civil society in India. The term ‘NGO’ found at least 40 mentions during the Rajya Sabha debate on the 2010 bill. The main concern of the Upper House appeared to be a lack of transparency among NGOs receiving foreign contributions. Hence the calls to strengthen the monitoring regime, although several MPs expressed worry that the new law would give the Centre too much discretionary power to crack down on dissenting NGOs.
According to data submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) to India’s Supreme Court in 2015, the country has at least 31 lakh registered NGOs.The number is more than double the number of schools in the country and 250 times the number of government hospitals and it means India has one NGO for every 400 people as against one policeman for more than 700 people. While there would definitely be some black sheep among NGOs, an overarching worry for the government seems to be the possible subtle influence that civil society institutions, particularly think tanks could have in influencing government policy. Organisations like Greenpeace may be very visible and say what they have to very visibly and publicly. However, Think Tanks pursuing a Track 2 approach will not be in the public gaze and may not be explicitly adversarial but can be influential. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) are considered influential voices in their fields. How much their publications and public positions are influenced by their foreign donors is not easy to measure but clearly, no one is fully neutral.
There are obviously numerous civil society entities; some with stated political leanings and some not. But the influence of foreign funds on almost every major aspect of Indian policy today, be it economic or environmental, related to public health or business and economics is subtle but effective. Is this good or bad for India as a country? Given that most sectors of the economy are now open to foreign investment, does it make sense to regulate and restrict foreign funds for Civil Society under laws like the FCRA?
The answer is complex. Do we really expect NGOs and other civil societies to be completely independent of donors in their views when business entities like Amazon or Google in India are not independent of their parents? Would an organisation like the Public Health Foundation still get funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation if takes up a posture clearly contrary to the stated thinking of the donor? In such circumstances, how independent should we expect any civil society entity to be in the arena of policy?
Of course, NGOs and overseas bodies can also further government agendas of the day. The Ford Foundation funded the Green Revolution, was part of setting up IIT Bombay, IIM Ahmedabad, and the National Law Universities, donated crores of rupees to support Indian NGOs and even gave generous funding for many government schemes. At the same time, they have been from time to time been accused of having relations with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), having funded the sterilisation program during the Emergency. But as policies change and governments change, the same organisations maybe been called a threat to our internal affairs put on a watchlist, or banned.
Spanning the globe, Egypt, Russia, Israel, and some other countries have similar laws and of them, only Israel may be called a democracy. India is therefore in mixed company. So in learning lessons in regulating the flow of foreign funding actively and yet balancing transparency and internal security with dissent, there are not many examples to learn from. Although no one in the political class will accept that foreign funds be permitted to influence government policy and political discourse, that this is happening is a known fact. What is eluding our lawmaker is the fine balance that determines the tipping point between what is at least tolerable and what constitute