 "NGOs call for changes in law governing their foreign funding")
Lawyers and activists associated with non-government organisations (NGOs) have intensified their demand for a change in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, which governs NGOs’ foreign funding. The move follows the home ministry’s last week’s decision to suspend the FCRA registration of Greenpeace India, a not-for-profit organisation working on environment-related issues.
The present law is an amended version of the 1976 Act, enacted during the Emergency imposed by then prime minister Indira Gandhi. Gandhi had then cited fears of a ‘foreign hand’ as she faced political opposition from socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan.
Lawyers and activists contend the present law is vague and provides wide powers to the government. For instance, they say, the law allows the government to cancel an NGO’s registration citing ‘public interest’. What constitutes public interest is often a matter of dispute between the government and the NGO, which usually leads to litigation. The way the present law works is that first an NGO’s registration is suspended and then it is asked to present its defence. If NGO’s defence is weak, the government cancels the registration. But, activists say, suspension of their registration further ties their hand as the government’s suspension order is accompanied by 75 per cent of their bank account being sealed. (TIME TO CHANGE?)
“I don’t understand the logic,” says Amitabh Behar, executive director, National Foundation of India. “On the one hand the government rolls out ‘the red carpet’ for foreign investors, and on the other, it sees red when NGOs get foreign funding.” Getting money under the FCRA route involves multiple levels of scrutiny — often more than that under the foreign direct investment route — Behar says.
Another FCRA Section that often causes disagreement between the government and NGOs relates to the question on what constitutes ‘political’ activity. According to the government, an NGO’s involvement in any way with a bandh, hartal, ‘rasta roko’ or ‘jail bharo’, is sufficient ground for conclusion that it is indulging in political activity. The registration of the NGO concerned can be annulled on this premise. But NGOs argue these restrictions are too wide and give them little freedom to undertake agitation in any form.
“Dharnas and rallies are issues related to public order. How can they be considered political activity?” asks Manoj Bhogla, a chartered accountant who advises NGOs on foreign donations.
Bhogla argues FCRA is placed in the wrong ministry’s hands. “The home ministry deals with issues related to internal security. But the provisions in FCRA are financial. The people in the home ministry are not competent enough to handle financial matters; this leads to constant disagreement between the government and NGOs.”
Former cabinet secretary T S R Subramanian, however, disagrees. He says condemning the government for not defining terms like public interest is easy, but actually defining those is difficult. “Is there a single definition for what constitutes national security or public interest? These are complex issues and the government has the right to put the country’s security interests over other matters.”
Non-submission of audit reports or other necessary documents is another common reason for which the government cancels NGO’s registration. In October last year, the Centre had sent notices to a little more than 10,000 NGOs for not submitting annual returns.
But Harish Jaitli, chief executive officer of Vani, which promotes volunteerism, says it is not correct to blame NGOs. He says the home ministry’s foreigner division wing, which looks at FCRA, is to blame. “No one in the government has any accountability. NGOs file their annual returns but never receive acknowledgment of receipt from the government. The case with informing the government about changes in address is similar. If you do not tell an NGO that it has committed an error, how will it correct it?” asks Jaitli.
HOW NGOs SPEND MONEY
(In Rs crore)
The present law is an amended version of the 1976 Act, enacted during the Emergency imposed by then prime minister Indira Gandhi. Gandhi had then cited fears of a ‘foreign hand’ as she faced political opposition from socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan.
Lawyers and activists contend the present law is vague and provides wide powers to the government. For instance, they say, the law allows the government to cancel an NGO’s registration citing ‘public interest’. What constitutes public interest is often a matter of dispute between the government and the NGO, which usually leads to litigation. The way the present law works is that first an NGO’s registration is suspended and then it is asked to present its defence. If NGO’s defence is weak, the government cancels the registration. But, activists say, suspension of their registration further ties their hand as the government’s suspension order is accompanied by 75 per cent of their bank account being sealed. (TIME TO CHANGE?)
“I don’t understand the logic,” says Amitabh Behar, executive director, National Foundation of India. “On the one hand the government rolls out ‘the red carpet’ for foreign investors, and on the other, it sees red when NGOs get foreign funding.” Getting money under the FCRA route involves multiple levels of scrutiny — often more than that under the foreign direct investment route — Behar says.
Another FCRA Section that often causes disagreement between the government and NGOs relates to the question on what constitutes ‘political’ activity. According to the government, an NGO’s involvement in any way with a bandh, hartal, ‘rasta roko’ or ‘jail bharo’, is sufficient ground for conclusion that it is indulging in political activity. The registration of the NGO concerned can be annulled on this premise. But NGOs argue these restrictions are too wide and give them little freedom to undertake agitation in any form.
“Dharnas and rallies are issues related to public order. How can they be considered political activity?” asks Manoj Bhogla, a chartered accountant who advises NGOs on foreign donations.
Bhogla argues FCRA is placed in the wrong ministry’s hands. “The home ministry deals with issues related to internal security. But the provisions in FCRA are financial. The people in the home ministry are not competent enough to handle financial matters; this leads to constant disagreement between the government and NGOs.”
Former cabinet secretary T S R Subramanian, however, disagrees. He says condemning the government for not defining terms like public interest is easy, but actually defining those is difficult. “Is there a single definition for what constitutes national security or public interest? These are complex issues and the government has the right to put the country’s security interests over other matters.”
Non-submission of audit reports or other necessary documents is another common reason for which the government cancels NGO’s registration. In October last year, the Centre had sent notices to a little more than 10,000 NGOs for not submitting annual returns.
But Harish Jaitli, chief executive officer of Vani, which promotes volunteerism, says it is not correct to blame NGOs. He says the home ministry’s foreigner division wing, which looks at FCRA, is to blame. “No one in the government has any accountability. NGOs file their annual returns but never receive acknowledgment of receipt from the government. The case with informing the government about changes in address is similar. If you do not tell an NGO that it has committed an error, how will it correct it?” asks Jaitli.
HOW NGOs SPEND MONEY
(In Rs crore)
TOP 5 INDIAN STATES IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO NGOs
In Rs crore (Move your cursor over black buttons to know each state's contribution)
(Source: MHA)
TOP 5 COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO NGOs
In Rs crore (Move your cursor over red buttons to know each country's contribution)
TOP 5 COUNTRIES IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO NGOs
In Rs crore (Move your cursor over red buttons to know each country's contribution)
(Source: MHA)