)
Late last year, Caritas India, a venerable and respected voluntary organisation that has responded with alacrity to one Indian humanitarian crisis after another, sent out an appeal through its international network for funds for contributions to relief and rehabilitation work in Jammu and Kashmir, where devastating floods and landslides in September had claimed 282 lives and damaged 2.53 lakh houses, according to official figures.
Among those that responded was the Netherlands-based Dutch Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development (Cordaid), pledging 220,000 euros (approximately 1.54 crore). However, when the first instalment of 100,000 euros reached Caritas India's bank account in November-end, the NGO was informed by its bank that the money could not be credited.
This came as a surprise. Even though Cordaid has been on a government watch-list for about three years for allegedly aiding activists protesting against oil drilling in the Northeast, and finds critical mention in an Intelligence Bureau (IB) report on NGOs leaked last year, it has been able to contribute to Caritas India's projects across a series of humanitarian crises. According to Caritas' officials, the most recent include the Assam floods in 2012, and the Uttarakhand floods and the Odisha cyclone in 2013.
As the winter grew harsher in Kashmir, Caritas officials made visits in December and January to the home ministry wing that implements the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA), and explained that the funds were critically required for a project, to be completed in March, that involved building low cost housing. To date, they have not been able to get the money, but are instead grappling with a 32-point questionnaire sent by the FCRA wing that requires the organisation, which has been meticulous in submitting its accounts, and displays its annual report on its website, to submit nothing short of a complete financial history. The questionnaire asks, among other things, for details, and utilisation, of foreign contributions received by Caritas India, which is more than 50 years old, from inception.
"It is a mind-boggling, and unnecessary form," says Father Frederick D'Souza, executive director of Caritas India. "This is not correct. The people for whom the money was meant are the ones affected."
While the recent deplaning of a Greenpeace activist has hit the headlines, less visible, but also eloquent of the government's hardening stances, is the impeding of funds for humanitarian relief, or other similarly non-controversial purposes, when they come from international organisations to which it is inimical.
"While the government may have its problems with certain donors, blocking or delaying money coming in for humanitarian work is wrong," says Manu Gupta, director of SEEDS, which carries out post-disaster reconstruction and relief. "There are no controversies here, the purpose is clear and simple, and the work is time-sensitive. If you don't reach out to the affected people fast, they will either die or spiral downwards into an even lower state of helplessness."
Gupta said SEEDS could not access remittances sent by Cordaid after the Uttarakhand floods in 2013, and after the J&K floods in 2014. The first time, SEEDS tried liaising with both the FCRA wing and its bank, but to no avail. Last year, it waited for its bank to carry out the due diligence, in consultation with the ministry, and report back, on the 50,000 euros (Rs 35 lakh) sent by Cordaid, which it had planned to use as part of its efforts to build fully equipped tents for the J&K flood victims, but there was no response.
Church's Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA), a voluntary organisation with a stellar record for humanitarian work, also said recently, for the first time, it was not able to receive remittances from two donors (other than Cordaid), on the government's watch-list. While declining to name the donors, CASA's director, Sushant Agrawal, said in one case, instalments of money for flood relief in Odisha sent before December last year were received, but a small, later installment has been impeded. In another recent case, 50,000 euros sent for a child labour project has been held up.
The practice of instructing banks, via the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to credit funds from donors on a government watchlist only after clearances from the home ministry was instituted by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. However, judging by what some donors and recipients told Business Standard, this is now being implemented much more stringently.
Ingrid Srinath, who runs the India office of the Netherlands- based Hivos, which is also on the government's watch-list, said: "The policies are a continuation of the UPA government's but what has changed is the level of emboldenment among those implementing them, and sense of fear among those who could help you." She said lawyers, bankers and professionals are increasingly wary of engaging with Hivos on these matters.
Theoretically, money remitted by watch-listed donors is meant to be released after due diligence but, say those affected, the process is shrouded in secrecy and beset with confusion, making the outcome uncertain. Circulars sent out by the RBI to the banks, notifying them of donors on a "prior permission" list ( i.e, those for whom clearances are required) are marked "Secret". (The most recent one, dated January 15, listing 10 international donors for whom prior permission was needed, got wide currency only because the RBI first put it on its website and then hastily withdrew it, but not before many NGOs had downloaded it.) Thus, when affected organisations try to chase up the matter with the FCRA wing, they are told this is for the bank to sort out. "At no point will the ministry even acknowledge that such a list exists," says Srinath. Banks, for their part, are often not clear on how to take the matter forward, say recipients. Gupta said his bank initially asked him to sort out the matter with the home ministry, "but there was no procedure for us to do that." "There is no clarity on who exactly must seek prior permission," says Agrawal.
What a recipient is likely to get, in course of time, is the dreaded 32-point questionnaire from FCRA, followed by visits from local IB officials, but even these may not bring closure. A representative of an NGO told Business Standard, confidentially, that even after the submission of the questionnaire and multiple IB visits, the matter of a blocked remittance from Hivos has not been resolved in several months.
A representative of a donor agency who did not want to be identified, said, "This is not merely bureaucratic delay, it is purposeful delay."
