Time to review law for foreign funding of NGOs
Sunday Guardian
June 22, 2019
Sanjeev Nayyar
Time to review law for
foreign funding of NGOs
The equivalent of
Lutyens Delhi is the NGO industry. It is not possible for the MHA to know who
the actual donor is, and monitor the end use of the funds.
Did you know that
foreign organisations remitted Rs 169,619 cr into India between 2001 and 2017
(Table 1), which is 17 times ISRO’s revised budget estimate for 2018-19 of Rs
9,918 cr.1
So what is the
regulatory framework for NGOs who receive foreign funds?
The Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act (FCRA) regulates the receipt of funds by NGOs and is managed by
the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Any organisation that wants to receive
contribution from abroad has to get approval from MHA.
LARGEST
DONORS/RECIPIENTS
The country wise data in
the public domain is available from 2002-03 to 2011-12. The details here are
extracted from the 2011-12 Annual Report published by the MHA.
The top three donor
countries are consistently the United States, United Kingdom and Germany.
Remittances from these three countries in 2011-12 were: Rs 3,838 cr, Rs 1,219
cr and Rs 1,096 cr, respectively.
The top donors were
Compassion International, US, Rs 183 cr; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, US, Rs 130 cr; and the Kinder Not Hilfe e. V (KNH), Germany, Rs 51 cr.
Corresponding figures for these three countries in 2010-11 were: Rs 99 cr, “not
available”, and Rs 48 cr.
The top associations
that reported receiving foreign contributions in 2011-12 were: World Vision of
India, Chennai, Rs 233 cr; Believers Church India, Pathanamthitta, Kerala, Rs
190 cr; and Rural Development Trust, Ananthapur, Rs 144 cr. The corresponding
figures for 2010-11 are Rs 233 cr, Rs 160 cr and Rs 135 cr, respectively
A personal review of the
top 15 donors in 2011-12 shows one Islamic organisation as a donor. In 2010-11,
there is one donor of Indian origin. Of the top 15 recipient associations in
2011-12 and 2010-11, one is of Indian origin.
OBJECTIVES OF KEY
DONORS, RECIPIENTS
Here is a glimpse into
the objectives of the key donors and recipients:
* Compassion
International, US: Releasing children from poverty in the name of Jesus.
* Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter day Saints, US: Share the gospel, serve, teach, etc
* Kinder Not Hilfe e. V
(KNH), Germany: Supporting children in need. It is an international Christian
child rights organisation.
* World Vision of India,
Chennai: “We are a Christian organisation working to create a positive and
enduring change in the lives of children, families and communities living in
abject poverty and undue inequality.”
* Believers Church
India, Kerala: A Christian denomination is Biblical and evangelical in faith,
apostolic in origin, universal in nature, ecumenical in outlook. Their focus is
on healthcare, educating children, empowering women, sanitation and disaster
relief.
* Rural Development
Trust, Ananthapur: Empowers rural communities in India and supports them in
their struggle to eradicate poverty, suffering and injustice.
It is to be noted that
words such as “poverty”, “inequality”, “rights”, “evangelical” and “injustice”
are commonly used here.
QUESTIONS FOR DONORS
It’s time to ask certain
questions to these donors: Is society in their home country perfect, with zero
inequality or gun killings? According to a New York Times report, nearly 40,000
people died from gun killings in US in 2017.
Are they the sole
custodian of poverty alleviation and has Government of India invited them to
make Indian society a replica of the West?
Those who argue that
Indian gurus have established a base in the West must realise these gurus do
not claim to remove inequality or injustice.
DONORS ESCAPING
MONITORING
Let’s now shed some
light on how donors try to escape monitoring by the MHA.
World Vision
International, US, remitted Rs 705 cr in 2008-09, but did not make it to the
top 15 donors’ list in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Gospel for Asia Inc. US,
made a contribution of Rs 596 cr in 2008-09 and Rs 233 cr in 2009-10, but did
not feature on the top 15 donors’ list in 2010-11 and 2011-12. By not appearing
on that list, it is possible that these donors might not attract the attention
of the MHA. A look at Table 1 indicates that except for 2009-10, remittances by
donors have increased, so the money is coming from somewhere.
According to
indiahap.wordpress.com, “Gospel for Asia Inc opened 11 limited liability
companies in Texas. Four FCRA-NGOs, all located in the Pathanamthitta district
of Kerala were exclusively funded either by GFAI or by these LLCs. These were:
Gospel For Asia (GFA), Believers Church India (BCI), Last Hour Ministry (LHM)
and Love India Ministries (LIM).”
Sometimes,
FCRA-registered organisations donate to other FCRA registered organisations, as
in the case of Shalom Global Foundation. According to FCRAAnalyses blog, it
showed Rs 57.2 lakh as amounts received from within India—meaning from other
FCRA-registered NGOs. Transfers in India among FCRA-registered organisations in
2012 amounted to Rs 1,317 cr.
Given these facts, it is
impossible for the MHA to know who the actual donor is, and monitor the end use
of the funds.
INTERESTS EARNED
And what about the bank
interest earned by organisations for foreign receipts?
According to FCRAnalyses
blog, for the financial years 2006 to 2012 interest earned on savings bank
account was Rs 664 cr and on fixed deposits Rs 3,475 cr. The interest on fixed
deposit was Rs 619 cr in 2012, assuming an average interest rate of 8% per
annum gives a fixed deposit investment of about Rs 7,500 cr.
Are these NGOs or
non-banking finance companies?
Between 2006 and 2012
foreign funds received by FCRA registered organisations were used to purchase
land for Rs 620 cr. Should such NGOs be allowed to purchase land in India?
HOW ARE FUNDS RECEIVED,
USED?
The donor objectives and
values referred to in this article make their intent clear, so one should not
complain if these are pursued. Some examples:
Mohandas Pai, former
Infosys director, wrote in the Economic Times, “I have a personal experience of
evangelical groups trying to convert members of my family. Two house maids who
converted said that the school where their children went raised fees and due to
their inability to pay, they were told they would waive it if they converted
(which they were forced to do). When asked, inevitably they spoke about
evangelicals groups that gave them free education for children and paid their
medical bills, provided they converted”.
Action Aid India’s
Annual Report 2012-13 refers to a national study on the status of Muslims in
India (pg 26, “National Study on Status of Muslims in India”). Do such studies
seek to exploit social fault lines?
Aravindan Neelakandan
wrote in Swarajya that Gospel for Asia saw the 2004 tsunami as “one of the
greatest opportunities God has given us to share his love with people”. Foreign
contributions to Tamil Nadu were Rs 775 cr in 2002-03, which leapfrogged post
the tsunami to Rs 2,118 cr in 2006-07.
Activist Yoginder
Sikand, who spent years fighting for the oppressed—Dalits, minorities and
women—wrote in Countercurrent, “Why I gave up on Social Activism”: “Some made
pretty neat fortunes setting up NGOs and ‘think-tanks’ ostensibly to study and
‘work with’ ‘oppressed communities’, and raked in vast amounts of money from
gullible foreign donors.”
The equivalent of
Lutyens Delhi is the NGO industry for whom the buzzwords are poverty,
inequality, women empowerment, etc. As long as Indians are in poverty, they
survive. This is not to paint all of them with the same brush. There are of
course those who are well intentioned and sincere without seeking to divide
society on the lines of faith.
NGOS INFLUENCE
POLICYMAKING
* An organisation called
Women Power Connect was formed in 2004 and trained specifically for the purpose
of lobbying and advocacy towards the following causes: 33% reservation for
women in Parliament, adoption of domestic violence bill and ADVOCATING for gender-just
budgeting. It was funded by International Foundation for Electoral Systems
(IFES), which in turn was funded for this project by USAID, an agency of the US
Federal Government (source: Indiafacts).
* Bread for the World
and Misereor, two Christian organisations also provided funds to Equations, an
organisation that published the report demonising the Amarnath Yatra (source:
OpIndia).
* “Himachal Pradesh
passed a Religious Freedom Bill in 2007. A section of it demanded that a person
who failed to give due notice (to district authorities) before converting to
another religion can be fined. This section was struck down by the HP HC. In
all, Section 4 and Rules 3 and 5 of HP Freedom of Religion Rules, 2007, were
struck down. This ruling came due to a PIL filed by Evangelical Fellowship of
India and ANHAD. Donors to these two organizations are from the western world”
(source: FCRAAnalyses blog).
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Is India a country like
the US, where its President takes oath of office keeping one hand on the Bible?
How many current mega donors or recipients uphold Dharma, which forms part of
the Supreme Court logo, Yato Dharmah Tato Jayah—where there is Righteousness
(Dharma), there is Victory (Jaya)?
WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD?
It is not possible for
any government to monitor the activities of so many foreign funded NGOs. So the
proposed policy is:
Only NRIs/Persons of
Indian Origin/Individuals should, by law, remit money to an NGO in India. This
excludes those organisations that operate like global MNCs and are
self-appointed guardians of development worldwide. Organisations that receive
foreign funding under FCRA should not be allowed to file Public Interest
Litigations acting on the cue of donors
So how will the
shortfall be made up?
According to a Business
Today report, CSR spending by NSE listed companies was Rs 10,886 crore in
2017-18. If you add the unlisted companies to this, the spends would be much
more. NGOs can seek funding from India Inc. Through that they can continue good
work in a non sectarian spirit, for example, like Akshaya Patra.
Link-https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/time-review-law-foreign-funding-ngos
Comments
Post a Comment