The Government of India is proposing an amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and has already brought in a Bill in the Parliament last month. The purpose is understandable to regulate and keep a close watch on the foreign contributions made towards various people, institutions and organisations, including the non-government organisations (the NGOs).
The Bill will empower the Central government to appoint a ‘designated authority’ that can take over, manage or dispose of assets created by foreign funds if the FCRA registration of that particular organisation is suspended, cancelled or not renewed. The proceeds may be transferred to the Consolidated Fund of India.
Other major amendments proposed include automatic cessation of the registration upon expiry and non-renewal. Such organisations cannot receive any foreign funds till their certificate is not renewed. Besides, the bills aimed at fixing the timelines for utilising the funds.
Other two important amendments proposed include prior permission for law enforcement agencies or state governments from the Central government before initiating any investigations into the FCRA related complaints. This has been apparently done to prevent its misuse.
Besides, it also proposes to rationalise the penalties and reduce punishment for FCRA-related offences from one year to five-year imprisonment.
The amendment proposal has expectedly triggered sharp political reactions from the opposition parties, particularly the Congress. The Congress stand is understandable, as it has to oppose everything that the government does. Actually the FCRA was enacted way back in 1976 during the time of emergency. It was amended from time to time. Even the Congress-led UPA government also amended it during its tenure to strengthen it and make the regulations strict.
One of the most important factors behind the amendment for monitoring and regulating the fund flow from overseas to Indian organisations and charities is the issue of religious conversion. People are lured by way of money to get converted to other religions. This is an accepted and acknowledged fact. This has been happening since the colonial period. No country would like to allow its own culture to be undermined with money power.
Second, equally concerning is the funding of various NGOs, which work in the name of environmental or human rights protection. Both pose serious challenges to the country’s progress and security. The years-long resistance to the Sardar Sarovar project in Gujarat by the activists of the Narmada Bachao Aandolan is still fresh in everybody’s memories as how such a major developmental project was held to ransom.
It is interesting to note that the “environmental protection” organisations are mostly based and active in the “developing countries”, often described as the “third world countries” by the “developed nations”. Most of the developmental projects like dams, roads and railways, just to name a few, are strongly opposed and resisted by the “environmentalists” who are generously funded by various institutions and organisations from the developed countries.
Also read: Foreign grants bill put on hold after protests in LS
Why is it that there are no long drawn and violent protests, often seen in the developing countries, not happening in the “developed countries”? After all, the massive infrastructure developed in those countries must have come at an environmental cost. There may be some symbolic and token protests held here and there, but these are more for the purpose of photo-ops than to offer any strong resistance as in countries like India.
Other most challenging concern for the country is the way some so called “human rights” organisations malign the country’s institutions, like the police, the army and at times even the judiciary in the name of “defending and protecting” the human rights of those who challenge and threaten country’s security and integrity and kill people with merciless impunity. These organisations would never raise the issues of the atrocities by the terrorists like wanton killings of innocent people. This is because their brief is entirely different; to undermine the image of the particular country.
Again, is there any human rights organisation, which has objected, leave aside resisted, to the brutal abuse of force by the immigration officials in the United States. The way the ICE has been treating people may hardly have any parallels anywhere in the world. Kids are snatched and separated from their parents in the name of ‘illegal immigration crackdown’ and yet there are no concerns raised anywhere by such human rights organisations which are hyperactive in the developing nations. There are occasional voices of resistance, but these are from the opposition Democratic Party members.
Another major reason for monitoring and regulating the fund flow and the way it is spent, is its misuse by the “individuals and institutions”. There are umpteen examples where the funds coming from abroad are misused by people for their personal benefits and are not spent on the intended purpose.
The opposition parties, particularly the Congress must appreciate the concern about regulating the foreign funding of the institutions. The Congress must not link and relate it to “minority victimisation”, as it tries to do about everything that the current government does.
The Congress believes that the amendments may violate Constitutional rights, tighten excessive government control over NGOs and foreign funding and target minority institutions and organisations, especially those engaged in social work. Party’s opposition and the nature of opposition are understandable. But unregulated flow of money from abroad is as dangerous as unmanned and open borders. Both pose a serious threat to the national interests.
Follow us
