Why foreign funds are needed to serve people through NGOs? Reading Rohini Mohan’s OPED piece in New York Times on ‘Narendra Modi’s Crackdown on Civil Society in India’ was an interesting experience. She articulated well about how she perceives the situation. The crux of the column was that Modi has squeezed the flow of finance from foreign shores that could have been used against his government. What I could not understand is how only those NGOs that work against the government are called ‘Civil Society’. Does it not mean organizations working along with the government are ‘Uncivil’? Is it not demeaning the people of India who chose the government of the day, and in a way denigrating the democracy itself?
The column was interesting because there were references to Indira Gandhi and the paranoia associated with ‘foreign hand’ that was much of a topic in the seventies. Interesting point is it was Indira Gandhi who passed the law that NGOs that seek funds from foreign should be registered under FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulating Act) that prohibits use of overseas funds for ‘activities that are detrimental to national interest’. So, the governments are expected to use this law only as a tool of political retribution (her words). At the beginning of the column Ms Rohini labelled Russia as an illiberal country. So, when she states Indira Gandhi was a socialist has leaning towards Soviet Union, was she not branding Indira’s government to be an illiberal one? Of course, I fully agree with the statement! What Ms Rohini forgot to explain was how the liberal United States, obsessed with anti-communist policy had worked hand-in-glove with all authoritative regimes world over?
As she said India has moved from seventies and for the same reason, I could not understand why there was no hue and cry so far to remove this law when Congress was ruling the country for most part of the time.
The major talk was how the Lawyers Collective, a forum established by Indira Jaising and Anand Grover, was helping people fight the institutions and how the unavailability of funds affect them. First, if these lawyers were doing a service to the nation in the form of supporting the causes of say Greenpeace and Teesta Setalvad, then why they need money from foreign sources? Why can’t they do the job? After all, they earn much money from the same profession!
Take the case of Greenpeace. There is no reason why the donors of Greenpeace should first tackle about how green their own countries are. In many developed nations, there is only flora but no fauna! Each and every wild animal was hunted so that the human populace could live in safety. One liberal state in America celebrates killing rattle snakes as an annual event. Moreover, if Greenpeace wants to preserve Indian forests by stopping coal mining and thermal power generation, is it not depriving Indians a minimum requirement of having electricity? As such, per capita electricity consumption in India is very less when compared with the west. Except metros and few states, continuous power still remain a poll promise! First, let the Greenpeace foundation stop using electricity and shun using modern amenities, before preventing others from asking for minimum necessities in their lives. More so, it is not that the teams of Greenpeace are technically qualified to make any assessment. All they do is to hire consultants to prepare reports suiting to the interests of their donors.
Preserving forests and environment is not a bad thing, but a good one. However, when people under the garb of collective interest assume the role of responsible citizen, they should not seek to build their careers out of these movements. Problem is some people seek easy funds from foreign donors only to stagnate the progress of the nation! Can Greenpeace guarantee the funds they receive from abroad are generated without damaging the environment? When he asked for land from the farmers of Sambalpur, Jawaharlal Nehru reminded them to think of coming generations and the interests of nation at large. The land was for the Hirakud dam that is now at the centre of progress in the region.
Another example explained in the Oped was that of how Teesta Setalvad was trying to get justice to the victims of 2002 riots. Unfortunately, Ms Mohan wrote it was after Narendra Modi ascended to the post of Prime Minister, Teesta was found stealing donations meant for riot victims. In fact the transfer of funds from donations was in the public memory long before Modi even became Prime Minister. Now, funds to Setalvad’s organization have dried up. So, for how long Setalvad would be ‘providing justice’ to the riot victims? Forever? Or as long as she lives? This is the absurdity in supporting people like Setalvad.
And, in all these years, nobody spoke of Hindu victims of the same riots! And never their case was taken up by anyone, when Hindus were the victims for decades in the city of Owaisi, where communal riots were an annual event as long as Congress ruled the state continuously! The riots were only halted when the first non-Congress government was established in Andhra Pradesh. And even today, Asaduddin Owaisi plays the victim card proclaiming he was representing the minorities!
Dalits were flagged for skinning cows by vigilanties and so Modi be damned!
Never anyone sincerely analyse why Dalits are still skinning cows even after seven years of independence and reservations! Even Dr Ambedkar wanted Dalits to give up the job as it was associated with social stigma.
The conclusion of her article was in fact the most hypocritical in the entire column. In one paragraph she says (verbatim) “Indian philanthropists remain tight fisted when it comes to issues like land or labor rights, health care access, quality of education, or resource exploitation by corporations”. In the very next she wrote the words of a fund raising manager from New Delhi “Our rich guys will feed poor kids but won’t question governments”. So, as long as it is not questioning the government, Indian rich are ready to depart with money; No?
I don’t remember Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose or Mahatma Gandhi ever depended on donations from abroad to further their respective movements. Even the movement against Indira Gandhi’s emergency was a domestic one without any funds from abroad. Except the terrorist activities, there never was a need to depend on foreign funding to oppose the government. What is needed was the WILL to oppose and clarity in thoughts of what we are demanding. (If we don’t have clarity, we may end up having Kejriwal as CM). Both Gandhi and Bose could raise funds domestically to oppose even the Brits. And they raised from commoners and industrialists as well.
It is difficult to comprehend why donors from those countries that violate the very same principles they advocate for in India, donate funds to Indian NGOs? And I am supposed to believe they are really good patrons of good ‘theories’ and ‘thoughts’, just because the receiver says so?
The point to note here is as much successive governments have turned in independent India into a money making establishments to the ruling parties, non-government organizations have become to some individuals. If one wants to make a career out of serving people selflessly, it is simply hypocrisy! Either you have a career or you serve! Don’t mix things. It is a dangerous combination. See what happened to the main stream media. When the media houses try to generate profits, they are simply rented to the highest bidder; losing the main aim of ‘unbiased’ reporting in the process!
If they believe in what they do, they don’t need foreign funds, if they have conviction. If not, they simply are destabilizing someone else’ life and career for the sake of their own career and life.
