I/II. http://www.asianage.com/columnists/why-pm-hates-some-ngos-404
Why PM hates some NGOs Apr 26, 2015 Bharat Bhushan The Narendra Modi government has suspended the registration of Greenpeace India under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, (FCRA) for 180 days, preventing it from receiving any foreign funds. Earlier it had frozen the bank accounts of Greenpeace for alleged financial irregularities. It has also placed the Ford Foundation on its watch list for allegedly funding organisations not registered under the FCRA. This came after the Gujarat government sought action against the agency for "direct interference... in internal affairs of the country and also of abetting communal disharmony in India." There is nothing new in harassing inconvenient civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) by denying them FCRA clearance. Past governments have also done this. Yet there is a renewed vigour with which the Modi government has been targeting NGOs, ostensibly based on a report of the Intelligence Bureau which accused NGOs of "using people-centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects". The government has since gone out of its way to stigmatise them, thwart their free movement and erode their credibility. Perhaps Mr Modi's dislike of "five-star NGOs" stems from his experience of activists taking up the cases of the 2002 Gujarat riots and of extra-judicial murders of alleged terrorists in the state. It could also be that Mr Modi, who came on a pro-corporate platform, does not want "people-centric issues" to hamper development. It may also come from the fact of his being roundly defeated in Delhi by a ragtag group of NGO activists who formed the Aam Aadmi Party. The antagonism to NGO activism, however, is not limited to the Prime Minister. It extends to the Bharatiya Janata Party and its Hindutva affiliates. But why is this antagonism not shared by other political parties -- especially those that were a part of the United Progressive Alliance, which was no less corporate-friendly? The UPA, in fact, brought them into policy-making through the National Advisory Council (NAC). It recognised that legislators often represented little more than personal interests and patronage networks. Some UPA leaders, therefore, thought it prudent to invite the leaders of various mass struggles inside the political tent. It was through the NAC that the UPA was able to put social inclusion at the heart of its policies. The NAC became an institutionalised space for giving voice to the marginalised and the dispossessed. It made the government and Parliament look like sensitive democratic institutions as a result of path-breaking rights-based legislations, like the Right to Information Act of 2005, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005, the Forest Rights Act of 2006, the Right to Education Act of 2009, the National Food Security Act of 2013, and the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. The point is that the Congress-led UPA was able to strengthen its focus on inclusive development using social sector NGOs for brainstorming. Why don't the BJP and Prime Minister Modi do the same? What explains their inability to listen to civil society organisations and to chastise those who say that something needs to be done about rampant poverty, malnutrition, lack of health facilities and sanitation? The reasons are both historical and structural. The origins of the BJP and before that, of its predecessor, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, are in fact in an NGO parent-organisation -- the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS, despite its quasi-paramilitary culture, is the largest and most powerful NGO in the country. It has spawned hundreds of NGOs of its own. Their influence extends from the deepest interstices of India's social structure to almost all the organs of the state. The RSS, with its own brand of Hindu nationalism, has always been suspicious of secular organisations. The exclusivist notion of Hinduism as "Indian-ness" developed by V.D. Savarkar and the RSS itself, developed in the context of the Hindu-Muslim riots of the 1920s and in the aftermath of the pan-Islamic Khilafat Movement supported by the Congress and Mahatma Gandhi, and perceived by Hindu radicals as a threat to Hindu society. The RSS still believes that the "Hindu nation" is under threat from the minority Muslims of India and proselytising Christians. The RSS is suspicious of any organisation that challenges its ideological space anywhere. It is threatened by all agitations organised around a rights-based approach which pushes religious identity into the background and foregrounds secular identities -- such as landless or marginalised tribals. Those who promote any collective identity other than that of the "Hindu nation" are seen as enemies -- they include trade unions, feminists, LGBTs (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender), communists, secularists, non-Hindu religious organisations, tribal rights activists, oustees of big projects, and non-RSS groups organising farmers and agricultural workers. They are seen to be creating conflict by bringing in extraneous identities to bear on what is essentially presumed to be a harmonious Hindu society -- ignoring its caste and class stratifications. In its own extensive work with marginalised peoples, the RSS tries to draw them under the Hindu umbrella. In doing so, it must face the challenge of the fault lines created by "others" -- the "enemies" of the Hindu nation and the political ideologies inimical to it. These other organisations bring social-economic indicators into the discussion to demand justice, equality. They do not hesitate to formulate demands as sectional interests based on social fault lines. The UPA government took social movements on board because it believed that this bridged the crisis of political representation. The BJP and Mr Modi on the other hand think that social movements are already represented in the party through its connections with the RSS NGOs. Appointments to government and quasi-government educational and cultural bodies are made from this pool of NGOs. This accounts for the difference in attitude of the UPA and the BJP towards civil society organisations. In a continuing ideological struggle for space in society, non-RSS NGOs are, therefore, discredited by them or even crushed by accusations that they discredit India internationally. However, choking their sources of funds, deriding them and eroding their legitimacy -- as the BJP and Prime Minister Modi himself are trying to do -- can only shrink the democratic space in society. India is not a "Hindu" society as imagined by the RSS and try as they might, the votaries of Hindutva do not represent the diverse identities with their myriad problems that make up this amazing democratic nation of India. The writer is a journalist based in New Delhi II. http://www.outlookindia.com/article/keep-your-silver/294205 CONTROVERSY: SHACKLING NGOS Keep Your Silver US donor agency Ford Foundation barred for 'uncomfortable' donations PRAGYA SINGH The FF Story Presence in India Since 1952, arrived at the invitation of PM Jawaharlal Nehru Monies into the country 3,500 grants, worth $508 million What does it fund Agriculture, microfinance, philanthropy, Dalit rights, peace and security initiatives, the arts, and so on Key projects it has funded National Foundation for India: $6 m Dalit Foundation: $3.51 million ATREE (Ashoka Trust): $2 million Samaj Pragati Sahayog: $1.98 m Institute of Development Studies: $1.5 million Who heads it here The global board has N.R. Narayana Murthy, the sole Indian among 16 from various countries, including Tim Berners-Lee (heads WWW Foundation), Ursula Burns (Xerox CEO). Kavita N. Ramdas heads the South Asia region. Strictures in India Has been debarred from transferring funds directly to projects. Globally such major strictures on FF are rare, though it has been criticised often. *** The heightened scrutiny into the affairs of the Ford Foundation, undoubtedly the biggest planet in India's non-government firmament, is clearly a 'bold move' by the government. It's certainly sending shudders down the civil society universe. Ford Foundation (FF) has been debarred from transferring funds directly to recipients engaged in an array of social and development projects. From now on, banks in India can transfer FF funds to recipients only after government approval. Why the Modi sarkar is "going after" this NGO is anybody's guess. Govern-m-ent officials did not respond to requests for comment. A key FF trustee, N.R. Nara-y-ana Murthy, did not respond to an e-mail while Kavita Ramdas, FF's India representative, could not be reached. An FF statement e-mailed on April 27 says: "At present we have not yet heard directly from the ministry of home affairs." This amplifies a signal that many already hear--the sounds of the government splashing off on a fishing expedition, scu-ttling all work associated with FF. Rumours, however, abound where facts wear thin. Is the government upset because FF once funded Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia's NGO Kabir? But that was a decade ago, in 2005 and 2008, and the home ministry has already pro-bed it, finding no wrongdoing. Sisodia, too, was unavailable for comment. Or is it a signal to Modi's powerful friend Barack Obama, the President of the US, which has enquired about the government's move against FF? "Some-one needs to tell @fordfoundation that funding Teesta Setalvad's feud against Modi is not the same as helping the green revolution," Sadanand Dhume, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, tweeted on April 26. He, however, declined to elaborate. *** "Why put them 'under scanner'? If there's the slightest evidence of anti-national work, can't the state ask them to leave India?" Martin Macwan, Navsarjan "Putting pressure via FCRA regulations, veiled threats to groups doing stellar work, it's all extremely unhealthy." Mallika Sarabhai, Dancer/social activist "The government has every right to ascertain the truth but cannot curtail anyone's voice. Human rights should be sacrosanct." Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan "Legal loopholes, sophistry, to interpret 'public interest' as the interest of corporations shows how state can be undermined." Dilip Simeon, Historian "Ford Foundation cannot be undermined just because we want to send a signal to donors to not help certain people." Devinder Sharma, Agriculture expert "Since 2010, NGOs have to renew licences every five years. This year we'll see a huge pile-up of applications, bureaucratic fog." Amitabh Behar, National Foundation of India *** All this has triggered disquiet even within the Sangh parivar. For instance, RSS pracharak K.N. Govindacharya thi-nks the Modi government's moves are "ad hoc" and "single out" FF on specious grounds. He told Outlook, "Vague app-eals to national interest are not right. Ford should at least have been given a reason by the government." Try telling that to civil society. The groups that work with FF fear their fin-ances could take a tumble or that bureaucrats will linger needlessly over their applications to please their political masters. "We have an ongoing funding from the Ford Foundation and are exp-ecting the next instalment. It will probably be delayed now," says Amitabh Behar, executive director, National Foundation of India (NFI). NFI received around $6 million from FF between 2006-14. "We see this episode within a larger context across the country. The prevalent narrative has been detrimental to the rights-based work we do, particularly in letting money come in," he says. And to think the same foundation was once credited with bolstering India's green revolution. "The whole country is running on foreign funds and nobody complains. Ford Foundation helped India become self-sufficient in foodgrains, and now everybody starts talking nat-ional interest," says agriculture expert Devinder Sharma. "What's hap--pening is very unfortunate...and just because we (the government) want to stifle some voices," he says. "Vague appeals to national interest are not right. Ford should have been given a reason," says Govindacharya. Devinder is only hinting at what is universally suspected--the government is angry with FF for it helped finance Teesta Setalvad, the activist who supported the 2002 Gujarat riots victims and their fight for justice. Setalvad has lately been accused of embezzling funds of the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Sabrang Trust, which FF once financed. The matter is under investigation. "We have not violated any law, including the FCRA," says Setalvad, referring to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, which traces its roots to the Emergency days (see interview). A few years before that--in the aftermath of the 1971 war--India had chucked out USAID. It fit into a pattern of 'strong' government action. Of course, many civil society groups are repeatedly accused of being 'anti-national', an allegation that often hampers the only entities aiding marginalised citizens and groups. This is the crux of the problem: what is 'national interest'? The government cites this to evoke suspicion that FF, and many others, finance organisations that oppose India. FF is involved in funding diverse activities, from democratic government and sustainable development to human rights. Besides, 13 per cent of its funds go to government agencies, making the action against it ironic to boot. Public intellectual and historian Dilip Simeon, who has worked with Oxfam and the Aman Trust, which received funds from FF over a decade ago, says, "At times the word 'nation' acquires God-like overto-nes which can be used to stifle debate." Simeon says that three players--state off-icials, government and civil society--define and preserve national interest. Sho-uld conflicts arise, "there is no way out except dialogue amongst all three". In other words, national interest is not something "out there", but is constantly mediated and defined. He finds the assumption that all donors have a unified agenda "facile"--there are hundreds of donors, each with varying mandates. For instance, Aman's projects inclu-ded providing psychological treatment for traumatised children, reskilling widows of caste killings and legal assistance to the poor. "At no stage did we feel pressured or driven to fulfil any agenda other than our own. In many cases, we worked closely with states and in some cases (emergency medical relief) also the Ind-ian army. We took support only because it was without strings," he says. In fact, it isn't just about FF any more. In March, Greenpeace's bank accounts were frozen over alleged FCRA violations. "An official MHA notice reached us two days after our account was frozen," says a Greenpeace executive, speaking anonymously. Greenp-eace also learned of its violations not from the MHA, but during a routine visit to the bank. "We have no money to get projects off the ground," says the executive. Another 14 internat-i-onal and local donor and recipient age-n-cies have been barred, apparently as they had "links" to Greenpeace. Nearly 9,000 NGOs were deprived of registration as they did not file returns for three years. Another 14 international and local donor/recipient agencies have been barred, apparently as they have Greenpeace 'links'. "There is nothing new in the governm-ent's suspicions about FF," says Martin Macwan, who runs Navsarjan and the Dalit Foundation, which have received funds from FF. In 1994, a secretary to the government of Gujarat personally interviewed Macwan before letting him acc-ept an FF grant. "I never had to get prior sanction to receive donations from any other international organisation," he says. "Today the PM has been forced to raise his voice against manual scavenging. But in 1996, when Navsarjan filed the first PIL against the inhuman practice, I too was branded anti-national," he says. There is no dearth of anti-nationals in India judging by how many have faced this charge. Mallika Sarabhai, activist and classical dancer, is one. "The mandates of FF and Greenpeace are justice and equity and not making governments fall," she says. Bezwada Wilson, who fou-nded the Safai Karamchari Andolan, sees the episode as a danger signal for rights-based organisations. "Human rig-hts work should be sacrosanct, it cannot be done in a climate of fear," he says. It's tempting to see the FF crackdown as the work of a nanny state, one that believes international donors are incapable of handling their own money. More interesting is to witness a government lash out at rivals, past, present and some imaginary ones. Taking Ford Foundation down a notch hits the entire NGO space where it hurts--in the pocket. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
