The key objective of enacting the amended Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) of 2010 was to consolidate the law to “regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
When the UPA government amended the provisions regarding foreign contributions after six years in power, there was a grim realisation among policymakers that some influential NGOs, particularly those with external connections, were deviating from their stated objectives. This deviation created situations detrimental to developmental projects and national interests.
However, barring some isolated actions, no substantial scrutiny or harsh measures were initiated against these errant organisations. Many in the ruling dispensation’s support groups felt that these NGOs and their extensive networks suffered from political prejudices. After all, these organisations wielded significant financial power from offshore accounts, had perceived intellectual credibility, used to associate themselves with high-sounding objectives, and had substantial backing from segments of the media, academia, and political circles.
The question remained: Did these NGOs truly practise what they professed, or did they deviate from their stated goals to pursue motivated agendas that disrupted projects, fuelled separatist forces, and attempted to stall India’s growth story by any means necessary?
The arrival of the Modi government in 2014 marked a surge in aspirations and a renewed self-belief in India’s advancement, particularly in two areas—business and industry growth and the security scenario. This shift did not sit well with certain Western institutions and groups. As has been widely discussed, Indian business leaders began to embrace the notion of becoming multinational, questioning why such opportunities should be reserved for companies originating in the West.
Notably, India ranked 63rd in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report (DBR) for 2020, published in October 2019, before the report was discontinued. Over five years, India improved its position by 79 places, moving from 142nd.
The Indian Express front-page story, “Tax crackdown draws links between NGOs-‘in cause’ and funding pattern. IT alleges foreign funding influenced NGOs to campaign against Adani and JSW Projects,” can be viewed in this context.
Based on searches conducted by law enforcement agencies in September 2022 at the offices of Oxfam, the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), Environics Trust (ET), the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE), and Care India Solutions for Sustainable Development (CISSD), further investigations by the Income Tax (I-T) Department revealed that from 2015 to 2021, several NGOs, including Care India, Environics Trust, LIFE, and Oxfam, received a significant portion of their funding from foreign sources. Care India allegedly obtained 92% of its funding from abroad, Environics Trust received 95%, LIFE received 86%, and Oxfam received 78%. Notably, Environics Trust reportedly sourced 100% of its funding from foreign entities for three out of those six years. LIFE has claimed to the media that the charges against it are baseless.
Take Oxfam India, for example. Its website states: “Oxfam India believes in the power of people. We work to ensure that Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, and Informal Sector Workers, especially women and girls, have safe, violence-free lives with the freedom to speak their minds, equal opportunities to realise their rights, and a discrimination-free future.”
However, the 141-page Income Tax letter referenced by the Indian Express points out Oxfam India’s support for Oxfam Australia’s campaign to halt mining by the Adani Group. Citing emails recovered from a hard drive, the investigative agency concluded that Oxfam India had a clear interest in “delisting Adani Ports,” describing its activities as part of a “sinister plan” under the guise of charitable activities to target an Indian business group in Australia, alleging collusion with foreign entities.
Two NGOs have engaged in litigation that has “stalled economic and development projects” in the country, including those of the Adani Group and JSW.
There is a concerted effort among various NGOs to support protests and halt different projects. These NGOs collaborate to achieve desired outcomes, often causing agitation and creating law and order issues.
The Income Tax Department has also highlighted coordinated actions among some NGOs, suggesting that these organisations might have collaborated, raising further concerns about their operations and foreign funding sources. The letters sent by the I-T Department to four of the five NGOs—Oxfam, Environics Trust, LIFE, and Care India—contained a common section titled “Concerted efforts by connected NGOs”.
It has also emerged that if the FCRA licence of one NGO is cancelled, it might redirect funds to a “puppet NGO” to further its agenda. Instances have been cited in which they operated in different states through various NGOs to instigate protests and stall projects in the name of environmental and civil-forest rights.
Another tactic these NGOs employ is litigation, filing cases in the Supreme Court under various pretexts. It does not matter whether the Court entertains their petitions; they continue to pursue these cases, hoping for success in some instances, creating public debate and confusion in others, and delaying projects as matters become sub judice.
In recent years, the government has further tightened the FCRA 2010 regulations. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, as of now, the licences of 20,708 outfits have been cancelled, 14,836 have been deemed expired, and 15,979 licences for various NGOs remain active.
Each time there is scrutiny of these NGOs or a crackdown on them due to irregularities and violations of the law, there is intense backlash from left-liberal aligned groups, claiming that the government is curbing “freedom of speech, civil rights, and the right to dissent”.
But is that really the case?
(The author is Consulting Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author