By Rasika Gynedi
Entrance to Dharavi, the largest slum in Mumbai, India and site of frequent NGO poverty alleviation efforts. Source: Jon Hurd’s flickr photostream, used under a creative commons license.
Speculation has been rife over the possibility of a clampdown on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by the government of India. Several foreign-funded NGOs have recently been highlighted by the government for their alleged role in “negatively impacting” economic development. Since 2004 the United States has been the top foreign donor to NGOs in India, which means the potential NGO clampdown could have serious consequences- whether directly or indirectly- on the operation of U.S.-funded NGOs in the country (see Table 1).
| Table 1: Contribution of top donor countries (2011-2012) | ||
| Country | 2012 (USD million) | 2011 (USD million) |
| USA | 71.9 | 61.1 |
| UK | 22.8 | 20.0 |
| Germany | 20.5 | 18.9 |
| Italy | 9.9 | 9.2 |
| Netherlands | 7.8 | 8.8 |
| Source: India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, FCRA Annual Reports. | ||
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), foreign-funded NGOs have advocated against nuclear power, coal mining, industrial projects, extractive industries in Northeast India, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). With regard to nuclear power, there have been reports of the power stations suffering radiation exposure, leaks and accidents. As a result and owing to concerns stemming from the Fukushima nuclear plant accident in Japan, there have been several protests led by NGOs, most notably against construction of the Kudankulam and Jaitapur power plants. The share of nuclear power in electricity generation has been steadily increasing, but the environmental externalities are of concern too.
With regards to coal mining, NGOs campaigned against deforestation in Madhya Pradesh, while oil exploration in Manipur prompted protests against toxin exposure. Other industrial projects such as the Sardar Sarovar hydropower dam project have regularly faced opposition over rehabilitation of displaced locals.
On the issue of GMOs, genetically-modified crops are known for their increased resistance to pests and in some cases greater nutritional content, and could therefore play a critical role in food security. BT-Cotton was the first, and to date only, GMO crop approved for cultivation in India and is credited with helping turn India into a major cotton exporter. However, NGOs have been raising concerns over the commercialization of such crops and their role in sustainable agriculture.
Congress Reaction
In light of the above protests, the previous Congress government imposed a moratorium on BT-Brinjal (genetically modified version of brinjal or eggplant). Former prime minister Manmohan Singh invoked the “foreign hand” and placed direct blame on U.S.-based NGOs for thwarting India’s development needs. However, less attention was spent on other impediments faced by companies such as policy uncertainty and bureaucratic delays in acquiring permits for project implementation.
Subsequently, the government took several steps beginning in 2011 to tighten its grip over the NGO community. Seventy-seven NGOs were placed under the purview of the External Affairs ministry, several were were shut down, and about a dozen saw their permission to receive foreign funding revoked.
BJP Action
Following the release of a confidential intelligence report (now available in the public domain), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) instructed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to obtain prior permission from the MHA before clearing any foreign funds to the NGOs identified in the report. Further, the NGOs would need to inform the RBI about the intended usage of such funds.
Measures such as these have prompted fears of a fresh NGO clampdown by the government. While some groups clearly focus on issues that slow India’s development, other NGOs have a crucial role to play in a democracy and can be important vehicles of social change. NGOs, for their part, should ensure they meet all the compliance requirements. According to news reports, half the NGOs named in the intelligence report did not file their foreign contribution statements for 2013-14 with the MHA.
There is also growing concern over the possibility of broad-brush rules inadvertently limiting activities that the government would otherwise support. Sweeping restrictions may hamper programs working on issues such as poverty reduction, child education or similar causes. It can be difficult to draw the line between “good” and “bad” NGOs.
In areas where NGOs are clearly agitating against overwhelmingly positive development initiatives, the government should clearly and frequently elucidate the importance of such initiatives to the public in the concerned areas. State leaders, too, will play an important role in supporting development initiatives, as evidenced by Andhra Pradesh’s willingness over a decade ago to press the Delhi government to allow BT-Cotton in its state. Consulting with public health groups, environmental groups, farmers’ unions and scientists, among others, is a step in the right direction towards engaging civil society.
Ms. Rasika Gynedi is a researcher with the Wadhwani Chair in US-India Policy Studies at CSIS.
