Vinay Sahasrabuddhe
Thomas Friedman told us that ‘The World is Flat’! In the context of trade and industry, globalisation has provided some level playing field and in that context flattening of the World was welcome. However, when forces try to make the World socially and culturally flat too, it amounts to the World becoming less beautiful that today. The way Globalisation of Philanthropy is conducted is one such factor impacting society and culture all over the world, in many cases; negatively.
It is pertinent to understand this as the Parliament will soon be discussing FCRA amendments, probably during this very session. Many from the Civil Society sector or NGOs working in rural and tribal areas are crying hoarse about these amendments, casting aspersions on the Govt and even making wild allegations. However, there are learnings both from our own history of pseudo-voluntarism that thrived on foreign funds as well as in other countries where there are instances of damage caused in multiple ways. An insight into these provides compelling reasons for the Govt to come out with these amendments.
To start with, let’s reflect upon the how, over the years; pure voluntarism has taken a back seat in development sector. In many cases, commercialism has entered the development sector masquerading as professionalism and eventually, killing the spirit of voluntarism. Majorly in the pre-independence era and even few decades after that, social work organisations in India were known for voluntarism. Many earned name due to their commitment, dedication, passion and perseverance. But later, thanks to the globalisation of philanthropy, pure voluntary spirit was relegated to the periphery and a glossy-paper voluntarism started thriving. Voluntary organisations started calling themselves as Non-Govt Organisations, and ironically, became ‘government/s beyond the government’. As voluntary organisations became NGOs, they also started engaging in mad race for easy money, influencing public policy and also at times playing in the hands of donor organisations. Then came foreign funding foundations from all over the World, providing fillip to pseudo-voluntarism.
It is educative to understand as to how foreign funding has damaged societies abroad. Way back in 1997, researcher James Petras who studied the impact of foreign funding on Latin American society, observed that ‘the managers of NGOs have become skilled in designing projects. They transmit the new rhetoric of “identity” and “globalism” into the popular movements. Their activities and texts promote international cooperation, self-help, micro-enterprises, and forge ideological bonds with the neoliberals while forcing people into economic dependency on external donors.’
Same is the story in Africa. Decades before, a Zimbabwe researcher T H Ziwanza had pointed out that the ‘incessant flows of aid have done more harm than good to Africa, creating a vicious cycle of dependency that is proving hard to dismantle. The elite convergence of the Western superpowers, multinational executives, and the executives of international and local NGOs is creating a pernicious form of opportunism as these elites do not care about getting rid of poverty completely but taking advantage of the mess and inequality created by centuries of imperialism.’ A telling comment came from Gary Young, a reporter for the Guardian in 1998. Sharing his experience with African NGOs he stated that “about 75% of the money aid agencies collect is spent on the administration of their own organisation,” further adding that “NGOs do not create emancipatory freedom. But rather ‘licensed’ freedom – freedom ‘within the system,’ but without an overhaul of that repressive system furthering poverty.”
There is ample research based evidence to suggest that foreign aid for poverty alleviation in India is more of a chimera. A 2019 research paper clearly establishes that ‘(foreign) aid does not have significant impact on poverty alleviation both in the short-run and long-run’.
This, of course is not to paint every funder black. There is absolutely no question of banning foreign funding. The limited point is, a tighter scrutiny is essential in the interest of the entire global community, the donors as well as the recipients.
Seen in this context, FCRA amendments are preventive of ill-effects and not restrictive for genuine donors and donation seekers. Together, these amendments are aimed at making the FCRA framework more transparent, accountable and risk-ready. They seek to bring administrative clarity for associations, improve monitoring of the use of foreign contribution, enable the identification of inactive associations, fix clear accountability for an association’s management, and ensure that foreign contribution is utilised effectively and only for the purposes for which it is received.
These amendments will ensure that foreign money does not shapedomestic political, social or ideological outcomes in ways that compromise national security and sovereignty. Notably, a Supreme Court judgment in fact, upholds State’s invocation of sovereignty and national security in regulating foreign contribution. Properly understood, the relevant question is not the cost of compliance to an individual organisation but the source and purpose of foreign funding of activity within India. It must be noted that this is the foundational consideration behind these amendments. Besides, the regulatory framework proposed is as per the international norm —sovereign States across the world maintain comparable, and frequently stricter, controls over foreign funding of domestic non-governmental activity.
Notably, the proposed regulatory framework is absolutely faith-neutral and sector-neutral. It draws no distinction between Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist or any other belief system, nor between a religious body and a secular service organisation. The same registration discipline, the same disclosure obligations and the same purpose-and-area requirements apply to every FCRA-registered association without exception.
Some interested groups have made a hue and cry about these amendments. However, the overwhelming majority of thousands of voluntary organisations in India, including registered associations like hospitals, universities, research institutions and mainstream service organisations, have raised no objection, for the reason that transparency and accountability hold no threat for those whose foreign funding is applied to its declared, legitimate purpose. Were the amendments genuinely to threaten the voluntary sector at large, the objection would have been broad-based and cross-sectoral.
Last but not the least, to prevent ultra-professionalisation of voluntary sector, the Govt ought to go beyond FCRA. Our civilisational values teach us about autonomous society. To achieve that cherished goal, we must introduce many more reforms and protect the flickering flame of voluntarism!
The author is President, The Asiatic Society of Mumbai and NEC Member of the BJP
