It’s now the turn of NGOs flush with unaccounted funds to feel the heat. Are these NGOs funded by foreign hands working to promote their benefactors’ nefarious designs and working against the interests of the nation? The truth can only be out if the social sector adopts transparent funding and best financial practices. But does this call for monitoring of NGOs’ fundings? Is this a case of silencing dissent or taming errant? As the debate rages on, we try establish the truth...

john dayal// The report of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which demonises non-government organisations (NGOs) and several activists of the country, including a late Catholic priest Fr. Tom Kotcherry, for working against Indian national interests, was a precursor to more direct action to come. The administration took immediate action, ordering Greenpeace, which the IB report had targeted as the prime culprit in delaying, if not preventing, big-money projects in tribal areas, to take prior permission from the government before it sought any funding from international agencies.

That is not to say that the earlier Congress government had not used the notorious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, to punish NGOs in Tamil Nadu, including a Catholic diocese, for supporting the movement of the local people against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, which the Union and the state governments wanted not so much for the electricity it would produce but for the political gains it could bring to the Congress and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. And, the risks from the Russia-made reactor could be overlooked in the name of development.

But the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government in New Delhi differs in a critical area from its Congress predecessor. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, led by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, was pilloried for its sloth, its corruption and its inability to control the price rise. But, it had a human face that changed the life of the rural poor through a slew of welfare programmes that did reduce a little from the pain of poverty. Above all, it did not seek to divide the people on the lines of religion or egg them on to be violent. Mr Modi’s government carries a deadly political baggage that seeks to do just that, polarise communities, pitting the majority faith against religions that it brands as alien. In the mineral-rich and heavily forested tribal belt that extends from Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh and beyond, including much of Chhattisgarh and Orissa, this polarisation of the countryside has had the immediate impact of almost totally wrecking the unity of the people against exploitative and environmentally destructive industrial and mining projects of national and international monopolies. By demolishing ethical NGOs, which empower people on the one hand and ensure people’s unity in mass movements on the other, the government opens the hinterland for exploitation by crony capitalists.

It is in this light that one has to see the move in May 2014 by several village panchayats in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh—which was prompted by the Sangh Parivar's units, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram—to ban the entry of Christian workers and their right to worship in these areas. The resolution came to light a few days ago. The panchayat diktat is that only Hindu religious workers will be allowed into the village areas in the tribal belt. This is, of course, entirely illegal, and violative of the provisions in the Constitution on freedom of expression and on movement. The coercive methodology of branding every tribal as a Hindu and to turn

him or her to oppose Christians injures the secular nature of society and the peace that has existed over a long time. Such bans on a particular faith and the friction they breed can so easily lead to violence against religious minorities. The memories of the massive violence in Kandhamal in 2007 and 2008, which had its roots in such indoctrination and communalisation, are still fresh, and the struggle for justice for the victims still continues in the high court and the Supreme Court. The governments of Chhattisgarh and the Union must, therefore, act urgently to stem this explosive evil while there is still time. The decision of the government to put the spotlight on NGOs receiving funding from foreign sources may have a repressive impact and derail the good work being done by thousands of them in the field of human rights and development.

Sudipta Sengupta// What would have happened had Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his INA reached Delhi? What would have happened had it been Netaji, and not Mahatma Gandhi, who succeeded in leading India’s fight for freedom? Seek a nonpolitical, unbiased view from any politician and they will frown at you. But, many will tell you that it, perhaps, would not have been very good for India. They can tell you that a Japan-funded victory probably would not have been ‘freedom’ afterall; instead, they can argue that such a victory would have led to horror stories of the Japanese replacing the British, torturing us and turning women into sex slaves. Is this opinion correct? We will never know that. Does it discredit the glorious attempt of Bose? Not actually.

Let's take the debate away from a Netaji vs Gandhiji equation and focus on the issue at hand today: should we stop foreign fundings for NGOs? The answer is not simple. One of the key parties embroiled in the middle of this entire discussion is Greenpeace. Now, blaming Greenpeace of running a westernised and funder-influenced anti- India propoganda is like blaming Arvind Kejriwal of being a CIA agent. The fact remains that both of them have had foreign funding. Is that bad? We do not actually know. In a question on its website about the source of funds, Greenpeace does well to elaborate on sources from which they do not accept cheques but stays silent on sources from where they do. And, as a nation that has been ruled by foreign powers for hundreds of years, we have developed an inherent instinct of being suspicious about anybody with a foreign connection.

For somebody who has worked in start-ups for long now, I know that funding is a magic word. So, I know how sweet it is and how helpful it is to give a boost to the vision that you have. But, things get tricky when the investor starts pulling a few strings. Initially it hurts a bit. But, the bigger you grow, more funds you need, and more accommodating you become to the control somebody has over you, your business and, at times, your mission. It may not be the case always that your investor is some Mogambo wanting to build his own empire through you—but, then, it isn’t actually your business anymore, so how would you know?

It is a fact that Greenpeace does receive foreign funding, reportedly a large part of it. Do these funding sources, which put in millions of dollars as a charity, call the shots on deciding which campaigns Greenpeace picks? This is anybody’s guess. But, how does that matter? It probably does not matter much when you want to save Olive Ridley turtles in the coastal Orissa; but, it does matter a lot when you create an organised movement to curb a country’s all energy sources, except wind and solar. I believe that Greenpeace can have a better image and probably will find more followers if they rise above these speculations. And, the government's distrust over foreign funding only creates an opportunity for such organisations to aim for that trust in society. From April 1, 2014, a new Company’s Act has been put into effect. The new law states that a company with a net worth of US$ 81.7 million or over, a turnover of US$ 163.4 million or more or a net profit of over US$ 816,500 in a financial year must spend at least two per cent of its average net profit of the last three years on corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes.

This not only puts India among one of the first countries in the world to mandate spending on social welfare as part of company activity by law but also will be applicable to over 8,000 publicly listed companies and multi-national companies operating in India and is expected to generate over US$ 2 billion a year. And, to encourage Greenpeace, environment sustainability is listed as one of the eligible CSR activities. This should make up for the loss of funding that the NGOs are crying about.

I am not a diehard opponent of foreign funding to NGOs. I also do not believe that homegrown investors will not have an agenda. Do we know for sure that the news in CNN-IBN will be as unbiased as it should be with Reliance now owning it? But, then I believe that a cause like environment sustainability, if it is as noble as it should be, should rise above these debates. A curb on foreign funds should not be a hindrance for organisations like Greenpeace to take up the causes that they wish to. After all, what Greenpeace represent is a revolution, and a revolution needs to have more heart than strong funding. It is time for the fund-raising teams of Indian NGOs and the CSR heads of various companies in India to come together and create a movement for sustainable causes with indigenous funding. I believe that is possible. Small social enterprises are doing good work. It goes awry only when they start dreaming too big and scaling up too fast with foreign funding.