In the wake of the recent suspension of Greenpeace India’s license and closure of its bank accounts, a number of civil society organizations have criticized the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stating that its decision on Greenpeace is a way to curb dissent1.
There has also been a spate of newspaper articles2, 3, 4 that have condemned the regulatory mechanism - the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) governing the flow of foreign funds to individuals or associations such as not-for-profit/ non-government organizations (NGOs). There is a strong consensus that more recently FCRA has been used as a means to restrain the activities of organizations challenging governments on their idea of development.
There are approximately 1.2 million NGOs in India working with different sections of the society on a number of issues ranging from environmental degradation, poverty alleviation, child labour, to women’s welfare and empowerment5. Out of these, a total of 42, 529 NGOs were registered under the FCRA as of July 16, 20146. Of late, the registrations and the licenses of several organizations have been or attempted to be annulled and bank accounts frozen without specific reasons. Among these were the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), Centre for Promotion of Social Causes (CPSC), and Greenpeace India. Although, the judiciary has voted in favor of organizations like INSAF and Greenpeace India in a number of occasions in the past, the verdict in response to the more recent MHA notice is yet to come.
MHA alleges that Greenpeace India have incorrectly reported the amount of foreign funds received, have transferred foreign funds to non-registered FCRA accounts and NGOs without prior approval, utilized funds for legal purposes such as bail fees and writ petitions, and also utilized the same for payment of salary of an international Greenpeace activist who worked for a short duration with the organization7.
However, Greenpeace India’s responses8 to these allegations are that all credits and transfers were made to FCRA designated accounts whereas all payments were to third parties or reimbursements to local accounts which is acceptable by law and the issue of salaries and consultancies raised by MHA are absurd as Greg Muttit’s salary-the international activist, of approx. euro 56k, was borne by Greenpeace International and not by Greenpeace India. Thus, after inspecting Greenpeace India’s response it also seems that they have enough evidence to disprove MHA’s allegations.
Laws are imperative for the smooth functioning of the nation and checks are needed to curtail activities of corrupt and fraud agencies. But something seems to be amiss here.
At the outset, there seems to be a selective picking of organizations which are being brought under scrutiny. Specifically, these include NGOs that use campaigning, lobbying or other forms of activism to unite local communities against social, economic and environmental issues. These include INSAF that works on issues such as globalization and communalism through social action, CPSC that was at the forefront during the Kudankulam anti-nuclear protests and, now, Greenpeace India.
Activism and protests are a form of freedom of speech and expression which is one of our fundamental rights and very much part of a democracy. The seeming overrepresentation of NGOs that have activism as their mandate in the ‘target list’ of MHA makes one wonder if governments of this country are afraid of genuine criticism. These organizations have only been diligent in reminding project proponents of the flaws in their project plans which many environmental impact studies fail to pay attention to, either due to lack of time or resources. In other words, they are merely acting as responsible citizen groups that remind governments to enforce laws that protect the resources of our country.
Furthermore, the very existence of the FCRA as a regulatory mechanism in the voluntary sector raises a number of questions. A study conducted by the Institute of Rural Management, Anand, in 2012, revealed that FCRA is not a very effective legislation as it controls only ~2% ($2 billion) of total foreign investment for the country9. Further, we welcome foreign investments in other sectors such as infrastructure and retail, while sidelining the voluntary sector. Besides, NGOs employ nearly 20 million people3. We must remind ourselves that these are organizations which do not earn revenues unlike profit oriented industries and are completely dependent on sources of funding for their functioning. Thus, without foreign funding, payment of salaries of employees or running of campaigns will come to a halt.
Finally, if the recent attempt at diluting several environmental laws, the speedy clearance processes for industrial and infrastructure projects and sidelining of specific voluntary groups is a way to suppress the voice of the people, and close all doors of dissent, it makes a concerned citizen wonder if we are still a democracy.
Dina Nethisa Rasquinha is a Greenpeace India supporter from Mumbai
References
- Letter of protest sent to the Union Home Minister by 180 civil city organizations. http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/Press/Country-wide-Support-pours-in-From-Civil-Society-Organisations-for-Greenpeace-India/
- Bidwai P, ‘How the government suppresses dissent’, Rediff.com India News, 30th May 2013.
- Mathews A. C. and Moyna, ‘Closing The Tap On Dissent’, BussinessWorld, 7th Feb 2015.
- Danish, ‘Is the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act a tool to curb dissent?’ Firstpost, 23rd May 2013.
- ‘Status of Voluntary Sector in India’, Voice of the Voluntary Sector (VANI), 22nd June 2013
- http://www.vaniindia.org/update/Inside%20Pages%20-Status%20Voluntary%20Sector%20dt%2022-6-13.pdf
- Home Ministry issues notices to 10,000 NGOs for not filing tax returns’, IndiaToday.in,1st October 2014
- http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/home-ministry-issues-notices-to-10000-ngos-for-not-filing-tax-returns/1/393741.html
- MHA’s suspension notice to Greenpeace India http://mha1.nic.in/pdfs/TempSuspensionGreenpeace_090415.pdf
- Mehta P.S.,’ The FCRA-NGO conundrum, CUTS International Consumer Unity & Trust Society, 6th March 2015.