The Intelligence Bureau report on the economic impact of foreign funded-NGOs has set off a storm with its allegations of foreign interests working to sabotage the Indian economy through a handful of NGOs. The concerned organizations have claimed that the report is not only baseless, but also motivated by a desire to silence legitimate questioning of government policies.
The law at the centre of this controversy is the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010. Aside from the present affair, a growing number of activists and social workers have been alleging that the FCRA is being used to silence questioning of government policy on certain issues.
The FCRA is a law meant to regulate flow of foreign funds to individuals or organizations in India. It was first enacted in 1976, during the Emergency. The main concern cited then was to check the purported presence of "foreign hand" in the activities of opposition parties. After the law was passed, no individual or association could receive foreign funds unless they were registered under the FCRA.
In 2010, when the present law was being discussed in Parliament, the concern of most lawmakers seemed to be foreign funding of NGOs. As a result, a strong law was passed with strict regulation mechanism and severe penalties. Subsequently, the MHA was given the task of directly overseeing all operations under FCRA. Apart from prohibiting politicians, government officers, journalist and news organizations from receiving foreign funds, the law creates strict rules regulating the acceptance of foreign funding by NGOs.
At that time, concerns about misuse of the FCRA provisions were brushed aside, but subsequent events have reignited fears of selective targeting of NGOs involved in questioning or opposing government activities.
The first major outcry was raised in March 2012, with the cancelling of FCRA registration and freezing of bank accounts of four NGOs whose office bearers or members were involved in anti-nuclear protests in Kudankulam. These NGOs were Tuticorin Multipurpose Social Service Society, Tuticorin Diocese Association, Good Vision Charitable Tryst and People's Education for Action and Community Empowerment.
Harsh Jaitli, CEO of the Volunteer Action Network India, points to the fact that none of the four NGOs have yet been prosecuted according to the provisions of FCRA, but the suspension of their registration is regularly renewed. This in itself creates the suspicion that the authorities do not have any actual evidence to put up in a court of law, but merely want to curtail the NGOs' activities.
The reason given by the Home Ministry's FCRA wing on its website for these cancellations was simply stated as "On Violation". This vagueness is further compounded by the fact that the FCRA itself leaves much to the discretion of executive authority when it comes to the cancellation of registrations. Apart from the various grounds specifically mentioned in the Act, Section 14(c) allows the Central government to cancel a certificate of registration if in its "opinion" it is necessary in the "public interest" to do so. This effectively translates into absolute authority for the MHA to cancel FCRA registration without any real oversight.
Further, once an organization is declared to be of a "political nature", its bank accounts are immediately frozen and FCRA registration is cancelled by virtue of Section 5.
Apart from individuals or organizations involved in contesting elections, what constitutes "organization of political nature" is defined in Rule 3 of FCRA Rules 2011. It includes any organization that participates in "bandh or hartal, rasta roko, rail roko or jail bharo in support of public causes..." or has an ideology or objectives that may be called "political".
Kabir Dixit, a lawyer connected with the petition against FCRA regulations pending in the Supreme Court, claims that it is "...impossible not to violate the FCRA... Any organization, whose objective can be interpreted in the widest sense as 'political', can be booked under the law". Anil Choudhary of the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), the NGO which has challenged the validity of FCRA before the Supreme Court (and which is also named in the present IB report), believes that the law is just another "instrument for the State to contain or crush dissenting voices".
Although the law does require the Central government to give appropriate reasons in writing before cancellation of registration, including reasonable time to respond, such regulations are not always followed.
For instance, when INSAF's FCRA registration was suspended in 2013, it was set aside by the Delhi HC because of "... failure of the Central government to record the reasons which necessitated suspension of the certificate..." not only at the initial stage, but also before the court.
Harsh Dobhal of the Human Rights Law Network says that "NGOs are not merely foreign-funded entities, they are part of civil society. Any attempt to throttle them, whether by FCRA or any other law, is an attempt to criminalize the right to dissent."
While transparency in the functioning of NGOs is definitely a must, and foreign funds do need to be regulated, it is still doubtful whether an Emergency-era law that leaves too much to executive discretion without any mechanisms of oversight, is the way to do it.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/FCRA-a-tool-to-gag-critics-Activists/articleshow/36858592.cms
