Dr Rajesh Tandon, who set up an NGO PRIA 30 years ago, argues against the current government's stance of treating NGOs with suspicion. Domestic dissent cannot be any longer equated with ‘hidden operations of the foreign hand’, he says. If citizens of India ask questions about any policy or programme of the State, they have a right to do so, without being asked to bare their source of livelihood.
Having left a teaching career at IIM Calcutta and ventured into the field of social development through a voluntary organisation some years ago, I was surprised to come across an article in The Marxist (June 1984) which argued that action groups and voluntary organisations in India were a part of western imperialist strategy. Written by Prakash Karat, it described such efforts, based on foreign funding, to be undermining to the ‘leadership of the party and misguiding the revolution in the country’.
I found myself confused about my work and the role of a nascent voluntary organisation that I had set up. By championing the cause of participation and talking about the empowerment of the exploited, especially women, I naively believed that I was ‘supporting social transformation’ by contributing, albeit in a very small measure, to redefining relations of power between the rulers and the ruled in India’s democracy.
But 30 years later, I must admit, I am further confused and somewhat bewildered. The current refrain in public discourse, from press releases by India's Ministry of Home Affairs to ‘investigative journalism’, seems to suggest that my work and that of my organisation PRIA (and thousands of other activists and civil society groups around this country) is still suspect, as part of some larger and grander post-modern imperialist strategy.
It was during the height of emergency that the then government of Indira Gandhi promulgated an ordinance in 1976 -- the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). It was aimed at preventing certain leaders like George Fernandes and Subramanian Swamy who were believed to be receiving political and financial support from ‘western powers’ to resist the authoritarian regime during the emergency.
When political democracy was restored in March 1977, George Fernandes became Industries minister in the new Janata Government and gained instant publicity by banning Coca Cola. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Foreign Minister and LK Advani, the Information & Broadcasting Minister in the same Janata Government. The FCRA ordinance was allowed to continue during this regime, neither repealed nor lapsed.
In 1980, when Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister again, she launched an Enquiry Commission known as the Kudal Commission, to investigate voluntary organisations which were associated with the Gandhi Peace Foundation, AVARD and related Gandhian entities, as they were seen to be ‘hosting’ such opposition leaders as Jai Prakash Narayan. Over the next seven years and after producing several volumes of reports, the Kudal Commission concluded that voluntary organisations “gradually digressed from their aims…and some became hotbeds of political activities.” It alleged (though could not prove in any single case) that foreign funds were being abused to “paint a very grave, exaggerated and false picture of the country”; the Commission alleged that this was particularly so in tribal and border regions of the country.
It is, therefore, not surprising that Prakash Karat decided to denounce all such voluntary agencies as ‘a strategy of western imperialism’ by June 1984. The Khalistan Movement was at its peak then and Operation Bluestar had been launched to flush out Sikh militants from the Golden Temple. As the movement was supported by Sikh organisations abroad, in October 1984, the then government of Indira Gandhi promulgated an ordinance further restricting FCRA. At the end of that month, she was assassinated. When Rajiv Gandhi won 80% of the seats in Parliament at the end of December 1984, his government regularised into a law in early January 1985, the amendments to FCRA.
It is in the late 1980s that a large number of voluntary organisations began to focus on building awareness and organisations of the rural poor, particularly amongst tribals and dalits. Participation of the marginalised in their own development began to be accepted as the cornerstone of many government schemes under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). I saw that as acknowledgement of the work that PRIA had been doing over the past decade.
It was during this period that several social movements began to spread in the country. Women’s groups began to protest against discrimination and violence that girls and women were facing, even in government programmes. When tribals and other rural poor began to lose their land and livelihoods due to large dams and industrial expansion, they also began to demand their rights. ‘Who gains and who loses in development’ was a common concern of many voluntary organisations by the end of the 1980s.
The voice of dissent, of questioning the dominant development approach, was largely raised through the efforts of voluntary organisations and social activists. The discomfort that such dissenting and questioning voices posed to government officials and political leaders became the basis for harassment of such voluntary organisations throughout the 1990s and since. Of course, the first question always investigated was about the source of funding. And whenever an organisation, so investigated, was found to have received any foreign funding (even if it also received government funding), it was accused of ‘being a part of the foreign hand’.
I am bewildered today because the same discourse is being re-played in 2015. Since the beginning of this century, globalisation and global inter-connectivity are being touted as the major shifts of our generation, supported through a technology revolution. Recent government policies are actively securing ‘foreign hand-shakes’ to bring large sums of investments into the country. Over the past decade, the government of India has invested in ‘foreign lands’ more than one billion dollars annually, to support their development.
Therefore, it is somewhat disturbing that India’s political culture has remained stagnated in the 20th century. Domestic dissent cannot be any longer equated with ‘hidden operations of the foreign hand’. If citizens of India ask questions about any policies and programmes of the state and/or national governments, they have a right to do so, without being asked to bare their source of livelihood. “Good governance” and “Sabka Saath” have gained current political meaning because citizens have been demanding the same for decades.
Citizens are more than voters. Having elected a government as voters, as citizens, they also have a right to comment on the government’s performance throughout its five-year term.
Good governance of democracy is ultimately the responsibility of all citizens.
The author is Founder-President of PRIA, Delhi
Source:
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-mr-modi-here-s-why-you-should-stop-treating-ngos-with-suspicion-2086135
