In all democracies, the politician and the bureaucrat, who are two sides of the same governance coin, are seen as necessary evil. In India, the bureaucrat is pitied or censured or tolerated, while the politician is seen with utter contempt. In recent years, otherwise ‘good’ words have started assuming adverse connotations. India has been home, through the ages, to countless sadhus, sanyasis, and jeevanmuktas. Ramana and Ramakrishna are two among many recent names who come to mind; I dare say there are thousands of great yogis and pious men who are in meditation even today in every part of India—however, the word ‘Godman’ evokes a pejorative image, thanks to the shenanigans of a few scoundrels. India clearly was more secular in the first few decades after Independence. Has communalism raised its ugly head in recent years, only after the Constitution was changed to declare India ‘secular’—thanks to the efforts of vote-bank opportunists, masquerading as ‘secular’? In recent times, have the words ‘NGO’ and ‘activist’ assumed a negative image?
In any democracy, NGOs have a major role to play in social sectors— education, public health and so on; and also in organising opinion on major public policy issues. Society benefits from the presence of such agencies, which supplement the impersonal approach of the State, with attention given to specific local issues, with sympathy, understanding and local interest. The NGOs are expected to play a major supplementation role to the formal governance system— that is the theory. Indeed, India has benefited by a very large number of NGOs who have operated in all parts, in diverse fields, bringing understanding, succor and a local touch. However, partly due to official ‘support’, and other reasons, we have increasingly seen the spectacle of NGOs cropping up for non-altruistic purposes —mainly self-aggrandisement of socialites; indeed increasingly as vehicles for earning money; also lately as instruments to support political objectives—all contrary to the self-negating, public-purpose, altruistic nature of such organisations as they ought to be. Is this not to be expected in a society where people enter politics, in reality, to amass wealth through unethical means? Can anyone deny that this is largely the primary purpose of the ‘politician’?
The recent attention to Greenpeace and Ford Foundation has brought in the question of ‘foreign funding’ of Indian NGOs. Old-timers would remember how in the 60s and 70s, the PL 480 funds were used to ‘influence’ Indian policy, so that the Republic, as emerging then, would develop in the ‘right’ lines—that is to the liking of certain world powers. Major ‘think tanks’ had been set up in India to ‘guide’ Indian policy, with covert foreign funding—some of them continue to exist and try to influence public opinion through ‘research’ and ‘expert advice’. Many would recall the reach of agencies like CIA which have used various means, fair and mostly foul, to bring into their ambit senior politicians, bureaucrats, media persons—insiders are aware of all of this. There is no charity in international relations—self-interest is the mainspring. Indeed, many of the Bretton Woods and other post-War institutions were set up by developed countries as instruments for control over the newly emerging developing nations—he who pays the piper calls the tune.
India needs NGOs in different walks of life, particularly in social sectors and in rural development. ‘Activists’, civil society thinkers and opinion-makers are entitled to adequate room in a healthy society, and given the space for even promoting ‘contrary’ opinion —the ability to ‘guide’ society’s opinions should not be left exclusively to the government of the day. A couple of key elements, however, should not be lost sight of. The NGOs or activists need to be fully transparent—they are in public space. The public should have full view of their motivations, funding sources and modus operandi. Every foreign-funded NGO needs to have its books fully open, particularly in a country where so many political, communal and other security and sensitive issues abound. Note that the Homeland Security Department in the US looks at all cross-border and related domestic issues with a hawk eye, perhaps with hundred times the intensity and ruthlessness as applied by our internal security apparatus; also note that there have been no major security breaches in the US since 9/11.
The internal security apparatus naturally will test every inflow from the stand-point of public interest. This term cannot be defined to meet all circumstances—it is more a value-loaded perspective. The courts, of course, will moderate such scrutiny. The benefit of doubt, however, will have to go to the official assessment—one only can hope that it will be fair, unprejudiced. There can be no hard and fast rule— NGOs and activists need to conform to the concept of ‘public interest’ in its purest interpretation. Indeed, the author of this piece is an activist (perhaps in a ‘passive’ way), inter-alia having backed important PILs of significance, as also advocating that GM crops should be ushered in only after due care and study. The country surely needs many, many more NGOs and activists. tsrsubramanian@gmail.com
Subramanian is a former Cabinet Secretary
Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/voices/Bad-Words-NGOs-Activists-Must-Adhere-to-Public-Interest-to-Regain-Lost-Meaning/2015/05/02/article2791094.ece
In any democracy, NGOs have a major role to play in social sectors— education, public health and so on; and also in organising opinion on major public policy issues. Society benefits from the presence of such agencies, which supplement the impersonal approach of the State, with attention given to specific local issues, with sympathy, understanding and local interest. The NGOs are expected to play a major supplementation role to the formal governance system— that is the theory. Indeed, India has benefited by a very large number of NGOs who have operated in all parts, in diverse fields, bringing understanding, succor and a local touch. However, partly due to official ‘support’, and other reasons, we have increasingly seen the spectacle of NGOs cropping up for non-altruistic purposes —mainly self-aggrandisement of socialites; indeed increasingly as vehicles for earning money; also lately as instruments to support political objectives—all contrary to the self-negating, public-purpose, altruistic nature of such organisations as they ought to be. Is this not to be expected in a society where people enter politics, in reality, to amass wealth through unethical means? Can anyone deny that this is largely the primary purpose of the ‘politician’?
The recent attention to Greenpeace and Ford Foundation has brought in the question of ‘foreign funding’ of Indian NGOs. Old-timers would remember how in the 60s and 70s, the PL 480 funds were used to ‘influence’ Indian policy, so that the Republic, as emerging then, would develop in the ‘right’ lines—that is to the liking of certain world powers. Major ‘think tanks’ had been set up in India to ‘guide’ Indian policy, with covert foreign funding—some of them continue to exist and try to influence public opinion through ‘research’ and ‘expert advice’. Many would recall the reach of agencies like CIA which have used various means, fair and mostly foul, to bring into their ambit senior politicians, bureaucrats, media persons—insiders are aware of all of this. There is no charity in international relations—self-interest is the mainspring. Indeed, many of the Bretton Woods and other post-War institutions were set up by developed countries as instruments for control over the newly emerging developing nations—he who pays the piper calls the tune.
India needs NGOs in different walks of life, particularly in social sectors and in rural development. ‘Activists’, civil society thinkers and opinion-makers are entitled to adequate room in a healthy society, and given the space for even promoting ‘contrary’ opinion —the ability to ‘guide’ society’s opinions should not be left exclusively to the government of the day. A couple of key elements, however, should not be lost sight of. The NGOs or activists need to be fully transparent—they are in public space. The public should have full view of their motivations, funding sources and modus operandi. Every foreign-funded NGO needs to have its books fully open, particularly in a country where so many political, communal and other security and sensitive issues abound. Note that the Homeland Security Department in the US looks at all cross-border and related domestic issues with a hawk eye, perhaps with hundred times the intensity and ruthlessness as applied by our internal security apparatus; also note that there have been no major security breaches in the US since 9/11.
The internal security apparatus naturally will test every inflow from the stand-point of public interest. This term cannot be defined to meet all circumstances—it is more a value-loaded perspective. The courts, of course, will moderate such scrutiny. The benefit of doubt, however, will have to go to the official assessment—one only can hope that it will be fair, unprejudiced. There can be no hard and fast rule— NGOs and activists need to conform to the concept of ‘public interest’ in its purest interpretation. Indeed, the author of this piece is an activist (perhaps in a ‘passive’ way), inter-alia having backed important PILs of significance, as also advocating that GM crops should be ushered in only after due care and study. The country surely needs many, many more NGOs and activists. tsrsubramanian@gmail.com
Subramanian is a former Cabinet Secretary
Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/voices/Bad-Words-NGOs-Activists-Must-Adhere-to-Public-Interest-to-Regain-Lost-Meaning/2015/05/02/article2791094.ece
