— By Bharat Jhunjhunwala | Nov 08, 2014 12:50 am
The government is poised to rein in foreign-funded NGOs. A report by the Intelligence Bureau had indicated these NGOs were at the forefront of obstructing many large infrastructure projects. The government has recently ordered that NGOs will not make payments in excess of Rs 20,000 in cash. This step is welcome, as it will bring transparency in the NGO sector. However, prohibiting these NGOs from receiving foreign funds altogether has altogether different implications. In the IB’s line of fire is Greenpeace. This is an internationally respected NGO that has been agitating against thermal and nuclear power projects in India, as also in rest of the world. The government has prohibited Greenpeace India from receiving funds from its parent, Greenpeace International. It has approached the High Court, challenging the action of the government. The matter is being heard at present.
There are three categories of NGOs. Some philanthropy-oriented NGOs are working across the world. About 200 NGOs that were mostly foreign-funded provided basic services during the genocide in Rwanda. Many organisations in our country are providing health and education in far flung villages. Such NGOs clearly should not be prohibited. On the other hand, certain organisations are receiving monies for undertaking anti-national and criminal activities like for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack or for spreading fake currency notes. These activities are prohibited under the country’s criminal law and foreign funds for these should clearly not be allowed. In the middle are several political and social organisations, which defy a clear-cut description.
Consider some examples from our country. Netaji Subhash Bose received funds from Japan to help liberate the country from British yoke. India provided support to Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman in his liberation war against the Pakistani regime. The Aam Aadmi Party is reported to be receiving foreign funds. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad received bricks from across the world to build the Ram Mandir. A similar panorama of foreign funding exists at the global level. Venezuela has formed a committee to examine funds received by its opposition parties from the United States. Russia has taken action against an NGO, which was active in monitoring the elections. The Hungarian government has taken action against NGOs that were receiving grants from Norway because allegedly, the grants found their way to the small party named, ‘Politics Can Be Different.’ Myanmar Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi is accused of receiving foreign funds.
The legitimacy of these organisations depends upon the nature of the government which they oppose. India’s support to Bangladesh in the 1971 war would be legitimate if one thought the Pakistani Government to be oppressive. The same would be illegitimate if one thought the Pakistani Government to be benign. Now it is not possible to arrive at a consensus whether the Pakistani Government was oppressive or benign. The same holds for each of the cases narrated above.
Yet, we need to find a way to prevent foreign funds from destabilising democratic governments. The solution may lie in the democratic governments setting up machinery to expose the machinations of the foreign-funded NGOs. For example, the Government of India could publish a white paper on the activities of Greenpeace. As per my knowledge, Greenpeace is opposing thermal power plants on grounds of global warming, the loss of biodiversity and the negative impact on the livelihoods of the tribal people. The government should come out with its position on these issues and convince the people that Greenpeace is not working in their interests. Greenpeace should be given an opportunity to counter the charges and then both positions should be placed before the people for taking a decision.
There is a huge danger in using legal instruments to prevent organisations like Greenpeace from receiving foreign funds; for, in the same breath, we will stand against the provision of foreign funds to fight tyrants. The bigger danger is that the good work possibly being done by Greenpeace would be lost to the country. Who knows, Greenpeace might be right and the government may be wrong. Therefore, this decision should be left to the people.
We should realise that capital has become denationalised. Foreign Direct Investment has free entry into the country. Then why not also provide free entry to those opposing FDI? There is no consensus yet on the beneficial impact of FDI. So both sides should be heard out. The proceedings in a court are a sham if only one party is allowed into the courtroom and other is denied entry. So also with supporters and opposers of global capital. It is well-known that global capital has made alliances with the IMF, World Bank, WTO and World Economic Forum. It is only legitimate that the opposition to these organisations is allowed space, so that people can decide. The WTO meeting at Seattle was stymied by international NGOs coming together. The World Economic Forum meeting at Melbourne was similarly attacked. Foreign funding for these resistances should be encouraged not because they are right, but because that is how debate proceeds and people get a chance to decide.
The writer was formerly Professor of Economics at IIM Bengaluru.
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Source: http://freepressjournal.in/dont-hound-foreign-funded-ngos
The government is poised to rein in foreign-funded NGOs. A report by the Intelligence Bureau had indicated these NGOs were at the forefront of obstructing many large infrastructure projects. The government has recently ordered that NGOs will not make payments in excess of Rs 20,000 in cash. This step is welcome, as it will bring transparency in the NGO sector. However, prohibiting these NGOs from receiving foreign funds altogether has altogether different implications. In the IB’s line of fire is Greenpeace. This is an internationally respected NGO that has been agitating against thermal and nuclear power projects in India, as also in rest of the world. The government has prohibited Greenpeace India from receiving funds from its parent, Greenpeace International. It has approached the High Court, challenging the action of the government. The matter is being heard at present.
There are three categories of NGOs. Some philanthropy-oriented NGOs are working across the world. About 200 NGOs that were mostly foreign-funded provided basic services during the genocide in Rwanda. Many organisations in our country are providing health and education in far flung villages. Such NGOs clearly should not be prohibited. On the other hand, certain organisations are receiving monies for undertaking anti-national and criminal activities like for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack or for spreading fake currency notes. These activities are prohibited under the country’s criminal law and foreign funds for these should clearly not be allowed. In the middle are several political and social organisations, which defy a clear-cut description.
Consider some examples from our country. Netaji Subhash Bose received funds from Japan to help liberate the country from British yoke. India provided support to Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman in his liberation war against the Pakistani regime. The Aam Aadmi Party is reported to be receiving foreign funds. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad received bricks from across the world to build the Ram Mandir. A similar panorama of foreign funding exists at the global level. Venezuela has formed a committee to examine funds received by its opposition parties from the United States. Russia has taken action against an NGO, which was active in monitoring the elections. The Hungarian government has taken action against NGOs that were receiving grants from Norway because allegedly, the grants found their way to the small party named, ‘Politics Can Be Different.’ Myanmar Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi is accused of receiving foreign funds.
The legitimacy of these organisations depends upon the nature of the government which they oppose. India’s support to Bangladesh in the 1971 war would be legitimate if one thought the Pakistani Government to be oppressive. The same would be illegitimate if one thought the Pakistani Government to be benign. Now it is not possible to arrive at a consensus whether the Pakistani Government was oppressive or benign. The same holds for each of the cases narrated above.
Yet, we need to find a way to prevent foreign funds from destabilising democratic governments. The solution may lie in the democratic governments setting up machinery to expose the machinations of the foreign-funded NGOs. For example, the Government of India could publish a white paper on the activities of Greenpeace. As per my knowledge, Greenpeace is opposing thermal power plants on grounds of global warming, the loss of biodiversity and the negative impact on the livelihoods of the tribal people. The government should come out with its position on these issues and convince the people that Greenpeace is not working in their interests. Greenpeace should be given an opportunity to counter the charges and then both positions should be placed before the people for taking a decision.
There is a huge danger in using legal instruments to prevent organisations like Greenpeace from receiving foreign funds; for, in the same breath, we will stand against the provision of foreign funds to fight tyrants. The bigger danger is that the good work possibly being done by Greenpeace would be lost to the country. Who knows, Greenpeace might be right and the government may be wrong. Therefore, this decision should be left to the people.
We should realise that capital has become denationalised. Foreign Direct Investment has free entry into the country. Then why not also provide free entry to those opposing FDI? There is no consensus yet on the beneficial impact of FDI. So both sides should be heard out. The proceedings in a court are a sham if only one party is allowed into the courtroom and other is denied entry. So also with supporters and opposers of global capital. It is well-known that global capital has made alliances with the IMF, World Bank, WTO and World Economic Forum. It is only legitimate that the opposition to these organisations is allowed space, so that people can decide. The WTO meeting at Seattle was stymied by international NGOs coming together. The World Economic Forum meeting at Melbourne was similarly attacked. Foreign funding for these resistances should be encouraged not because they are right, but because that is how debate proceeds and people get a chance to decide.
The writer was formerly Professor of Economics at IIM Bengaluru.
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Source: http://freepressjournal.in/dont-hound-foreign-funded-ngos
