Power has always been suspicious of power it cannot control. Governments derive their authority from the ballot, yet they have never been entirely comfortable with institutions that influence society without seeking its vote. Civil society was created to correct the State, not compete with it, and to persuade, not coerce. When that boundary begins to disappear, even a charitable mission can acquire an undefined and suspicious political identity and turn itself into a parallel centre of power. India is now witnessing that uneasy collision between an elected government and a gargantuan cohort of non-governmental organisations, described by some as the Third Sector.
The immediate confrontation is over the BJP government’s proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. The BJP and the Sangh parivar have long regarded sections of the NGO establishment as instruments for perpetuating Western cultural influence and diminishing India’s civilisational symbols. More recently, BJP leaders alleged that foreign-funded organisations also played a role in the youth protests. The present legislative push is therefore being projected as a mechanism to prevent misuse of foreign money and impose greater transparency. The opposition sees it as an attempt to choke institutions critical of the saffron establishment. Minority groups, particularly Christian organisations, fear that legitimate schools, hospitals and charities could be trapped in an increasingly rigid regulatory regime.
India is possibly the world’s largest and certainly one of its cosiest habitats for NGOs. A government-commissioned study estimated their number at 33 lakh in 2009, roughly one organisation for every 400 Indians. The figure is old and international comparisons remain difficult because countries classify and register NGOs differently. Yet, even that historical estimate reveals the extraordinary scale of India’s voluntary sector.
Alongside this vast domestic ecosystem also flourishes a financially formidable foreign-funded network. Official figures show that 13,520 organisations received `55,741 crore in foreign contributions between 2019 and 2022. The FCRA portal showed 14,449 active certificates as of July 15. Money creates capacity; capacity creates influence; influence eventually creates power. But these organisations are managed through widely differing cultural, religious, social and ideological structures. There is no uniformity in their ownership, objectives or methods of operation. That makes transparency not less necessary but more imperative.
The more serious question is the secrecy surrounding their architecture. Who controls an NGO before the government attempts to regulate it? Foreign donors do not operate in an ideological vacuum. Foundations, religious bodies, philanthropic institutions and international agencies have their own missions, priorities and preferences. The donor chooses what deserves support; the recipient decides how to pursue it. The old maxim that the person who pays the piper calls the tune may be crude. But it cannot simply be dismissed when substantial resources dubiously cross national borders in the name of charity and social causes.
The government now wants scrutiny of their finances, ethics and standards of operation. Who appoints the trustees? Who determines the priorities? Are organisations genuinely independent or influenced by political families, ideological networks, religious establishments or powerful individuals? When an NGO campaigns against government policy, who finances that campaign? These are not questions invented yesterday. Yet sections of the NGO establishment appear more willing to accuse the government of suppressing their voice and killing their ventures than to accept that public influence must carry public accountability.
The BJP and the RSS have, for years, argued that sections of the foreign-funded NGO network have never reconciled themselves to the BJP’s rise to power. They also believe that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been personally singled out for a sustained campaign of vilification. The Modi government has progressively tightened FCRA enforcement and acted against prominent organisations. The opposition has predictably entered the fray because the legislation affects institutions that have frequently challenged the government. But political resistance cannot become a certificate of innocence, just as government suspicion cannot become a certificate of guilt.
The latest Bill raises the stakes. It creates a designated authority to supervise, manage and dispose of foreign contributions and assets when an organisation’s FCRA certificate is cancelled, surrendered or ceased. According to a research organisation, the proposed framework could result in assets created partly or wholly from foreign contributions vesting in the authority. That explains the anxiety among Christian organisations and other charitable institutions operating schools, hospitals and welfare programmes with overseas support. Their religious identity should provide either immunity from scrutiny or grounds for automatic suspicion. The government must distinguish between legitimate philanthropy and activity that violates the law. That requires evidence, not ideology.
The government, however, risks overplaying its hand. Choking the financial arteries of an organisation that has demonstrably violated the law may be justified. Choking an entire sector because some organisations are politically hostile would be self-defeating. India still needs charities that educate children, run hospitals, provide disaster relief and reach communities that government agencies cannot adequately serve. A confident government should be able to regulate dissent without fearing it.
There is an international irony. The US under Donald Trump has itself radically reorganised foreign assistance, ending USAID as an independent agency. Washington is questioning whether foreign assistance should operate as an autonomous channel of influence. India, therefore, has every sovereign right to insist that foreign money entering its institutions must comply with Indian law. The relationship between the State and the Third Sector should be simple. Governments are elected and answerable to voters, Parliament, courts and the Constitution. NGOs are self-appointed and derive their authority from public trust. They can question government, expose failures, campaign for neglected causes and supplement public welfare. They can correct. They cannot coerce. They can advocate. They cannot acquire the mandate of an elected opposition. And if they demand transparency from the State, they cannot reasonably treat questions about their own finances, affiliations and objectives as persecution.
The Modi government is determined to cleanse a sector that has accumulated money and influence without always displaying a comparable culture of accountability. It should expose genuine financial and political cabals without crippling genuine charities. The NGO establishment, for its part, must accept that moral purpose does not confer immunity from scrutiny. A healthy democracy needs checks and balances, not competing centres of unaccountable power. The State cannot become the master of civil society. But civil society cannot become a State within the State. That is the real test of the FCRA exercise. Will the government cleanse the Third Sector or choke it? And will the NGOs accept scrutiny or continue to believe that their cause gives them immunity from it?
Read all columns by Prabhu Chawla
Prabhu Chawla
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on X @PrabhuChawla