Under UPA-II, the Intelligence Bureau started investigating whether the activities of some of the foreign-funded non-governmental organisations were affecting economic development. One trigger was the agitation against the Kudankulam plant. Orchestrated opposition slowed down its commissioning.
The report, apparently leaked, supposedly said the NGOs’ agenda was in line with the foreign funding agencies, and against national interest, causing a 2 to 3 per cent of loss in GDP, and that only a small percentage of NGOs receiving foreign funds were submitting annual returns as required by law.
One NGO mentioned was Greenpeace India, a branch of Greenpeace International. About 40 per cent of its funds were received from the parent organisation, and the rest raised in India. Its website does not mention any donors.
Then there was a strange case where six NGOs involved in agitations relating to nuclear power were sharing the same address. And some three NGOs in Ahmedabad, located in one building, received large donations from two or three donors in the U.S. and Germany. Surely such things raised suspicion.
Many countries — not just developing countries — have been concerned about NGOs’ activities and their agenda being driven by donors. Canada is investigating. Scientists in Europe are concerned about pressure from Greenpeace to stop research relating to GM crops.
To understand how the media have covered the issues, we can see comments by some media practitioners, some of them as Tweets.
Tweet: NGO scrutiny by IB of finances should be even handed & across the board & not based on a NGO’s political positions.
Response: What is the basis of the implicit assumption that the scrutiny will not be even handed or across the board? Let the scrutiny start, and see who is being investigated. If there is selectiveness, then the media should highlight it. If it is not even handed, there are sufficient institutions available in our country to ensure that justice will be done. As far as the political position is concerned, this is actually what the IB is afraid of. And the question also is whether the political position has been made known to the donors before asking for support.
Tweet: I disagree with mostly all of what Greenpeace does. But if no illegality then what’s the issue with it being one of many pressure groups? I find several NGOs infuriatingly uni-dimensional & preachy. But they have a right to their views & competing agendas [are] part of democracy.
Response: If one disagrees with what the NGOs are doing, surely it would establish the main charge of IB that they are hurting the development process. So, even as one gives them the right to proclaim their views, they should be rejected by the nation as not valid. They just cannot be called pressure groups, etc.
Many NGOs get foreign funding. The IB is concerned with those that indulge in advocacy, with the stated concern over the environment in particular. NGOs that are directly helping individuals or groups pose no concern. In fact, the track record of the advocacy NGOs in terms of employment generation or income enhancement is dismal. In the case of tribal areas in Odisha, where life expectancy is around 40 and many children die young, some development projects were stopped due to NGO pressure.
One NGO on the IB’s radar is Cordaid. A newspaper reported: “The trainers at the session, two Dutch and an American, constantly reminded the participants that oil reserves in the northeast were as large as those in the entire Gulf region and that the precious resources must be preserved by the local tribals for their own use.”
The Gulf region supplies 30 per cent of the world’s oil. If the northeast has the same level of reserves, these will last for eternity. The manner in which Cordaid is going about its task, show an agenda that is not in line with India’s.
Throughout history, India has willingly accepted ideas from outside, and contributed ideas to others. At the same time, it has rejected ideas that have no merit, or are against the interests of the nation. An exchange of ideas requires openness from all sides, particularly the NGOs concerned. The latter should exhibit financial clarity so that there is no suspicion of any agendas. However, the media seem to have gone out of the way to project that a discussion is really not necessary. This does not augur well for the nation.
(Ashok Chowgule is working president (external), of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad)
