Open Forum

New Delhi, 24 December 2015

India’s NGO Boom

NOT A WELCOME SIGN

By Moin Qazi

The first-ever exercise to map registered NGOs has disclosed that India has at least 3.1 million of these -- more than double the number of schools in the country, 250 times the number of government hospitals, and one NGO for 400 people as against one policeman for 709 people. When there are so many of these, there is an unhealthy race for money and attention.

These NGOs raise Rs 4,000 million –Rs 8,000 million rupees in funding annually and most goes into maintaining the staff. NGOs form the no profit sector and are usually associated with selfless and committed work for the welfare of people. But sadly not all NGOs are necessarily formed for altruistic reasons, because in some cases forming an NGO makes good economic sense, to the founder.

After all the NGO promoters come from the same society that all of us come from and there is no reason to believe that only the most honest will be involved. It doesn’t help that “NGO” is a catchall term that covers agendas like “abolition of child labor, “promotion of good hygiene and sanitary practices,” “women’s rights, to ‘international missions’ like “climate change and “conflict resolution.”

Civil society is one of the key pillars of national governance serving as an informal watchdog and a key safeguard for human rights and fundamental freedoms. India has, however, been experiencing an exponential growth of this without the commensurate improvement in the quality of their governance. In fact, the past few years have seen degeneration and unethical practices creeping into what was once a noble sector. Many NGOs are painfully mired in corruption and misappropriation of funds.

Civil society as a whole, and NGOs as a major part of it, has successfully campaigned to make human rights discourse and environmental issues a part of mainstream political agendas. They have also been instrumental in highlighting issues such as gender-based and religiously-driven segregation and discrimination, besides creating public awareness on health, education and sanitation. But most importantly, they have been leading public opinion on the need to hold public representatives and government officials accountable, and on demanding transparency and rule of law in government postings, awards of public sector contracts, and the allocation and disbursal of public money.

NGOs working in the humanitarian and development sectors won official approval in the 1980s and 90s, but there are signs now that these are losing favour. The sector stands accused by some of complacency and self-interest, and of being ineffectual and irrelevant on the other. NGOs are increasingly challenged to demonstrate their legitimacy as representative voices of civil society and are themselves taking a hard look at their mandates, core values, and role in a changing international stage.

My involvement with the NGO sector for almost four decades has been a story of disillusionment. I have seen so many NGOs existing only in eye-popping websites and fancy brochures. There is often a total lack of professionalism and transparency, exploitation of staff which is underpaid and much of the grant money is often siphoned off to the personal coffers of NGO promoters.

The Indian laws that govern NGOs are very weak and since most NGOs have political affiliations, political parties have a vested interest in not arming them with stronger teeth. The two laws that govern them were framed over a century ago by the British, when social and political ethics were of the highest order and the administration of laws was very stringent. These two legal regulations are: Societies Registration Act, 1860 and The Indian Trusts Act, 1882

With a mammoth size of the NGO sector, it is impossible for the State to effectively monitor and supervise these. The corporatized NGOs are subject to stringent supervision by the RBI, whereas the ordinary NGOs, which account for 90%, operate almost without any supervision. Critics are quick to point out that NGOs don’t practice what they preach, avoid accountability and transparency and are quite averse to any form of regulation which they feel could be intrusive to their autonomy. Financial management and accounting is one area where they will fiercely resist external scrutiny.

There is abundant anecdotal evidence that the lacunae in laws have allowed “family NGOs”, where board of directors and senior staff members all come from either the same family or consist of close relatives and friends. Further, these have also allowed many NGOs to resurface with new names and registration, but with the same people, after donors or governments blacklisted them for mismanagement or corrupt practices. Absence of accountability sometimes leads NGOs to fund projects, which end up achieving results directly opposed to what they had originally aimed for.

A major weakness of NGOs is these don’t have a specific mission. A project is announced and new NGOs spring up with their mission aligned with the project’s mission! Once the project is over, the mission is redefined to suit the new project. Some local NGOs don’t have the institutional resources to spend even a fraction of the funds they receive. Those engaged in service delivery are taking up the role of the State and thus enabling the latter to abdicate its responsibility towards its citizens.

Several NGOs are playing a big role in delivering services such as health and education which belies the distinction between voicing the citzens’ concerns, which is the function of civil society and taking care of citizens, which is the Government’s responsibility. The two are both features of a democratic and forward-looking society. When NGOs are seen to possess more resources to deliver services, while at the same time still claiming to be a part of civil society, they are mixing the two factors and produce outcomes, which are not always helpful.

The idea that NGOs constitute a middle space between the public and private sector is problematic. It was considered they would be free of profiteering and corporate methods of the private sector and corruption of the public one. But in reality, NGOs have both features, a tendency to go after corporate salaries and perks and less transparency and accountability.

With some large NGOs becoming heavily corporatized entities, where staff earns market-based salaries and foreign money flows in regularly, it’s natural to expect transparency and accountability. This includes asking if all those salaries are being paid to the right people, for the right purposes and to ensure foreign funds are spent on projects meant for.

But the non-corporate NGO sector, still huge, continues to attract enormous grants, and remains plagued by inept financial management, poor transparency, and weak governance. When, in the past, governments have talked about bringing in new and broader legislation in this regard, NGOs have termed such efforts as politically motivated curbs on their freedom to act. There may be some truth in their argument.

Many NGOs are working on projects -- such as reproductive health, education of girls, etc. – which some political parties or the government may not endorse due to ideological reasons. If there exists a strong government regulatory body to oversee the NGOs working, the fate of such projects and NGOs working on them will heavily depend on whether a government approves of their work or not.

The burgeoning NGO sector is thus not a welcome sign. It signals continuing manifestation of corruption and embezzlement of precious grants and donor funds meant for the poor and marginalized sections of society.  These groups still languish even when huge funds continue to be deployed in the system for their welfare. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)