Open Forum

New Delhi, 18 August 2016

Control Over NGOs

REDEFINING ‘PUBLIC SERVANT’

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

The latest in the series of measures adopted by the Union Government to keep its hold over non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is the decision to make registration with the NITI Aayog mandatory for them to apply for grants from any Ministry. Only then will they be given their unique identification number (UIN). Further, all trustees and office-bearers of NGOs have to register their Aadhar and PAN numbers with the Aayog.

Recently, a notification issued states that officials working in NGOs receiving annually government funds exceeding Rs one crore or contributions exceeding Rs 10 lakh under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) will be treated as “government servants” under the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta Act 2013. NGOs managers, directors, and board members have to declare their personal assets and liabilities as well as of their spouses and dependent children under the Lokpal Act. Thereby, senior employees of NGOs are brought under the Lokpal and made prosecutable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

Evidently, these measures are intended to make NGOs accountable to the Government and the public for the funds they receive. Whatever be the provocation for these measures -- suspected foreign funds for Christian missionaries and Islamic organisations for conversion activities or for protests at home against some big development projects -- these are bound to curb the freedom of voluntary organisations. 

However, one cannot dispute the argument that public money raised from any source should be accounted for and spending regulated. More so, in an orderly democratic society facing numerous problems of deprivation, development, peace and harmony, and national security.

There is no such thing as private source or independent public activity beyond public control with an emphasis on “public”. The Home Ministry has already cancelled the registration of 10,020 NGOs for violation of FCRA.

The arms of the Government are being extended now into an area hitherto considered as private, voluntary, non-profit, and non-governmental. But, a vociferous debate that the Government is stifling the freedom of voluntary organisations by imposing such restrictions has already erupted. A year ago, over 42,000 NGOs were listed for a check on their foreign funding and were put on “watch” after reports appeared that many charitable organisations were diverting funds for purposes other than the permitted use of foreign funds. After enquiries, nearly 9,000 NGOs are said to have lost their licence to function.

In comparison, NGOs in developing countries have become the driving force in the process of social mobilisation and change. They are almost indispensable participants in planning and implementing various   programmes of poverty eradication, social welfare, and community development. The Gramin Bank and the Rural Advancement Committee in Bangladesh, for example, have become alternatives to the government in promoting women empowerment, micro-credit, and primary education.

In India, certain areas of direct public action requiring people’s support like disaster relief, protection of environment, human rights, status of women and children, empowerment of Dalits, etc., depend much on active participation of NGOs.  

Even business houses seek cooperation of voluntary organisations.  Lessons on NGOs are included in curriculum of management courses. A committee reviewing the training programme for IAS has recently recommended that the selected officers may serve a period of internship with an NGO. We are actually driven to a situation where there is need to encourage voluntary organisations along with control over their operations and management of funds.

Expansion in NGOs interests and activities in recent years has dragged them into controversial areas marked by public protests and confrontation with public authorities. Such a development leads to questions over funding and utilisation of funds by NGOs vis-à-vis their stated objectives.

New roles and greater exposure to international programmes and global commitments, and availability of more domestic and foreign resources have created a new situation with potential to alter if not to distort the original mission of the organisations.

When the Government steps in to control the situation, the danger ahead is to the very activism of volunteerism. The problem, therefore, is to promote pure national spirit of the NGOs devoid of all anti-national tendencies like communalism and casteism, partisan politics, religious and sectarian bias, and above all corruption in any form.

Foreign funding of NGOs has been a specific point of contention between the Government and the fund receiving organisations. NGO advocates argue that foreign funds need not necessarily mean promotion of donors’ interests through the organisations. Several international organizations like the World Bank, IMF, UNDP, WHO and others pour funds for projects through Government and non-government channels   for development and welfare. 

Considered practically, it is impossible to raise enough funds for welfare activities of Indian NGOs if foreign donations are to be curtailed and controlled. Large amount of foreign funds is believed to increase the scope for promotion of corruption in NGO activities, wherein they are campaigning for repeal or modification of FERA. But, what is happening is tightening of government control over voluntary groups.

To whom are NGO activists accountable? Whom do they represent?  Who will control their actions? These may be legitimate questions raised by people perturbed by rise of forces competing with or questioning the decisions of democratically elected representative bodies and people’s leaders.

Indeed, such questions are bound to rise in democracies which provide space for proliferation of non-governmental actors. But, the questions are faulty. NGOs do not represent any persons or territories. They represent ideas, beliefs, concepts, rights and so on, that are interests and not “somebody”. They have no formal mandate from any quarters, but are supposed to be the voice for or against something.

Civic organisations are not formally bound to be accountable to the citizens. They cannot be voted out like a legislative body. But they are informally concerned with public opinions and sentiments for their survival. It’s not possible for them to function sans public support.

This is the strength and weakness of NGOs. These organisations, whatever the source of funding, operate in the public domain. Hence, their credibility and reputation are vital to the success of their missions and act as informal control, as strong as Government control. Losing public faith is more disastrous to NGOs than losing some grants from the Government or other donors for administrative lapses.

No doubt, there is an all-round rise in public awareness of public issues and public actors. This awareness has to be sharpened and widened to make NGOs responsible and accountable. The interrelationship between the donors, leaders and officials of the organisations, and the subjects of NGO actions, who are all the stakeholders in the world of NGOs must device a strong controlling mechanism which would be more effective than Government regulation.

Any formal mechanism for exercising control over NGOs may best be created by organisations themselves which work face to face with people at grassroots.

Recent Government measures have the effect of introducing and tightening legal accountability of NGOs. These cannot be grudged wholesale, but they should not lead to curbing the social accountability represented in the initiatives of many NGOs. Redefining the term “public servant”, though cannot be opposed by law abiding citizens, will not be needed if social accountability asserts its presence. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)