The Intelligence Bureau has submitted a “classified document” to the Prime Minister’s Office, which is now in dedicated pursuit of economic growth. The 21-page document, said the Indian Express, identifies foreign-funded non-governmental organisations that are “negatively impacting economic development". Among the groups said to have been singled out for attention is the environmental organisation, Greenpeace.
If the article is accurate, it should cause serious concern – though not for the reasons that the IB lists. Asking the IB to report on NGOs less than a month after taking power speaks volumes about the government’s approach to dissent. Dissent, by definition, will not suit any government – but diversity of opinion is a critical component of a healthy democracy.
“A significant number of Indian NGOs [are] using people-centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects,” the Express quotes the June 3 report as saying. The projects stalled due to “growth-retarding campaigns” include nuclear power plants, uranium mines, and farm biotechnology projects.
It is not clear which NGOs the IB studied or how their activities were monitored. It is true that some parts of the NGO universe are dubious. In 2009, a report of the Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology, which is under the Ministry of Rural Development, blacklisted more than 800 NGOs and voluntary organisations for misappropriating funds.
Foreign funding can indeed have ideological strings attached. It has been argued that western multilateral agencies (including the World Bank, which funds state-approved projects in India) work to assist with just enough development in “emerging economies” so that dissent is co-opted, the countries remain in debt, and the agencies remain in business.
But the IB’s assertions imply that all opposition to government-mandated projects is undesirable. It is dishonest to bracket the possibly questionable activities of some foreign-funded NGOs with the many people’s movements across the country that, for decades, have fighting development projects that displace millions, destroy livelihoods, and abandon people without social safety nets.
Devastating homelands
Development projects can devastate traditional homelands – as, for instance, Vedanta’s bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills of Odisha will do. The local Dongria Kondh tribals who have opposed this project are not supported by foreign-funded NGOs.
The IB report, the Express says, lists “anti-development” activities in 2014 in such areas as disposal of e-waste of Indian IT firms, the River Interlinking Project and the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. Considering India’s record of development projects, it is vital to put such projects through intense scrutiny and dialogue. People’s concerns about the hazards of e-waste or the impact of river interlinking are not all a foreign conspiracy. The IB even disapproves of NGOs “organising construction workers in urban areas”: this is a sign of what’s to come for labour rights, already in shreds after two decades of liberalisation.
The IB laments the cost to “GDP growth” of dissent. This formulation confuses economic growth with genuine development. It's a definition that leaves no room for alternative ideas of sustainable and equitable development.
The proliferation of NGOs funded by private entities is not good for democracy. Over time, this can result in the establishment of an unaccountable parallel governance system where the state withdraws from essential functions such as education and water supply. But the obsession with foreign funding for NGOs seems rather paradoxical. After all, the government has indicated that it will do everything it can to enhance levels of foreign funding for business.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
If the article is accurate, it should cause serious concern – though not for the reasons that the IB lists. Asking the IB to report on NGOs less than a month after taking power speaks volumes about the government’s approach to dissent. Dissent, by definition, will not suit any government – but diversity of opinion is a critical component of a healthy democracy.
“A significant number of Indian NGOs [are] using people-centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects,” the Express quotes the June 3 report as saying. The projects stalled due to “growth-retarding campaigns” include nuclear power plants, uranium mines, and farm biotechnology projects.
It is not clear which NGOs the IB studied or how their activities were monitored. It is true that some parts of the NGO universe are dubious. In 2009, a report of the Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology, which is under the Ministry of Rural Development, blacklisted more than 800 NGOs and voluntary organisations for misappropriating funds.
Foreign funding can indeed have ideological strings attached. It has been argued that western multilateral agencies (including the World Bank, which funds state-approved projects in India) work to assist with just enough development in “emerging economies” so that dissent is co-opted, the countries remain in debt, and the agencies remain in business.
But the IB’s assertions imply that all opposition to government-mandated projects is undesirable. It is dishonest to bracket the possibly questionable activities of some foreign-funded NGOs with the many people’s movements across the country that, for decades, have fighting development projects that displace millions, destroy livelihoods, and abandon people without social safety nets.
Devastating homelands
Development projects can devastate traditional homelands – as, for instance, Vedanta’s bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills of Odisha will do. The local Dongria Kondh tribals who have opposed this project are not supported by foreign-funded NGOs.
The IB report, the Express says, lists “anti-development” activities in 2014 in such areas as disposal of e-waste of Indian IT firms, the River Interlinking Project and the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. Considering India’s record of development projects, it is vital to put such projects through intense scrutiny and dialogue. People’s concerns about the hazards of e-waste or the impact of river interlinking are not all a foreign conspiracy. The IB even disapproves of NGOs “organising construction workers in urban areas”: this is a sign of what’s to come for labour rights, already in shreds after two decades of liberalisation.
The IB laments the cost to “GDP growth” of dissent. This formulation confuses economic growth with genuine development. It's a definition that leaves no room for alternative ideas of sustainable and equitable development.
The proliferation of NGOs funded by private entities is not good for democracy. Over time, this can result in the establishment of an unaccountable parallel governance system where the state withdraws from essential functions such as education and water supply. But the obsession with foreign funding for NGOs seems rather paradoxical. After all, the government has indicated that it will do everything it can to enhance levels of foreign funding for business.
