FCRA Bill needs a detailed debate

Proposed amendments to India's FCRA raise concerns over foreign funding, with critics fearing restrictions on NGOs and increased government control.

As with every polarising debate on contemporary issues in India, context is important to understand the churn around proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). Over the past decade, the Union government has doggedly winnowed down the list of foreign funding recipients in India, including high-profile names and think tanks. Many of these cases — especially those involving denial of FCRA certificates to high-profile institutions and think tanks — have led to prolonged litigation and allegations by the Opposition that discretion in granting licences tipped over into favouritism. Today, FCRA is a tightly controlled regime with funds channelled through a single branch of the State Bank of India at its headquarters in New Delhi.

The bill was held back in the previous session ahead of assembly polls in Kerala, where the amendments had become a lightning rod; now, three chief ministers of Christian-majority states have underlined deep concerns among their communities (HT Archive)

Against this backdrop, it is not difficult to see why new proposals — primary among them being the one on establishing a government-appointed authority to take over, manage, or sell assets created from foreign funds by a NGO whose FCRA licence was cancelled, suspended, or simply not renewed — have caused worry in some quarters. The bill was held back in the previous session ahead of assembly polls in Kerala, where the amendments had become a lightning rod; now, three chief ministers of Christian-majority states have underlined deep concerns among their communities that religious and humanitarian institutions would find their activities further curtailed if the amendments pass. Reactions from the ministry of external affairs and India’s ambassador to the US indicate that the scope of such concerns transcend national boundaries. Clearly, the problem of perception has as much to do with the current moment as it has with how the FCRA regime has transformed over the past decade. Establishing clear lines of communication will require more effort than off-record briefings and minutes-long discussions in a disruption-hampered Parliament.

No country can tolerate any attack on its sovereignty, however underhanded, at the behest of foreign actors or funding. It is also reasonable that the flow of such funds be regulated in a transparent, legal manner. But the FCRA regime is already tightly controlled and the probability of dubious funds flowing through a single branch of India’s primary nationalised bank appears low. Communication and consultation cannot be bypassed for such a sensitive issue. Whether the bill is sent to a joint parliamentary committee, held back, or debated in the Lok Sabha, the government ought to take all stakeholders — political and non-political — on board and decide on the basis of a frank exchange of ideas and concerns.