How would you feel if you are told that in the world’s largest democracy, you have the rights only of a voter, but not of a citizen? I ask this question because all our governments and, in particular, the present one, seem to consider the constructive activism of citizens to be a threat to the imperious domain of the state. What governments appear to like are docile voters who come out periodically to vote (hopefully) for them, and then lapse into a vegetative somnolence, forgetting that a vibrant civil society is a vital sign of a mature and citizen-based democracy. On June 24, 2016, the government notified the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. Drafted in response to the protests by Anna Hazare against corruption in government, this act surprisingly brings under its purview non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the definition of “public servants”.
Trustees, directors and professional managers in NGOs that are wholly or partly funded by the Centre to the tune of Rs 1 crore or more, or have received foreign funding of Rs 10 lakh or more, will now be as “public servants”, and must disclose not only their own assets and liabilities, but that of their spouses and dependent children as well. If they don’t, they can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for non-compliance. The last date for such disclosures was July 31, 2016, but after an appeal made to the government by eminent NGO representatives, the date has been extended to December 31, 2016.
It is apparent that the Lokpal Act of 2013 was drafted in haste and, if implemented as drafted, will act as a major dampener to the functioning and contribution of civil society. This unfortunate state of affairs is probably what the BJP government wants. It looks upon NGOs with suspicion and is particularly hostile to those who have the audacity to raise issues of human rights, gender justice, government excesses or inefficiencies. In the last four years, as many as 14,222 NGOs have been barred from receiving foreign funds. Of these, 10,020 NGOs were barred just last year.
Why do governments have this hostility to NGOs and the civil society vibrancy they represent? The answer lies in a peculiar mindset. Governments genuinely believe that in the pursuit of public good, the “mai-baap” sarkar does not need support from anybody. The dominant bias in policymaking has been that the government has a monopoly in public welfare goals and anyone who has the audacity to meddle in this area must be treated with hostility. Of course, the government’s role in this field is pivotal, as initiator, catalyst and principal funding agency. But that does not mean that there is no scope for outside participation and partnerships. The truth is that today, state altruism is sought to be monopolised because the establishment does not want “outsiders” to disturb the corrupt gravy train that follows in its wake.
It has become increasingly obvious that the government’s public welfare objects are mostly riddled with inefficiencies, poor implementation, neglect and corruption. If government cannot deliver optimally, what is the harm if it pro-actively incentivises and motivates the private sector and individuals outside government to become partners in public welfare goals? India needs competitive philanthropy backed by the government through enlightened policies. Only then can we revive, as an inextricable part of our social fabric, exceptionally relevant but now largely forgotten concepts like paropkar (or working for the public good) that once inspired us. There was a time when people believed as a matter of conviction that the successful must give back to society what society has given to them. We need to encourage citizens to believe in this concept again.
Non-governmental actors can contribute to the welfare agenda of the government in three principal ways. First, they can partner governments to ensure that deliverables reach the intended beneficiaries; second, they can partner in providing those deliverables; and third, they can, as independent stakeholders, provide these deliverables themselves. Government funding for such partnerships should be welcomed. Foreign funding is not by itself subversive, nor is such funding an India-centric phenomenon. Institutional charities and foundations look for partners to further welfare goals and India provides enough legitimate avenues for such partnerships. Each application must be judged on merit and if a hidden agenda that is inimical to India’s interests is discovered it should be dealt with appropriately. However, a generalised and reflexive hostility towards the foreign funding of NGOs is unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the existing official regimen in India to encourage philanthropy, NGOs and non-profit organisations is woefully inadequate. A comprehensive report of the Planning Commission in 2004 bluntly states that a multiplicity of laws and agencies, cumbersome procedures, unjustified delays and corruption are all responsible for the tardy growth of philanthropic activity in our country. Our law books, apparently, also have such absurd requirements as making it compulsory for any trust with an annual income of '1,500 per annum to submit annual audited accounts! The cost of the audit would be more than the income. In fact, the Planning Commission itself says that, unfortunately, “charity or volunteerism comes way down in the priority list of governments — both at the Centre and state level.”
The latest blow to civil society comes from the ill-conceived provision of the Lokpal Act. A large number of trusts, societies, charitable and non-profit organisations, hospitals and educational institutions, along with the philanthropists, doctors, teachers, and scientists who provide funds, time and expertise to social welfare activities, have the justified apprehension that the disclosure requirements under the act are likely to be misused to target people working in the social sector. The government must immediately review this law. Of course, all NGOs that benefit from government funding or foreign funds should work transparently and be accountable to laws. But provisions of the current Lokpal Act may end up smothering the sentiment of paropkar itself. Does the BJP government want this to happen?
