Skip to main content

On FCRA....continued...

In continuation with the earlier post on FDI and FCRA, this is another one on Government's discreet versus discrete ambivalence. 

Civil Society in the world’s largest democracy is vibrant and has been actively involved in addressing many of the ills that have plagued the country hitherto. This has also lent them credibility as contributing to nation building by partnering government in implementing various schemes and welfare measures. Civil Society Organizations receive support for carrying out their activities from their membership status, government, corporate houses, individual donations and family wealth, national and international foundations. If one were to compare the difference between the amounts of funds coming in for ‘for-profit sector’ with for ‘non-profit sector’, then it is hardly any different from carrying out an exercise in absurdity, for ‘such’ vast a gulf exists. Government of India has made various mandatory provisions under registration clauses for such organizations that generally go under the name of regulatory norms. These regulations hold Civil Society Organizations accountable for contributing to income tax, seeking permission to have a non-profit status, to name a few. 

Foreign Contribution Act, 1976  (Caution: pdf file) was one such regulatory mechanism, which was subsequently replaced by Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act (FCRA) in 2010 (Caution: pdf file). The FCRA Rules under the Act became a reality in 2011, which possessed certain provisions that called for constraining the democratic space these organizations had full rights to. What is being alluded to here is Section 3, which impinges upon dissenting voices, which are so very crucial for the healthy functioning of democracy. The Section was even objected to be certain parliamentarians who called it an infringement mechanism on constitutional rights like ‘freedom of association’ and ‘freedom of expression’. That, such provisions in the Act and Rules left ample room for manipulation and misuse was the common apprehension. These apprehensions were duly realized, when cases after cases of FCRA suspension of Civil society Organizations started multiplying over the last two years. The common rationale for such suspensions was Civil Society showing solidarity with actions pertaining to people’s causes, thus behaving like political actors and violating Section 5 of the FCRA Rules, 2011. The Section puts down any politically motivated endorsement by Civil Society Organizations at the discretion of Central Government to decide on its continuing to draw financial support from foreign contributors. So, unless a non-profit organization accepts to play a puppet, the government could manipulate and misappropriate facts to its suitability. 

What is ironical here is the distinction drawn by the Government, especially since the early 1990s between ‘for profit sector’ and ‘for non-profit sector’, whereby the regulatory mechanism for the former pertains to Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1974 translated into Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, while for the latter, Rules get introduced making regulations more stringent and discrete. Moreover, FCRA 2010 and FCRA Rules 2011 are often shrouded in suspicion for being anti-people, and hence are governed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, thus breaching the ‘Equality Before Law’ principle. If parliamentary democracy is devoid of associations that question, dissent that is correctional in nature, and accountability that is empowering the political and social ethos of its citizens, then such participatory democracy is soulless, and swims against the tide of constitution-enabled rights. As a functioning democracy, we need accountability on all fronts and at all levels, not selective applications of laws, primarily with the purpose of stifling dissent and democratic rights to form associations and work for people's cause, Section 3 (1) (f) of FCRA 2010 and Rule 3 of FCRA Rules 2011 precisely do that. And, for a healthier spirited democratic values and respect for its citizens, all suspensions of Civil Society Organizations aided under FCRA be revoked, and suitable changes be made at the earliest in Section 3 and 5 of FCRA Rules 2011 to rid of any ambiguity.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Should Modinomics Be Bestowed With An Ignoble Prize In Economics? Demonetization’s Spectacular Failure.

This lesson from history is quite well known: Muhammad bin Tughlaq thought that may be if he could find an alternative currency, he could save some money. So he replaced the Gold and Silver coins with copper currency. Local goldsmiths started manufacturing these coins and which led to a loss of a huge sum of money to the court. He had to take his orders back and reissue Gold/Silver coins against those copper coins. This counter decision was far more devastating as people exchanged all their fake currency and emptied royal treasure. And nothing seems to have changed ideatically even after close to 800 years since, when another bold and bald move or rather a balderdash move by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi launched his version of the lunacy. Throw in Demonetization and flush out black money. Well, that was the reason promulgated along with a host of other nationalistic-sounding derivatives like curbing terror funding, expanding the tax net, open to embracing digital economy an…

GST – Impact on Small Industry and the Informal Sector

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), that came into effect on 1st July, 2017, has been lauded as the most comprehensive contemporary reform of Indian indirect taxation. Aimed at creating a common, unified and integrated domestic market, allowing the free flow of goods and services across state lines, GST is supposed to deliver Indian industry and thereby the economy the competitive edge apparently lacking till now.
Reality is however a far cry from the picture painted by government. GST by creating platform a conducive to economies of scale and nullifying regional tariffs, is both conceptually and practically advantageous to big business and detrimental to the informal sector and small businesses.
These groupings, informal and small, though quite different have some degree of overlap. Informal business is overwhelmingly small but not all small businesses are informal. GST’s impact on these groups is quite different both with regard to extent of impact or in terms of results sought.
Small Bu…

India diverts Rs 56,700 crore from the fight against climate change to Goods and Service Tax regime

This news has been causing quite a few ripples, with the most daring allegation being that of siphoning of funds, thus standing in contrast to India's commitment to Paris Accords. Well, the reality goes a bit deeper than merely reductionist. In what way, this happens is eloquently dissected by Anirudh Rajan

In an effort to redistribute indirect tax revenues to industrially backward states, a conceptual change in the mode of taxation proposed by the Goods and Services Tax reform was to shift accretion of taxes to the place of consumption from the place where goods are produced or services rendered. Manufacturing states, primarily those unencumbered with ties to the central government, fearing reduced tax revenues inevitably opposed such plans. To achieve consensus, a compensation was agreed upon which would make good any fall in revenues arising from GST levy, for a period of 5 years. To fund such, an increased tax rate for certain commodities (luxury and demerit goods) was initia…