Bekar Amitabh Behar & FCRA

Amitabh Behar, CEO of Oxfam, writes in Scroll.In- 

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, has to be understood in a political context.

Such laws were introduced in the mid Seventies and beefed up over the last decade under both Congress and the BJP. Historically, they must be understood in a National Security context. 

The message is loud and clear: a single narrative being crafted in India and any challenge to power is seen with suspicion and crushed with brute force. Civil society, which believes that one of its primary roles is to hold power to account and to undertake non-party political action in favor of the marginalised and disempowered, needs to fall in line. Civil society can exist only if it is willing to play service delivery roles – or it should perish.

It seems Civil Society needs foreign funds to fulfil its 'primary role'- which is to fight the Government. How does it do so? By crafting 'narratives'- in other words, telling stories. Behar is saying 'We need foreign money to tell stories against the Government. But Government is saying 'you have to spend at least 80 per cent of foreign money on actually doing good- not employing people to tell stories'. This is very naughty of the Government. Without foreign money, Indian peeps will stop telling stories against the Government. Boo hoo! This is sooooo unfair!' 

No doubt, Behar thinks that Mahatma Gandhi got foreign money to tell stories against the British. That is the only reason India got independence. Without foreign money, Gandhi would have kept quiet. Only because foreign donors were constantly prodding him did he start roaming around doing Satyagraha all over the place. Sadly, first the Congress and now the BJP have started cracking down on foreign funded NGOs which lack any constituency in India because they are a self-serving nuisance merely. 

The legislation, which lays down conditions under which civil society organisations can receive funds from abroad, had been passed by the Lok Sabha on Monday. It will have far-reaching consequences on the fields of education, health, people’s livelihoods, gender justice and indeed democracy in India.

No it won't. A nuisance will be curbed.  Foreign money may be sweeter than the domestic variety because foreign donors are easier to fool. Tell them you spent their cash fighting Fascism and they may believe you. Local people aren't so gullible. 

Depending on one’s vantage point,

provided you are currently getting foreign moolah 

the Bill could be termed a draconian amendment of a deeply repressive law, or – in its most charitable assessment – as a sloppy piece of legislation that has failed to have undertaken even a basic analysis of the working of the field that it wants to govern.

For everybody else, the Bill means just one thing. Instead of spending half the foreign cash on 'admin', NGOs can only keep 20 percent. That is still much more than a Government agency. It is a step in the right direction.  

While acknowledging the huge incompetence of our existing systems of governance and regulations, the amended legislation has not thought through the consequences of such fundamental changes on the diverse stakeholders.

But those 'diverse stakeholders' are virtue signalling cretins who have made a nuisance of themselves.  

Surprisingly, the Bill was introduced almost by stealth. The draft of the Bill was not in the public domain till it was introduced in the Lok Sabha on September 20. There was no pre-legislative public consultations nor were there any stakeholder consultations. In times where the norm has been to put draft legislation in the public domain for comments along with robust stakeholder consultations, this is odd.

No it isn't. It shows that foreign funded NGOs are viewed as a nuisance. Had they been doing something valuable, they would have been consulted. Of course, useful NGOs will get an exemption. But useless virtue signalling cretins will have to tighten their belts and spend less on themselves and more on those they are supposed to help.  

This gives credence to the perception

by a guy on the take 

that this Bill was promoted by political narrow-mindedness without a deliberative process or a vision that is in line with the normative framework of our Constitution.

Either the Bill, like its predecessor, is compatible with the Basic Structure of the Constitution, or it isn't. If it isn't Behar is welcome to challenge it in Court. But he would fail. Why? It is because it is in line with the normative framework of the Constitution. Charities aren't supposed to spend half their money on admin. They are supposed to do good, not get fat.  

The Bill ignores the fact that India operates under developmental deficits of basic human necessities of food, education, health, shelter livelihoods and human dignity.

Behar ignores the fact that spending money on admin does nothing to tackle 'developmental deficits'.  

The objective of the Bill was to regulate non-governmental organisations by making them accountable and transparent, Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai told Parliament. Another stated objective was to regulate religious conversions supported by foreign funds. The third, was to broaden the definition of the “government servant” category to include “public servants” among the people who cannot receive foreign funds.

All of these are good and valid objectives. 

Even a cursory reading of the amendments will clearly demonstrate that the changes will not address first two objectives in any way.

Nonsense! The recipients of foreign money will have to provide their Aadhar number and use a Bank Account in Delhi. That makes for transparency and accountability. An organization found to be using foreign money for proselytization will have its certificate cancelled. Thus both objectives are addressed in a proper and credible manner. 

Instead, new bureaucratic hurdles have been created that are unrelated to these objectives.

This bureaucrat thinks giving his Aadhar number and setting up a Bank account is a tremendous hurdle! No doubt, he feels he has to have a fully staffed Department of Aadhar Number providing and another Department of opening a Bank Account and a third Department to liaise between the two. 

Behar may be surprised to know that most people can give their Aadhar number and open a Bank account by themselves. The thing isn't rocket science. No vast 'bureaucratic hurdles' arise.

The third one is clearly an outcome of a specific case (relating to Lawyers Collective) and appears to be a vindictive response that is not rooted in larger questions.

Trustees and officers of charitable organizations that receive government grants of over INR 10 million (approximately $146,000) or foreign funds over INR 1 million(approximately $14,600) are considered “public servants.” I believe they will be required to provide a lot of personal information under the Lokpal act. Clearly, there has been bipartisan support for a crackdown on dodgy NGOs and the influential people who have profited from them. 

In any case, even if it was an objective (though questionable), it does not justify the wide-ranging amendments. That could have been achieved by a much narrower remit of the legislation.

Why is this stupid bureaucrat pretending to know how Bills should be drafted? Is he in charge of managing Parliamentary time?  

As civil society organisations seek accountability from others, it is a moral obligation for them to themselves be accountable and transparent in substantive ways and maintain the highest standards.

It is a legal obligation.  

While this is the stated commitment, it is also important to say that the NGO sector is already one of the most regulated sectors.

Yet it is still shite. 

Organisations already have to present at least four substantive reports to the authorities.

So what? This is easily done provided they are maintaining a proper Management Information System. New Technology has made this easier, not more difficult. 

They need to comply with the income tax laws and file their reports regularly. The second relates to their reporting to the FCRA division of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The third is to the Charity Commissioner/Registrar of Companies. The fourth is to the donor.

But the donor does not represent 'the authorities'. So Behar has been caught in a lie. There are three, not four, types of reports required by the State from a foreign funded NGO.  

This is in addition to all other laws of the land that are applicable to the sector, such as the Provident Fund Act and Gratuity reporting requirements.

This is true of all Organizations. Why is this fellow wailing about it? How shit a bureaucrat is he? 

On top of this, the current Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act mandates that the FCRA division of the home affairs ministry needs to be intimated about even smaller details like a change in bank account or change of address or change of even a single board member within a couple of weeks.

Why is this a problem? What sort of shitshow is this cunt running? 

Besides, every quarter on the FCRA website, each FCRA organisation needs to report their FCRA income along with the details of the donor and the project for which the money has been sanctioned.

Where is the difficulty? The thing is purely routine. How crap are these bureaucrats? 

In a country where the dominant mood is to reduce red tape and over-regulation in various sectors, it is curious to describe the levels of regulations discussed above as inadequate.

Fuck does this sentence mean? Berar started writing one sentence and then wrote another probably because his Director of head scratching got into a fight with his Director of arse scratching and so he lost his train of thought.

 India needs to reduce red tape in productive areas of the economy. It needs to curb nuisances. NGOs are a nuisance- unless they aren't in which case they will get an exemption.  

There is no denying the fact that there are black sheep in the sector (as there are in any other sector). But sincere adherence to the existing framework could easily weed them out.

This cretin does not get that black sheep don't 'sincerely adhere' to anything. Thus he has admitted that the Government is right to get tough on these stupid sheep.  

Importantly, none of the amendments proposed in reality will increase any accountability and transparency.

Because the black sheep will remain black- but they won't get foreign money to create a nuisance. That's a win for the people of India.  

Instead, they will overload the NGOs with new bureaucratic tasks and open the floodgates for arbitrary, vindictive action by the authorities.

Fat sheep, however black, don't want to be put on a diet. They bleat angrily at 'arbitrary, vindictive, actions by the authorities' who kick them out of the lush, green, pastures which their credulous foreign donors have provided for them.

The Government says 'listen, you worthless cunts, you can't get away with spending half your money on admin'. Bekar replies 'you are overloading us with Admin! I will need at least a staff of 20 just to provide my Aadhar number! Why are you being so mean!' 

The discussion on conversions appear as a bolt from the blue

to a black sheep 

in the context of the proposed amendments. A careful reading of all the arguments in favour of this objective fails to establish the amendments will achieve it.

Another sentence which started off one way and then turned to shit. How fucking bekar is this cunt with an MPhil from JNU? Does he really not get that if an NGO is found to be buying converts then it loses its foreign funding? That's it. Simples.  

It is clearly a red herring

says the black sheep 

and a tool to galvanise political support from the government’s Hindutava base.

That support was 'galvanised' long ago.  

It is important to underscore that it is a myth that foreign sources of money are largely church based.

But it is not a myth that some is. 

The overwhelming majority of donors are philanthropic bodies or governmental agencies that have no association with the church.

This does not mean their money may not be used for improper purposes. 

Similarly, the extraordinary majority of organisations at the receiving end have nothing to do with religion.

Extraordinary? Is that the sort of English they teach at JNU? How bekar is Behar? 

Instead, they focus on developmental questions like poverty eradication, creating livelihood options for the poorest of the poor or work for gender justice.

But are shite nevertheless because the cunts who run them have MPhils from shitholes like JNU.  

Now that the Bill has been approved, it is important to examine the key amendments and its implications to understand why VANI – the Voluntary Action Network India – calls this bill as “death blow” to the sector.

VANI is lying. We may wish it weren't but the fact remains the thing won't die so easily. Even 20 percent of the pie is enough to keep it going. It spends 140,000 Euros a year lobbying Brussels. 

According to its Website, its

Achievements

are

Meaningful Advocacy

which turns out to be meaningless, illiterate, bureaucratic goblledegook

VANI played a critical role to advocate for and widely disseminate Model Bill for Society Registration among the state level networks.

The Indian Voluntary Sector, through VANI, proposed the historic Alternative National Budget, an unfathomed move amidst TINA campaign (There is no alternative) of the government. This was later acknowledged by the then Prime Minister of India Mr. P V Narisimha Rao

Advocacy initiative under Lokpal Bill resulted in relaxation in government’s ask for personal information disclosure of governing board members and their family members

Building Compliances

After the amendment of FCRA act, VANI conducted FCRA Clinics around the country to de-mystify law, create awareness and prepare the voluntary organisations (especially grass-root level organisations) about the changed requirements and their adherence.

VANI was closely associated with Planning Commission to develop and disseminate the National Policy for the Voluntary Sector.

All this is completely useless bureaucratic crapola. There is no Planning Commission any more. VANI too should just fuck off and die already. It mentions Narasmiha Rao on its Website under 'Achievements'! This is an utterly senile organization.

Let us pick the five important changes proposed.

First, an FCRA grant cannot be re-granted to other organisations even if they have FCRA clearances.

So, mere 'brokerage' or 'round-tripping' is off the table- a good thing surely? unless, these black sheep are fraudsters plain and simple.  

This is a devastating blow to the way civil society functions.

Only if it is ab ovo fraudulent. 

At the heart of why NGOs perform such re-granting is the idea of collaborative functioning to ensure pooling of diverse competencies to address difficult social problems.

Why not just pay for services like everybody else? Is it because NGOs want to get around limits on 'admin' expenditure? Or is it because the thing is fraudulent? 

It also recognises the reality that most NGOs in India are rather small and focus on their work with communities and do not have the skill sets to write proposals and liaison with the donors.

There it is! That's the scam right there! Those working with the poor don't have bureaucratic skills. So a rent seeking bureaucratic tribe is exploiting them while lying to the donors. What the Government is doing is squeezing the bureaucrats. That's good for the intended beneficiaries- or would be if these NGOs weren't a scam pure and simple. Still, some of these fat black sheep are going to end up on short rations.  

In one stroke, this entire model of bringing relief and support to millions of poor and ordinary citizens will be compromised.

The Zamindars and Maharajas used to say that if their big palaces and privy purses were taken away, then nobody would be left to look after the poor and starving peasants. Bureaucrats like Bekar make a similar claim. 

If donors want to do good they must disintermediate bekar Behars and deal directly with the grass-roots guys. Use the internet. Crowdsource volunteers who can speak the local language. Tell the bureaucrats and their lobbyists to go fuck themselves. 

We need to be cognisant of the fact that even earlier, FCRA money could be re-granted only to organisations with FCRA approvals. When they have already been vetted by the FCRA division, what was the need for stopping this mode of operation?

The answer is that 'collaboration' can be fraudulent. If the thing is 'good faith', let the foreign donor do it directly. If you pay me to do a job and I pay someone else to do it, the question arises as to why the middleman was necessary? If this field is genuinely populated by altruists let the process of transparency percolate back to the donor. Why should a person working in India not use her own resources to develop the plans which require funding? Will Indians show no altruism unless foreigners pay them to do so?  

In effect, the work on the ground will suffer and the small organisations will be elbowed out by big organisations.

Why not absorb the small organizations so as to reduce transaction costs, internalize externalities, and cut overheads through economies of scope and scale? Why should bureaucratic bloat be tolerated in this sector?  Perhaps Bekar does not want to rub shoulders with people who don't have MPhils from JNU. 

Second, administrative expenses of organisations receiving FCRA funds have to be capped at 20%.

Which is still a lot more than would apply to Government programs of a similar type. 

This is a case of complete legislative overreach. If the donor agrees to a budget that might support administrative expenses of higher magnitude, then why should the government object?

Because fat black sheep bleat anti-National nonsense and use their spare cash to make a nuisance of themselves with PIL and so forth. Foreigners may believe 'Fascism' is being battled. Indians know a Nuisance is being funded. 

It is a fundamental principle of law that is getting subverted by giving the state unbridled power to enter into the space of a contract between two entities.

No 'fundamental principle of law' allows foreigners to subvert the polity by supplying cash to lying bastards.  

Leaving aside the deeper philosophical questions, it is operationally also a disaster.

For fat black sheep who are utterly useless. 

This needs to be understood in the context of how civil society organisations function. This 20% might be feasible in a service delivery organisation where the entity works with reasonably large budgets and direct implementation. However, if the NGO plays other roles like research, training or advocacy, then the 20% would be a ridiculously low number.

But its 'research, training & advocacy' is shite. It is not a service and it isn't delivered. It just stinks up the place.  

In effect this would mean that the government will only allow service delivery organisations and not allow NGOs that play many other critical roles in society.

Foreign funded NGOs aren't going to be allowed to play a critical role in subverting the polity. Boo hoo! 

This also needs to be read with the fact that often the higher administrative expenses from foreign funds play a very important role in cross-subsidising other large government or Corporate Social Responsibility projects.

In other words, the foreigner has the leverage- their dollar has a multiplier effect. A sensible country would want the reverse. The foreigner should only contribute to the marginal cost of implementing something desirable and scalable for the country. 

Most government projects or CSR projects limit administrative overheads to 5%-6%. This is not a viable figure but given the importance of these projects, NGOs often negotiate higher administrative expenses with the FCRA projects to provide a cross-subsidy.

Yes, yes. We know bureaucrats like scratching each other's backs. But this worsens poverty. 

Third, one of the most bizarre proposals in the bill is the need for all FCRA organisations to have their FCRA bank account in a Delhi branch of State Bank of India.

This can be done from your local bank. It isn't a big hassle. Why is this bureaucrat getting conniptions? 

If one overlooks the tragic level of centralisation being proposed and state’s deep suspicion of even its own banking system (including public banks), then it appears as black comedy in times of internet and push for digital India.

Another sentence which started off one way and then turned to shit. It makes sense for the Government to shift compliance costs onto a sector which even Bekar admits has black sheep.  

Fourth, the need for all key functionaries to furnish their Aadhaar cards. This insistence even after the Supreme Court judgement on Aadhaar is disappointing. Every credible civil society group would be willing to share their details, including individual details. However, why is Aadhaar essential? Why could a copy of passport, PAN or a similar document not achieve the same function of transparency and accountability.

Why not Aadhaar? Surely, the Government knows best as to what is most convenient for its own bureaucrats? Why is Bekar second guessing a more professional, and smarter, type of bureaucrat? 

Finally, the powers of action given to the government by increasing the number of days for investigation or for seizure of property and other provisions, will only make an already draconian law more draconian in practice.

Which the voters welcome because they believe, with good reason, that Bekar and his ilk are a bunch of crooks.  

Even currently, there are enough cases that the government has not adhered to six months as the time framework for completing its enquiry and this amendment now would further open the floodgates for vindictive, disproportionate and arbitrary action against voices challenging the government.

Voices challenging the government, funded by foreign donors, are foreign agents. They may not be anti-national, but then again they may be. It depends on which foreigner is providing the funding. What is certain is that every sovereign nation has a right to monitor foreign agents operating on its soil. Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai is an American citizen. The FBI had him jailed for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act. He had taken millions from the Pakistani ISI to lobby American politicians re. Kashmir.  

Behar and his bekar ilk have set up a great bleating about this Bill. But they will survive. Bureaucrats are like cockroaches. They will tell other lies and find other ways to grab money. The true menace they represent is the notion that Indians will only try to improve their lot if Johnny Foreigner pays them to do so. Look at Mahatma Gandhi. He was financed completely by the Churchill Foundation- right? That's how come India became independent. Democracy today is gravely imperilled because bekar cunts are not getting to keep 50 per cent of foreign money which is supposed to help poor people- not illiterate bureaucrats with MPhils from JNU.