If an organisation goes to a bank for a loan, one of the documents that are usually demanded is a “Fund-flow statement”. This fund-flow is to show how and from where funds will be received and how they will be applied. This is a projection and can include the proposed loan sought from the bank. This is not to be confused with a cash-flow statement. The reason for analysing the fund-flow is to estimate if the unit can meet its objectives with the loan sought and if the application is a genuine estimate. The bank’s main concern is, obviously, if the borrower will be in a position to return the money as scheduled. In case of NGO-funding the donor doesn’t seek a monetary return. The donor pays money with belief in the stated mission of the NGO. Over the last week, the leaked IB report on NGO activities caused a flutter among some NGOs and quite a few of our media folks and celebrities. Some of them have foolishly compared foreign donations to NGOs to FDI. In terms of cash-flow it may appear the same; that is foreign money flows into the country’s economy. But FDI as we know it is not free. Business and venture FDI is returnable, it’s a liability and demands a measurable return on the investment. In case of NGOs it is neither returnable nor a liability. For the NGO it is an “income” (mostly tax-exempt). The only return an NGO-donor seeks is the pursuit of the “agenda” that the NGO laid out.
The “agenda” as declared to the govt and general public and as pursued by an NGO through the dictates of a large donor can often be at variance. It is naïve of some to think that anti-national agendas are going to be formally declared by an NGO. Naturally, such “hidden agendas” are not easy to prove which is why our media crooks harp on “legality”. However, just as in a murder “circumstantial evidence” also receives due consideration by a court the actions of an NGO and its “hidden agenda” can be established by circumstantial evidence. This is why you get meaningless blabber as that coming from a raging Barkha Dutt:
Some of the NGOs named in the IB report aren’t merely expressing “opinions” and it is surprising that TV-soap peddlers who seek the drama of agitations feign ignorance. Greenpeace (GP) and some others aren’t merely expressing “opinions”. Their “opinions” are often expressed physically and sometimes invasively. Arvind Kejriwal, as Chief Minister, doing a Dharna in Delhi (on R-Day eve in a high-security zone) and obstructing normal life of citizens when his Dharna neither has permission nor is legal is not a legitimate way of expressing “opinion”. He should have been arrested and prosecuted but was let-off. But hey, our media folks and Bollywood Bimbos cry “war” when they perceive a threat to “celebrity NGOs”. One such Bollywood Bimbo is Nandita Das who calls the IB report an attack on civil society. She is the one who famously said on TV “I have a small kid, how can I live in this country” (In case Modi became PM and “secular” forces were defeated in election). And after saying that she promptly went abroad to give anti-Modi speeches and didn’t bother to vote. That’s the kind of sanctimonious bimbos who speak for democracy. We have been watching their concern for India for quite a while now.
How our ignorant media folks and Bollywood celebrities rant on some issues without much clarity is best explained in this humorous response to Barkha by R. Vaidyanathan an IIM-B professor and an expert on finance and economy:
No foreign funding for NGOs in some countries? Oh well, it is okay for India because we are poor or were. But foreign funding for NGOs need not be a natural birthright and if some Western countries don't allow it, there must be good reason. Ghulam Nabi Fai? Remember that? Even other experts like Surjit Bhalla harped on the same issue of “funding” when funding is not the only issue where certain NGOs are concerned. It is what those funds are applied for that is also important. Of course, if there are any illegalities in the funding process that adds to the crimes. And what is this outrage about? Of the 3 million plus NGOs in this country, only a handful have been named in the IB report as indulging in anti-national activities and that constitutes an “attack on civil society”? That’s like the Congress saying the killing of their members by Left-wing extremists in Chattisgarh is an “attack on democracy”. All other mass killings are fine and are normal killings and not an attack on democracy? A newspaper reported the following:
That simply means many of the NGOs who got funds under FCRA simply had a free run with donations and without any accountability. Along with FDI many foreign organisations also bring in newer technology to operations. Some foreign NGOs aren’t different in that they too bring “technology” to agitations and protests. This technology involves carefully crafted agitations and objectives and often aims to overthrow govts. Lately, it has come to be known as “sponsored revolutions”. In the response to Surjit Bhalla’s uncharacteristic protest against the IB report V HariKiran best narrated the understanding of the issue and I recommend you read the whole post. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“First and foremost any protest or attempts to delay projects need not break the law. There are myriad of ways in which one can protest without breaking the law but with the clear and deliberate intent of stopping or stalling the projects. This point does not need elaboration here. The focus of IB is not on law but intent… I am at loss on the tone and tenor with which to react to his lament that IB report is “tight lipped” about institutions and officials in the UPA government agreeing with the recommendations of these FFNGOs. Suffice it to say that IB’s job is certainly not to write a thesis on “Development economics in Emerging Countries- Challenges and Solutions.” IB is an investigating agency not the Economics department at JNU, their job is not to write about the views and actions of all the stake holders”.
This part is a brief introduction to the series on the crimes of certain NGOs who indulge in anti-national activities. And like the Bollywood Bimbo, it need not be confused as an attack on India or civil society or on all NGOs. In this series we will look deeper into the funding and agitation technology of these NGOs.
… To be continued.