It’s often said, tongue in cheek, that India’s “shadow” government works out of the nondescript, low-slung buildings abutting the Lodhi Garden in Delhi. That’s partly hubris, but it also stems from being close to the centre of power. This rarefied zone houses powerful “cultural” institutions like the India International Centre, as well as a host of global multilateral agencies and think-tanks. Things get done here discreetly, sans any fanfare. Which is why there is a faint air of disquiet at the spotlight on Ford Foundation, whose headquarters are across the road from IIC.
The context, of course, is the Anna Hazare team-led ‘India Against Corruption’ movement for a Jan Lokpal bill. Author-activist Arundhati Roy, among others, raised concerns about Arvind Kejriwal’s links with the foundation, which is touted as a front for multilateral agencies interfering in public policy matters. In the spotlight is Kabir, an NGO run by Kejriwal associate Manish Sisodia, which has received grants totalling $3,97,000 from the foundation. Kejriwal and Ford Foundation have both denied any links while Sisodia has said the money was for films, documentaries and campaigns on RTI (see Arvind Kejriwal interview). But the issue has rekindled old fears of a “foreign hand” in domestic policy.
Should NGOs receiving grants from international agencies like the Ford Foundation and others be barred from participating in the shaping of public policy? And are these civil society groups working as stooges of the West to execute an “American agenda”?
The Ford Foundation, which completes six decades in India next year, provides a continuing flow of grants to institutions, think-tanks, civil society, and even farmer groups, to carry out research and advocacy work. The sums are not inconsequential—about $15 million (about Rs 70 crore) a year. And the recipients—320 grants, over the past four years—are the who’s who of civil society and advocacy groups in India.
The Foundation Of Indian Policymaking?
A selection of Ford Foundation grants (2007-11)
The foundation, on its part, makes no bones about its neo-liberal agenda, broadly pro-market, seeking accountability in governance, and promoting marginalised groups. It funds a small number of institutions, but chooses effectively. At a post-budget meeting two years back, it was noted that all the think-tanks represented (NCAER, NIPFP, ICRIER and the Centre for Policy Research) on the dais received grants from the foundation. Academicians and scholars from these think-tanks are regularly consulted by the government on various policy issues.
On whether the views of these intellectuals actually get reflected in subsequent policies, Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia declines to comment. “I don’t really have a view on it,” he says. He does, however, concede that India’s association with the foundation “is something that has been on for a long time”.
“Over the last decade, there has been a shift,” says a Planning Commission official. “Of late, they are not seen as being too active in providing technical inputs or helping in government policy implementation or any of the discussions that take place.” Instead, the closer dialogue of policymakers with civil society groups is considered an indirect form of engagement by overseas agencies. Institutions like the Ford Foundation and other funding groups have been collaborating with civil society groups across issues as diverse as human rights, forest rights and agriculture to education, health and RTI.
This also fits in with a recent shift in the US policy of association with India, which is now focusing on building state-to-state partnerships by “engaging Indian state and local leaders” throughout the country on “topics of mutual interest”. Civil society groups and think-tanks are expected to play an important role in this. As Prof Anil Gupta of IIM-Ahmedabad observes, “Their influence is far beyond what is recognised, and not always benign.”
What do the recipients of Ford Foundation’s largesse have to say about this charge? “Every donor or grant-making institution can be accused of having a hidden agenda, including the Government of India. That they have made stooges of anybody is unthinkable,” says Dr Rajiv Kumar, the secretary-general of FICCI and former director of ICRIER. Indian think-tanks, he points out, receive funding not just from the US, but also from reputed institutions in Germany, Japan, Canada and other countries.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta of the Centre for Policy Research, in fact, says that the reason why India has not been able to create a research infrastructure funding institution is because of the psychological fear of strings being attached to all funding for research. “Open-ended grants from reputed American funding institutions are much less interfering than many so-called sources of Indian funding, barring a few,” he states bluntly. Striving to dispel perceptions of pre-set agendas, Mehta points out that CPR has no stated viewpoint on issues like the interlinking of rivers, climate change and so on. These are issues on which the CPR faculty continues to disagree vociferously.
What scholars do agree on is that the government should provide more funds for research and advocacy. The budgetary allocation for the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) is far too inadequate to support research requirements. E.A.S. Sarma, former secretary, department of economic affairs, points out, “What the international agencies give for research is just a drop in the ocean. Why should the government leave funding to the Ford Foundation and other agencies?”
Given the magnitude of the problems the common man faces, and the gaps in governance, ruling out foreign assistance for improving health and education infrastructure or doing an evaluation of government programmes is seen as unrealistic. Calling every foreign grant recipient a US stooge “is not an analytical argument, but a rhetoric ploy”, says Mehta.
That said, in an economic global order where Western institutions and ideas dominate, the influences are subtle. Foreign funding agencies don’t have to push any agenda. As a socio-political observer put it, “First the language is learnt and slowly the terminology and knowledge becomes part of conditioning.” In such a milieu, it is hard to distinguish who is pushing which agenda. Whether we like it or not, this is inbuilt in the “global village” package.
Not long ago, academic Tina Wallace termed ngos as the Trojan horse of imperialism (Flowing the Way of Their Money, Sep 19). Looking at the activities of ngos and their heads in this country, I am inclined to agree with her.
Of the above lot, the MOST DANGEROUS are the ANTI-MALE forces ( disguised as feminists ).
Should we be concerned of the hidden agenda of the foreign capitalists that sponsor Bookers prize that was awarded to a left wing radical named Arundhati Roy?
Should we be concerned of the American capitalist agenda propagated through Ford Foundation that sponsors projects in JNU , India's foremost pro-left establishment?
It appears that the Outlook is busy propagating the Congress agenda of maligning members of team Anna. Both reports from Lola Nayar and Saba Naqvi exude similar biases. This is what a Times of India editor referred to "dirty tricks department".
At this rate, I am sure Mr. Vinod Mehta will be nominated for a Bharat Ratna award next year. Congratulations for stooping that low.
Not long ago, Tinna Wallace termed the NGOs as trojan horse of Imperialism (See The Socialist Register, 2004). Look into the activities of the NGOs and their heads in this country and you will find that she was not wrong in her assessment.
All the individuals and concerns mentioned above have nothing to do with business
All the individuals and concerns mentioned above have nothing to do with business
this is making too neat a separation. The above organisations can have some of the attributes of a business, i.e the type of business that have only one or two customers. NGO activism is a multi-billion dollar operation. Do they not create peceived needs and shortcomings and seeking money to solve some or part of these problems? Some of the concerns are very valid, some are fashionable, but its still very businesslike. Its similar in some ways to the medical industry. But who is to test their efficiency in this hysterical climate?
Business that operate in the real world have a much harder time.
Brand Anna is all about foisting an Ayatollah on us
Read more: http://exitopinionpollsindia.blogspot.com/2011/09/brand-anna-is-all-about-foisting.html
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT