Keep Your Silver

• Presence in India Since 1952, arrived at the invitation of PM Jawaharlal Nehru

• Monies into the country 3,500 grants, worth $508 million

• What does it fund Agriculture, microfinance, philanthropy, Dalit rights, peace and security initiatives, the arts, and so on

Key projects it has funded

• National Foundation for India: $6 m

• Dalit Foundation: $3.51 million

• ATREE (Ashoka Trust): $2 million

• Samaj Pragati Sahayog: $1.98 m

• Institute of Development Studies: $1.5 million

Who heads it here

The global board has N.R. Narayana Murthy, the sole Indian among 16 from various countries, including Tim Berners-Lee (heads WWW Foundation), Ursula Burns (Xerox CEO). Kavita N. Ramdas heads the South Asia region. 

Strictures in India

Has been debarred from transferring funds directly to projects. Globally such major strictures on FF are rare, though it has been criticised often.

***

The heightened scrutiny into the affairs of the Ford Foundation, undoubtedly the biggest planet in India’s non-government firmament, is clearly a ‘bold move’ by the government. It’s certainly sending shudders down the civil society universe. Ford Foundation (FF) has been debarred from transferring funds directly to recipients engaged in an array of social and development projects. From now on, banks in India can transfer FF funds to recipients only after government approval.

Why the Modi sarkar is “going after” this NGO is anybody’s guess. Govern­m­ent officials did not respond to requests for comment. A key FF trustee, N.R. Nara­y­ana Murthy, did not respond to an e-mail while Kavita Ramdas, FF’s India representative, could not be reached. An FF statement e-mailed on April 27 says: “At present we have not yet heard directly from the ministry of home affairs.” This amplifies a signal that many already hear—the sounds of the government splashing off on a fishing expedition, scu­ttling all work associated with FF.

Rumours, however, abound where facts wear thin. Is the government upset because FF once funded Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s NGO Kabir? But that was a decade ago, in 2005 and 2008, and the home ministry has already pro­bed it, finding no wrongdoing. Sisodia, too, was unavailable for comment.

Or is it a signal to Modi’s powerful friend Barack Obama, the President of the US, which has enquired about the government’s move against FF? “Some­one needs to tell @fordfoundation that funding Teesta Setalvad’s feud against Modi is not the same as helping the green revolution,” Sadanand Dhume, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, tweeted on April 26. He, however, declined to elaborate.

***

***

All this has triggered disquiet even within the Sangh parivar. For instance, RSS pracharak K.N. Govindacharya thi­nks the Modi government’s moves are “ad hoc” and “single out” FF on specious grounds. He told Outlook, “Vague app­eals to national interest are not right. Ford should at least have been given a reason by the government.”

Try telling that to civil society. The groups that work with FF fear their fin­ances could take a tumble or that bureaucrats will linger needlessly over their applications to please their political masters. “We have an ongoing funding from the Ford Foundation and are exp­ecting the next instalment. It will probably be delayed now,” says Amitabh Behar, executive director, National Foundation of India (NFI). NFI received around $6 million from FF between 2006-14. “We see this episode within a larger context across the country. The prevalent narrative has been detrimental to the rights-based work we do, particularly in letting money come in,” he says.

And to think the same foundation was once credited with bolstering India’s green revolution. “The whole country is running on foreign funds and nobody complains. Ford Foundation helped India become self-sufficient in foodgrains, and now everybody starts talking nat­ional interest,” says agriculture expert Devinder Sharma. “What’s hap­­pening is very unfortunate...and just because we (the government) want to stifle some voices,” he says.

Devinder is only hinting at what is universally suspected—the government is angry with FF for it helped finance Teesta Setalvad, the activist who supported the 2002 Gujarat riots victims and their fight for justice. Setalvad has lately been accused of embezzling funds of the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Sabrang Trust, which FF once financed. The matter is under investigation. “We have not violated any law, including the FCRA,” says Setalvad, referring to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, which traces its roots to the Emergency days (see interview).

A few years before that—in the aftermath of the 1971 war—India had chucked out USAID. It fit into a pattern of ‘strong’ government action. Of course, many civil society groups are repeatedly accused of being ‘anti-national’, an allegation that often hampers the only entities aiding marginalised citizens and groups.

This is the crux of the problem: what is ‘national interest’? The government cites this to evoke suspicion that FF, and many others, finance organisations that oppose India. FF is involved in funding diverse activities, from democratic government and sustainable development to human rights. Besides, 13 per cent of its funds go to government agencies, making the action against it ironic to boot.

Public intellectual and historian Dilip Simeon, who has worked with Oxfam and the Aman Trust, which received funds from FF over a decade ago, says, “At times the word ‘nation’ acquires God-like overto­nes which can be used to stifle debate.” Simeon says that three players—state off­icials, government and civil society—define and preserve national interest. Sho­uld conflicts arise, “there is no way out except dialogue amongst all three”. In other words, national interest is not something “out there”, but is constantly mediated and defined. He finds the assumption that all donors have a unified agenda “facile”—there are hundreds of donors, each with varying mandates.

For instance, Aman’s projects inclu­ded providing psychological treatment for traumatised children, reskilling widows of caste killings and legal assistance to the poor. “At no stage did we feel pressured or driven to fulfil any agenda other than our own. In many cases, we worked closely with states and in some cases (emergency medical relief) also the Ind­ian army. We took support only because it was without strings,” he says.

In fact, it isn’t just about FF any more. In March, Greenpeace’s bank accounts were frozen over alleged FCRA violations. “An official MHA notice reached us two days after our account was frozen,” says a Greenpeace executive, speaking anonymously. Greenp­eace also learned of its violations not from the MHA, but during a routine visit to the bank. “We have no money to get projects off the ground,” says the executive. Another 14 internat­i­onal and local donor and recipient age­n­cies have been barred, apparently as they had “links” to Greenpeace. Nearly 9,000 NGOs were deprived of registration as they did not file returns for three years.

“There is nothing new in the governm­ent’s suspicions about FF,” says Martin Macwan, who runs Navsarjan and the Dalit Foundation, which have received funds from FF. In 1994, a secretary to the government of Gujarat personally interviewed Macwan before letting him acc­ept an FF grant. “I never had to get prior sanction to receive donations from any other international organisation,” he says. “Today the PM has been forced to raise his voice against manual scavenging. But in 1996, when Navsarjan filed the first PIL against the inhuman practice, I too was branded anti-national,” he says.

There is no dearth of anti-nationals in India judging by how many have faced this charge. Mallika Sarabhai, activist and classical dancer, is one. “The mandates of FF and Greenpeace are justice and equity and not making governments fall,” she says. Bezwada Wilson, who fou­nded the Safai Karamchari Andolan, sees the episode as a danger signal for rights-based organisations. “Human rig­hts work should be sacrosanct, it cannot be done in a climate of fear,” he says.

It’s tempting to see the FF crackdown as the work of a nanny state, one that believes international donors are incapable of handling their own money. More interesting is to witness a government lash out at rivals, past, present and some imaginary ones. Taking Ford Foundation down a notch hits the entire NGO space where it hurts—in the pocket.