CONGRESS BILLS AGAINST FREEDOM

Double standard on foreign money Yes to Industry, no to NGO

USING A SLEDGEHAMMER TO SWAT A FLY


If Parliament's Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which is currently deliberating on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006, decides that repealing and replacing the FCRA, 1976, is good and fine, NGOs and Media will lose another slice of freedom.

By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

There are non-governmental organisations and there are NGOs. There are NGOs that spend more on their staffers than on the underprivileged for whom their hearts are supposed to be bleeding. And there are NGOs and quasi-NGOs (or QUANGOs) that have made a huge difference to lives of ordinary people, much more than the government and corporate bodies have. Philanthropy may not change the planet we live in, but there should be very good reasons for not encouraging the transfer of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor in this highly unequal and stratified society of ours. It is this context that the Union government's hamhanded efforts to regulate the flow of foreign funds to NGOs should be condemned in no uncertain terms.
Parliament's Standing Committee on Home Affairs is currently deliberating on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006, which, if enacted, would repeal and replace the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976. The opening sentence of the bill says that it is meant “to consolidate the law to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
The intention of the bill appears quite reasonable. Or does it? A perusal of the bill's fineprint reveals the devil in the detail and makes apparent why a host of representatives of NGOs have described the proposed new law as “draconian”, “dangerous” and of “questionable merit” that would “stifle” and “choke” the way in which civil society organisations work. It is argued that the bill would give power to civil servants to “interfere” and “undermine” the activities of NGOs and violate the human rights and democratic freedom of their representatives.
Are NGOs overreacting? Is the government justified in wanting to closely control and monitor the flow of foreign funds coming to civil society groups, some of whose activities could be construed as antinational, or even subversive?
The bill proposes a blanket prohibition of foreign contributions to organisations of a “political nature, not being political parties”. Under the FCRA, 1976, such “political” organisations could receive foreign funds only after the prior permission of the ministry of home affairs (MHA), which is responsible for administering the Act. The new bill, however, leaves it to the subjective judgement of bureaucrats to determine whether or not the activities, ideology or programmes of a particular NGO have any association with those of a political party.
The bill states that the Union government will provide a certificate of registration or give prior permission to an organisation to receive foreign contributions if it is satisfied that the applicant “has undertaken meaningful activity in its chosen field for the benefit of the people” or “has prepared a meaningful project for the benefit of the people”. Once again, the word “meaningful” and the phrase “benefit of the people” are open to be interpreted in a highly discretionary manner.
Whereas the registration of an NGO is permanent and free under the current FCRA, the new bill requires recipients of foreign funds to renew their registration every five years and introduces a scheme of payment of fees for registration, renewal of registration and prior approval for receipt of funds. Representatives of NGOs say this provision in the bill would not only generate inconvenience but could also lead to harassment by government officials. They point out that NGOs are, in any case, subject to existing laws such as the Income Tax Act and have to have their accounts audited.
The bill also seeks to impose a 50 per cent limit on the total quantum of foreign contributions received by an NGO that can be spent as “administrative expenses”. Significantly, the bill contains certain provisions meant for the media. It prohibits any association, company, correspondent or editor engaged in the production or broadcast of audio or audiovisual news or current affairs programmes from receiving foreign contributions. In other words, if the new bill becomes law, no foreign organisation can provide a grant to an Indian organisation to make a radio or television programme or a
documentary film meant for broadcast. It should be noted that this particular provision of the bill, tabled in the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2006, has been almost completely ignored by the country's media, which is usually alert about any attempt by the government to encroach on its independence.
The FCRA came into existence during the infamous Emergency period when Indira Gandhi was prime minister. During the 1980s and the 1990s, various amendments were made in the act and rules were introduced to enable the MHA to exercise greater control over the activities of NGOs. One such rule pertained to seeking prior permission of the government before an NGO could change its office bearers or directors. It was in June 2005 that the MHA first stated that a new bill to amend the FCRA was in the offing, well after the Foreign Exchange Management Act as well as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had been enacted.
A few important points need to be noted in the context of the bill to amend the FCRA. There are some in the Bharatiya Janata Party who believe that foreign funds received by NGOs have been used (and continue to be used) to “convert” poor Hindus into Christians. We are all aware of what the views of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are in this regard. Although the National Democratic Alliance government was voted out of power in May 2004, there are undoubtedly quite a few in the bureaucracy, and perhaps even in the ruling Congress party, who believe that foreign contributions to NGOs should be curbed for this reason alone. Then, as far as the source of funds of NGOs is concerned, it is fairly simple for government authorities to ascertain where foreign money is coming from because all such transactions have to take place legally through regular banking channels. Why, then, is there need to exercise more controls?
It is curious that the government should be seeking to curb and monitor the flow of foreign funds to NGOs when it is bending over backwards to welcome foreign direct investment as well as foreign institutional investors in the country's stock markets. Finally, the MHA is dominated by police officers and their attitudes have clearly been reflected in the manner in which the bill to control foreign contributions has been drafted. As the old saying goes, the government is trying to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

A Doctor's Death

The Man Who Sold his Rolls Royce

By Manuwant Choudhary

Dr.Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra - a pathologist - passed away at his Muzaffarpur residence last week. He was my maternal uncle but someone I always knew as a child as "The Man Who Sold His Rolls Royce' to buy two brand new ambassador cars!
Dr.B.P. Mishra as he was popularly known had humble origins...as a child in his Chapra village he didn't even have a proper house but then he studied hard and went on to become a doctor. And then his marriage to Sumitra - the daughter of well known Dr. Sheetal Prasad Sinha. An uncle of Dr. Mishra came to Darbhanga to fix the marriage but he said he could allow his nephew to marry Sumitra only if he got the dowry he wanted - an elephant!
Dr. Sheetal then explained that he didn't own an elephant and offered instead a modern elephant - a Rolls Royce!
Dr. Sheetal himself was the personal physician to the Maharaja of Darbhanga and the Maharaja had gifted their doctor some nine cars - the Rolls being one of them.
In the early 70's a Ranchi businessman told Dr. Mishra that he could offer Rs.30,000 for his Rolls with which he could buy two new ambassador cars for his family. Not quite knowing the real value of a Rolls Dr. Mishra sold the car!
Many years later I heard that the car is in Deogarh, Jharkhand, as the businessman gifted the car to his Guru Anukul Thakur. So some years ago I visited the Anukul Thakur Ashrams car musuem only to be told that photography is strictly prohibited. But an uncle who works in the ashram somehow convinced the swami on duty that the Guru's Rolls once belonged to my grandfather....so I was allowed to take photographs of the car for two minutes.
This story is amusing but for those who know Dr. Mishra personally he was a very practical man, a family man, a doctor educated abroad but who chose to serve poor and backward Bihar. He left his full practice in Darbhanga to his equally capable younger brother Dr. Baikunth Mishra and went off to Ranchi. Dr. Baikunth Mishra now runs a large R.B. Memorial Hospital in Darbhanga. At a time when the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, once a premier medical college and hospital in the country, being in the pits...its the private R.B. Memorial which has saved lives.
Dr. Mishra was also the founder principal of Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital in Muzaffarpur and after retirement he made Muzaffarpur his home. He also built a house in his village for his elder brother - a retired post master.
So when he passed away his family members rushed...even fourth grade employees from the medical college wept, "Doctor saheb never raised his voice even once."
He did not cheat but he did cheat death many times....being a heart patient himself he had a bypass in The US in the seventies from the famous Dr.Kelly.
On His last day after his six hours at his Modern Jaanch Ghar he bought samosaas for his wife and they spent the evening together, had dinner, watched TV and then he told her, "How long do you want to keep me in this world? Let me go now..."
His heart failed him. He was almost 87.
And worth a lot more than a Rolls.

CRICKET CRAZY WORLD CUP

By Manuwant Choudhary

In England cricket is a gentleman's game, in India it is religion and in Pakistan - fundamentalism.
A decade ago when I was still training to be a journalist my editor the great Behram Contractor from the Bombay newspaper The Afternoon Despatch & Courier asked me to cover a press meet by some foreign coaches at the Bombay Gymkhana. I had little interest in the game..played it at school but I wasn't a cricket nationalist and didn't care for religions and had no ambition to be a sports journalist, so my editor's request was strange considering the newspapers sports editor was none other than Mr. Rajan Bala, besides there were other sports reporters who could have easily done the job. At the office it became quite an issue but then I finally relented and did go to the event only to learn the event was cancelled.
The issue seemed so important that many days later the editors wife asked me, "So Manu, did you finally cover the sports presser?"
For many years I wondered why my editor chose me. Now my editor is no more. But when the match-fixing stories were first exposed, I understood why.
And in this years World Cup with the humiliating defeat of both India and Pakistan and the mysterious death of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer, I understand better that editors don't send reporters to events only as a daily chore.
Watching Pakistan captain Inzimam smilingly answer murder charges on STAR Sports it is clear sports doesn't need just sports journalists.
Yet, I am thankful there is a Harsha Bhogle driving some sense in all this...and yes my senior Rajan Bala saving a foreign coach Greg Chappel from lynch journalism.
Greg Chappel has exposed that the players who went for the World Cup were not a team.
As for who should share the blame? Greg has honourably resigned, Rahul Dravid should step down and yes Sharad Pawar too. As for moral responsibility...considering cricket is religion in India...even Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh could resign for a good cause.
More seriously, cricket is a game like any other...the only difference is that Dawood Ibrahim watches only this game.
The hysteria over cricket in India is unreal and the media plays to the gallery -they too have deals - so the only way to restore sanity to the game and India is to make the media moghuls hon.members of BCCI.

FASHION HOUSE

A GOOD LOOKING SOAP

Catwalks and catfights apart this soap on STAR World is a must watch....its slick and yes even if you've never been The Bold & Beautiful type you will be entertained..Starring Bo Derek as fashion moghul....who owns the House of Gianni the soap is bitchy enough like the real world and while models will do anything to be the Face of Gianni...its Natalie Martinez as Michelle Miller who steals the show. Wonder why Hollywood has still not discovered her talents?? From the internet we learn that Natalie is a Miami-born Cuban girl and the face of Jennifer Lopez clothing line, beating 5000 hopefuls. Her quote, "Cubanas are very strong women. So don't mess with us, don't take us for granted."

SEZ DEBATE

NANDIGRAM WINS

SAY NO TO SEZ AND YES TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

A rare win in Indian history. Not just for the people of Nandigram but for India itself.
When Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya announced that he will withdraw the SEZ project from Nandigram it marked a turning point in India's politics and it will go a long way in strengthening the liberties of the Indian people against the power of the State.

Oil Corruption

NARAYANA MURTHY FLAYS ABSENCE OF PM AND IOC AT INTEGRITY AWARD

March 24: Infosys Chief Mentor N R Narayana Murthy flayed the absence of any representative from Indian Oil Corporation Limited or the Centre at a function in Bangalore to give away the award instituted in memory of Manjunath Shanmugam, an IOCL sales officer who was murdered for exposing the oil mafia.
"I am sad that today here we do not have any representative from IOC, an organisation that Manjunath fought for. I am sad we do not have at least one symbolic representative from the Government of India", he said, presenting the first Manjunath Shanmugam Trust's award for 2007 to Prof R P Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
"Ideally a person like the Prime Minister should have been present as he knows the importance of honesty, integrity and ideals. Dr Manmohan Singh is one of the finest and most honest politicians in the country", he said.
The award has been instituted for deserving candidates who have reported and worked to rectify corrupt practices in government, public or corporate life.
Courtesy: PTI

Property Rights in India

Ground reality

By Barun Mitra

New Delhi: Much has been written about the tragedy of Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal. Yet not much light has been shed on the real significance of the protests by farmers on land acquisition. Brand Buddhadeb has suffered a serious blow much beyond West Bengal. But, more importantly, an undercurrent of awareness is spreading through the grassroots of society on an almost unheralded issue — the protection of property rights.
Political and social activists have been hurling arguments to score points against rivals. If one side stresses on the need for industrialisation, the other calls for inclusive growth. The self-proclaimed champions of the poor are hobnobbing with big businesses, while the Opposition spectrum, from the fringe Left to the far Right, want to be seen to be siding with the rural poor. And business leaders, who have been enjoying the freedom to mobilise capital, want investment opportunities to be sugar-coated with a range of privileges and subsidies, including tax breaks and land at low costs.
Sixteen years after India began dismantling the licence and permit raj, it is clear that reforms have improved the economic environment for entrepreneurs. Yet, the issue of land acquisition in the name of promoting industrialisation or special economic zones (SEZs), shows how deeply entrenched the sense of political patronage continues to be in the influential sections of Indian society.
Nothing else can explain the desire of so many Indian business houses to ask the government to procure land for their projects. Since these businessmen have been the biggest beneficiary of liberalisation of the capital market, one could have expected them to demand a similar liberalisation of the land market in the country.
If businesses cannot legitimately acquire the necessary land for their purposes, then it is the land market that needs to be reformed. Instead, they have sought to eliminate the land market completely by asking the government to act as the middleman and perpetuate the land mafia.
Similarly, the opinion among social activists range from those who want land to perpetually remain under agriculture or forests, to others who focus more on an adequate rehabilitation and compensation package. Despite their concern for the poor, most of them fail to realise that property rights is not a luxury of the rich, but a necessity for the poor. The rich can survive in most societies, irrespective of their legal rights, because with their wealth they can buy protection from the powers that be. It is the poor who are left most vulnerable if they are denied the right, because they have no other recourse, except to become political pawns.
Economist Hernando de Soto, among others, has shown that the poor are trapped in poverty primarily because of their inability to capitalise on their assets, including land.
Today, Indian businesses can raise capital freely at home and abroad, they can buy and sell assets, engage in mega mergers and acquisitions. Yet, most Indian farmers hardly enjoy the freedom to buy, sell, lease or rent land. In most parts of India, farm land is regulated under land ceiling and land usage laws. In addition, laws make it difficult to even change crop patterns, and restrict the movement of agricultural produce.
The astronomical rise of real estate prices in urban India is also a reflection of the rigidities that have hobbled our cities. Rent control, land ceiling and zoning, coupled with weak legal avenues for the enforcement of contracts, have all made land in urban India artificially scarce. All — the land mafia, politicians, bureaucrats and businesses — have benefited, except the land owner himself.
Indians have been slowly, but steadily, surrendering the most fundamental of rights — the right to property — from almost the very inception of the Republic. Jawaharlal Nehru began the process with the creation of the Ninth Schedule in 1951, in an attempt to put land acquisition beyond the purview of judicial review. With her populist nationalisation, Indira Gandhi greatly diluted the scope of property rights protections. The first non-Congress government took one more step. In 1978, it amended the Constitution such that property rights no longer remained a fundamental right. Except a few brave voices, hardly anyone mourned the demise of the individual’s right to property.The law is quite distinct from legislation. It is easy to write legislation that violates the spirit of the law as commonly understood. So the State passed legislations undermining basic principles of law in the name of helping the poor. First, land was sought to be confiscated from big landlords and redistributed to the poor. And now, the same land is being forcefully acquired through the use of eminent domain from the poor to be given over to large private investors.
Once a fundamental legal principle, that of property rights, is sacrificed, ‘might’ becomes right, and people are left vulnerable to the coercive power of the State. Since the communists in West Bengal lay their first claim to legitimacy on rural land distribution in the name of the landless, it is not surprising that they are now caught between a rock and a hard place as they try to facilitate land acquisition for the sake of industrialisation.
Yet, in the past two decades, there has been a steady and growing demand for greater recognition of private property rights in one form or another. Twenty years ago, at the height of the agitation against the Narmada dam, the issue was polarised between whether to build the dam, and the quality of the rehabilitation package for the people who lost their property. In the last few years, the tribal rights debate brought to the fore the issue of securing property rights for forest dwellers.
The violence over land acquisition in Orissa’s Kalinganagar two years ago, and the recent tragedy in Nandigram in West Bengal, mark more milestones on the long road to property rights. A couple of months ago, ministers in the West Bengal government asserted that under the land acquisition laws, consent of the landowner was not required. They would then go on to highlight the compensation and rehabilitation packages. The law remains the same, but the protests in Singur and Nandigram have forced the state government to announce that no land will be acquired without consent.
A similar sentiment at the grassroots in urban India, following the demolitions and sealing drives is forcing the political establishment to recognise the potential political cost of the violation of property rights.
A momentum seems to be building from the grassroots. Property rights could be an issue that unites Bharat and India, the poor and the rich alike. The time seems ripe for a people’s campaign for the restoration of the right to property as a fundamental right. This would empower the people and unleash the much-needed second generation reforms by including all sections of society into the growth path. The tragedy at Nandigram will not be wasted if the country joins hands for a campaign to restore property rights.

Barun Mitra is the director of Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in Delhi.