Reporters Without Orders Ep 294: NGOs losing FCRA licences, Mahua Moitra row

This week, host Tanishka Sodhi is joined by Newslaundry ’s Sumedha Mittal and Pratyush Deep.

Sumedha talks about her report on the Modi government’s crackdown on NGOs by cancelling their FCRA licences. She explains how foreign funds are a lifeline for the sector, and how they’re now struggling.

Pratyush reported on the cash-for-query allegations against TMC MP Mahua Moitra. He breaks down the questions Moitra asked in Parliament and how many of them were about the Adani Group.

Tune in.

. Timecodes

00:00:00 - Introduction

00:01:23 - FCRA

00:12:50 - Mahua Moitra

00:31:57 - Recommendations

Recommendations

Pratyush

The Running Novelist

Sumedha

Listening to Taylor Swift in Prison

Tanishka

Khufiya

Produced by Saif Ali Ekram, recorded by Anil Kumar, and edited by Umrav Singh.

. Reporters Without Orders Ep 294: NGOs losing FCRA licences, Mahua Moitra row

[00:00:00]

Tanishka: This is a News Laundry

Manisha: Podcast, and you're listening to Reporters Without Orders.

Tanishka: Order, order. Hello and welcome to Reporters Without Orders, a podcast where we talk about what made news, what didn't, and some things that absolutely shouldn't have. I'm your host, Tanishka Sodhi, and joining me in the studio are my colleagues, Pratyush Deep and Sumedha Mittal.

Tanishka: Hi guys, how are you doing? I'm good. Yeah. Are you excited to be here? Yeah.

Very much .

Tanishka: Um, and Pratyush actually did a story a few days ago, which, um, is related to the cash for query allegations against TMC MP Mahua Moitra. which the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee is soon going to be hearing. Advocate Jai Anand Dehadray and Hiranandani Group CEO Darshan Hiranandani have alleged that the MP took bribes to ask questions in the parliament, which she has outright denied.

Tanishka: We'll get into the story [00:01:00] soon. So

Su

Tanishka: Medha's story on the other hand, is a deep dive into how FCRA is being used to crack down on NGOs. Uh, it's an elaborate story with data points, anecdotes, and also talks about the impact that this crackdown is having on NGOs. Uh, so Sumedha, starting with your story, can you explain this crackdown and how many NGOs have been affected?

Tanishka: Yeah.

Sumedha: So just for our viewers, FCRA is Foreign Contribution Regulations Act. So whatever the money which comes from foreign countries to India, uh, the government introduced this act to regulate that money. So our NGOs, which is also a civil society, are heavily dependent on these foreign contributions.

Sumedha: This is a detailed piece and this is a paywall story. So you have to be a Newslaundry subscriber to read this story. And so yeah, coming to your question that about the crackdown. So I was just analyzing data of number of NGOs who have, whose license has been canceled from 2012 to 2023. [00:02:00] And I saw that right after Narendra Modi came into power in 2014.

Sumedha: In 2015, around 10, 000 NGOs license was canceled. And from 2014 to 2023, there are over 20, 000 NGOs have lost their FCRA registration. And it's a big number because if they don't have FCRA registration , they cannot take money from the foreign contributors. They cannot accept donations.

Sumedha: And as a result, there was a lot of like, we, we have taken case study of some four NGOs in our story, which is Oxfam India, Care India, and Center for Equity Studies. And the fourth one is, um, SLIC, Social Legal Information Center. So we have found that over 2, 400 people lost their job. And it's not just The story of job loss.

Sumedha: Uh, it's also the story of that how many projects they had to let go off because they don't have donation. They don't have funding to support their work. Basically, they're saying that it's an attack on the civil society, because for example, take the case of Oxfam [00:03:00] India, they had FCRA registration from 35 years and it was never a problem.

Sumedha: So the officers there, I spoke to, they were asking me why it has become a problem now. And we all know the kind of reports which Oxfam India would publish, which the government of India might not be very happy about it. Like it's punches the government's narrative that everything is well in India. So yeah, that's

Tanishka: the whole.

Tanishka: Okay. So just a layman's question. Uh, why do NGOs rely so heavily on FCRA that the cancellation can affect them so much?

Sumedha: So, because in Indiathe philanthropy culture is not that strong. Like if we look at it historically also and Indian donors, they don't give a lot of money for research and advocacy kind of work because that work would always, you know, kind of produce kind of reports or data or, or, you know, like litigation work, which will question any government in power.

Sumedha: For example, we have taken the case of Social Legal Information Center. So, When I was talking to one of the founders of Slick, Colin Gonsalves, he was [00:04:00] saying, I asked him, you know, like why 90 over 95 percent of Slick's funding came from foreign donations. So he was, he told me it's because who would give money in India to, to do litigation work.

Tanishka: And on what basis have, has the FCRA been

Sumedha: canceled? For some, for some NGOs, the basis are like, they were not complying with FCRA norms. And like, uh, so one of, one of the top officers said that it's like nitpicking, like just because we haven't crossed the T's and dotted the I's, our FCRA license was suspended.

Sumedha: And for others that we have also found that there were links to some projects like, um, Adani maybe, and because they were involved in protesting a protest against Adani. But

Tanishka: what, what reason do they give or do they not have to give a reason when

Sumedha: they cancel? This reason was not explicitly mentioned in the FCRA revocation order, but this reason that they were involved in protest against Adani was mentioned in two of the NGOs who lost their Income tax exemption status, which was LIFE and Environ Extra.

Sumedha: It was like, [00:05:00] not LIFE sorry. In Oxfam India and Environ Extra. Okay. So it was like very clearly mentioned in their income tax order that, you know, like, because these NGOs were involved in protest against Adani, they have lost their income tax exemption status, but that's income tax exemption status. We're talking about FCRA.

Sumedha: So that's why like these were like maybe some small, small things and they were not so as per the act, the act says that, uh, if the government wants to, uh, suspend or cancel your FCRA, they have to give one chance to hear your case. For example, but in the case of CHRI, they said that You know, we were not informed, like we just received that our FCR has been suspended out of the blue.

Sumedha: So they didn't. Yeah. They didn't get a chance. So then, so then they challenged the government's order in the court. So they took the matter to the court. So all these NGOs whose example we have taken. Like one common thing is that they have all challenged whether it's suspension or non renewal orders in the Delhi High Court and the cases have been pending from one and a half years or two years.

Tanishka: And out of these, [00:06:00] 20, 000, case studies, I mean, how many cases have made it to the court? How many are, , appealing against

Sumedha: it? That data, unfortunately, we don't have. Like I try to talk to a lot of lawyers and, you know, like a lot of people in the NGO sector or NGOs Association vani, but they said that they haven't maintained that kind of a data because if we would have been able to get that kind of a data, it would have been fantastic to know, like, you know, what, what is the battle inside courts?

Tanishka: maybe a follow up story, but I'm sure it would take months to get that data

Sumedha: together. But in a lot of cases, these cases are not even public. Okay. And these NGOs are not talking very publicly about, yes, we have challenged the government's order in the court because they're still hanging by thread and their entire survival is hanging by thread and they are saying that, you know, like we have already, we don't know why we are facing the brunt of everything.

Sumedha: And, and we don't want to lose any chance for our, even the slightest opportunity to survive in the market. As you have

Pratyush: said, like, because in India, we don't have a [00:07:00] philanthropy or donation culture, and that's because these NGOs have to rely on the FCRA, but, uh, don't you think that also impacts the work they do or that make like, you know, that like the government plays around the narrative, you know, like if I am like, even if I'm doing something good.

Pratyush: They can play it around my work because I'm getting fund from the foreign country or from some foreign organization. So, what do they say about this, this whole thing? You know, the, the FCRA thing gives the government the narrative angle, no? There is a narrative. They are writing against us because they are getting funds from it.

Pratyush: That's what happened with Newsclick. Yeah, right, right.

There is no alternate model for it.

Pratyush: Right. Yeah.

Sumedha: So that was the thing. So there was this Justice Khanwilkar judgment in very recent judgment in 2020 because governments further tightened the screw of the NGO sector by making. Introducing some [00:08:00] amendments to the FCRA act. So and the entire NGO sector was like very vocal about these amendments.

Sumedha: They said, no,

There is BJP today,

Pratyush: there will be Congress.

Congress will do the same thing.

Pratyush: Exactly.

Government has the power.

Pratyush: Exactly.

Sumedha: True. You're correct. You're absolutely correct. So Justice Khanwilkar said that, uh, you know, like these NGOs exactly that, you know, they are. They are running this foreign narrative in the country, so therefore they should be dependent on Indian donors.

Sumedha: And that's when Indian donors have come into picture. Like we have found this in our story that when their FCRA is suspended or cancelled, the Indian donors have also backed out, fearing the reprisals from the government. Yeah. So they are saying that one of the Indian donors, like, I think we shouldn't, name that Indian donor in the podcast, but we have mentioned this name in the story because we have reached out to them and we're still waiting for the response.

Sumedha: And so the NGOs, these two NGOs who are receiving like good, good amount of grant from this particular donor, which I'm talking about they said that the [00:09:00] government had inquired them for giving funding to us and therefore they introduced this as a policy to not give funding to us after our FCRA was suspended.

Sumedha: So when they don't have support of Indian donors, neither they don't have or foreign donors, then how are they, they're going to survive. And in SLICK's case, which is, which was wanted by Colin, we saw like 15 offices across India have been shut down. And that was the biggest NGO of pro bono work.

Pratyush: So what's the alternative model

Sumedha: for funding .That's what we are all struggling with. They are all the officers, were all telling me that the alternative model could have been Indian donors, but again, they are not that bold or courageous to support us. What do you think? What could, what Do you have

Tanishka: a alternative model in mind?

Tanishka: Because you, your brain seems to be

doing some calculations.

Pratyush: Then that question came to mind because it is easy to make a narrative around your foreign contribution. Just saying anti India. If you write something, you say, Oh, U. S. is funding anti India, Pakistan is funding

Sumedha: True. And right after Narendra Modi came to power in [00:10:00] May 2014, in June 2014, while I was doing my research, I found out IB came out with a report about Greenpeace.

Sumedha: In the same thing that, you know, they are spinning some foreign narrative in India, which is anti development, just in like

Tanishka: one month. But tell me, how many of these NGOs are very critical of the government? Because I see some of them do, do publish reports that can be seen as critical, but they are still

Sumedha: not really.

Sumedha: NGOs who are not that critical. For example, there's this. Uh, so, of course, like we could not, like, we didn't have that kind of a bandwidth and resources to go through all like 20, 000 NGOs and what kind of work they do. So the NGOs whose FCRA has been suspended or canceled, they can be categorized into four categories.

Sumedha: One is that which we're getting huge amount of foreign donations. But they were not that critical of the government. For example, in that category, Care India might fit because Care India works very closely with state governments like Bihar and UP. So they are not very critical of the government. Like if you go through their website, you won't see any reports.

Sumedha: They [00:11:00] don't come out with these kind of reports like Oxfam. So they are saying that why they are being targeted because the government of the day has that kind of a narrative that we are not dependent on foreign donations. You know, like anti foreign kind of. So it's basically

Pratyush: mindset of the government that

Sumedha: that's the, that's what they are saying.

Sumedha: Like one of officer said like

humne to covid ke time pe gorakhpur me bhi hospital banaya tha to humko kyu target kara? .

Pratyush: So what government wants the no organization should rely on foreign funding. Then the upstairs should be revoked. Revoked. Well, the acts

Sumedha: would be, and the interesting thing is that. FCRA was introduced during emergency time. Okay. Yeah. Like the law was introduced in 1976.

Sumedha: During when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. So it's not like the first time when this whole the act was introduced in 1976. So, so the second kind of categories of the NGOs, which are critical of the government, which are like, Oxfam India, they'll come out with reports, which punctures the narrative that there's no [00:12:00] poverty in India.

Sumedha: Then the third kind of NGOs who work on environment sector, because they are being seen as anti development or they question the top businessmen, like LIFE, Environics Trust. And then maybe then there's fourth, which they are saying is that the faith based organizations. But the fourth category, I don't know, like big names have been targeted in the past, like one of the NGOs by Mother Teresa, Missionaries of Charity.

Sumedha: It also got their FCRA suspended, but then within a week, their FCRA, they gained their FCRA back. So that's a mystery. Yeah. What happened? What happened within that one week? Because there was a lot of international backlash about it.

Tanishka: I want to speak to you in detail about the impact, but we'll just also discuss Pratyush's story.

Tanishka: So before we get into the whole cash for query allegations and what your story is about, can you give us a little bit background of what this controversy is? So

Pratyush: basically, one of, Her acquaintance, we can say, Jai Dehadrai is an advocate. So he filed a, [00:13:00] complaint to the CBI as well as BJP

MP Nishikant Dubey ,

Pratyush: alleging that Mahua was asking certain questions in the parliament.

Pratyush: On behalf of

Hiranandani

Pratyush: Group, basically naming

Darshan Hiranandani

Pratyush: the CEO of the .

Hiranandani

Pratyush: Group, So allegation is that

Hiranandani

Pratyush: has some business interest, uh, which are in conflict to. With Adani, basically Adani and Hirandani is a business competitors and Mahua was helping Hirandani by asking questions against Adani or targeting Adani in her questions in the parliament.

Pratyush: Okay. So, and in exchange, it was alleged she, she used to get expensive gift. So that is the basic part of it. Then, you know, the parliament's ethic committee is now going to, I think, going to hear it on October 26th, Thursday. So yeah. So, but I think CBI hasn't registered yet the complaint. I'm not sure about it, but the complaint is there in the CBI.

Pratyush: So according to the allegations out of the 62 questions asked by [00:14:00] the Mahua, around 51 has to do with,

Hiranandani

Pratyush: Group. So I had also got access to the complaint filed by,

Dehadrai

Pratyush: to the CBI where he listed out all the 61. He listed out 61 questions and, uh, it's kind of a list where he puts out the question and then he gives a remark.

Pratyush: This question has to do with

Hiranandani

Pratyush: business, that kind of the

list he has given to the

Pratyush: CBI, but your

Tanishka: story says that nine out of the total

Pratyush: 62 questions .

We did

Pratyush: Go through his allegations basis, but we all, we also researched and we tried to look into

it,

Pratyush: through her questions. So, we found that there are at least nine questions. where it has to do with Adani's. And in, I think two to three of them, Adani's name was clearly mentioned. And some of them, it was about, Dhamra Port, which is in Orissa and it is Adani's business interest or everybody knows. So Dhamra Port is actually her first question in parliament. She got elected in 2019.

Pratyush: Her [00:15:00] first question in July, 2019, if I'm not wrong, was about, Adani's Dhamra Port . About this, IOCL and Gale's, business interest in the Dhamra. But tell me

Tanishka: one thing, if you found that there were nine questions relating to the Adani group that she had asked, How has he listed around 50 questions?

Tanishka: Like, are they the same questions in the house that he has interpreted differently? Or are they questions that are just not there on the

Pratyush: house? No, no, no, no, no. He has listed, like you can easily access, listed correct questions. Like questions asked by Mahua. He has listed only them. I think there is only one question missed in his complaint, which is also against Adani's, but I don't know why he missed that out.

Pratyush: Maybe he didn't saw it or we don't know, but the point is he mentioned the right questions, but he is trying to link everything to like, you know, business interest of here and Hirandani, for example, there was a question on related natural gas, which is not very specific. And it has nothing to, I don't see it [00:16:00] has some business interest, but we cannot say it right now.

Pratyush: But he says, because here natural gas is also like, you know, main business of Hirandani group. So, this is to help Hirandani. Okay. So, every question she's asking, he's like, join dots.

Tanishka: Yeah.

Pratyush: Very loose, very loose joining of dots. But there are some certain questions to, to be correct. There is one question by Mahua where she mentioned H energy, which is a subsidiary of Hirandani group.

Pratyush: So, H energy is I think, business dealing about, let me read you the question. You will get it. It was asked on August 4, 2021. So, see, it's about H Energy, which is owned by the Hirendani Group. So, the question was to the external affairs. She asks whether the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board had authorized IOCL, Gale, and H Energy to build a natural gas pipeline through Bengal to Bangladesh border.

Pratyush: So she asked about the status of a project run by H Energy, [00:17:00] which is Hirandani. So here we can say, of course, why does she need to know about the H Energy's, project about the government approving the project run by the H Energy. There we can raise some kind of a question.

Tanishka: But I mean, if we go about raising questions about questions that MPs are asking, then it is a little

Pratyush: subjective, right? Very subjective. Even in this case, you see, might say it is a public interest thing. Yeah. It's a business between two countries, India and Bangladesh. So Bengal's interest is also there, economic interest is there. So we cannot say directly. the complaint that we saw on the CBI.

Pratyush: So it tries to link everything to Hirandani.

Tanishka: And, uh, tell me a little about the 2005 cash for query scam while reading your story. I came across references to that and I believe a sting operation. I think it was Cobra post that showed 11 MPs accepting cash in exchange for raising questions in the parliament.

Tanishka: Can you [00:18:00] tell us a little about that and how it

Pratyush: is that it was a, like, you know, that was a very interesting operation. Like I read it in Anirudh's book. Huh. Okay. So because we were very small. Yeah. Which you recommended

Sumedha: last,

Pratyush: on the last one, last time it was there. It's a very good chapter on the, cash for query thing of 2005, 06. Right. So what they did is they sent a, a reporter, data's team operation, though. It's a sting operation basically saying, yeah, this is our company. Huh? And we have some, we have some business interests. And we want you to ask these questions. Hmm. And interestingly.

Pratyush: If you read the book, there are very good references there. They asked some, they put certain questions which have no meaning at all. They made it. They made a name of fake company and it passed through all the process in the parliament. The MP asked the question, then the secretary put it before the ministry .

Pratyush: When they were

Tanishka: made up

Pratyush: companies, companies, names were made up. Very funny names. So they're very funny questions. Like if somebody with a logical mind [00:19:00] would have read it very seriously, they would have got an idea. What is this about? It is nothing. There is no facts basically. And even Aniruddha in his book says they did it just to show how lose this

Tanishka: whole process.

Tanishka: 11 MPs were shown. So was there a case after that? What happened with it? There was

Pratyush: a case going on, but I'm not sure about that. But I think, yeah, there was a case. There was an inquiry committee by one of the retired, Supreme Court judge,

if

Pratyush: I'm not wrong, and it, uh, it indeed called the reporter journalist, to, you know, about that was,

Tanishka: that was visual

Pratyush: result in any,

Tanishka: like, you know, but there was visual evidence, like, I think the main difference between that and this is firstly visual evidence.

Tanishka: And secondly, In your report, you've mentioned that there's no money

Pratyush: trail . And there's like all these are very subjective. No, just because she asked a question about a company, you cannot say she took money to ask the question and you have to prove these two parts. You know, you have to link it [00:20:00] up. She asked this question on this date.

Pratyush: She received this thing on priority.

Tanishka: What was Hiranandani? Like, yeah. I believe Jaya was a close personal friend of hers, but was Hiranandani also a close

Pratyush: friend? She has been telling on the social media that Darshan Hiranandani is a good friend. That's what I say, but we don't know if they have any business interest.

Tanishka: And how has she responded to the allegations?

Pratyush: She has been responding. She has been saying, denying everything. She has been saying she has been targeted just because she has been raising question against the Adani. Right. Right. Right. So

Tanishka: she has, I mean, she has, she has any interest, which I'm sure the investigation,

Pratyush: interestingly, all those who raise questions against Adani have to face some kind of this kind of, you

Sumedha: know, it's a question.

Sumedha: Yeah. Actually, I was about to say that, you know, like it's so surprising. It's not surprising anymore to see how all of our stories are revolving in a way, one way [00:21:00] or another around Mr. Adani.

Pratyush: I noticed one thing very, like when I did a story on Adani, like first day it was very normal response on the Twitter, but on the second day I started like, I saw three, four accounts, like these are kind of, you know, bot accounts, I believe.

Pratyush: They have, they started to know, so what is wrong with this Adani is that like this track to support my story, then they, then you check their profile, they will have only posts related to Adani only. So this might be a new social media troll team managed by the Adani group. Yeah,

Tanishka: but I mean, of course, investigation should be done since something like this has happened before.

Tanishka: But I also feel like I very often see Mahua being targeted online for things like having an expensive bag, you know, having a drink, smoking with someone. I mean, It's, she is an easy target also because she is very vocal and, uh, I believe she's had a misogyny. She, I think she was working at a high profile job before, so she clearly has the, [00:22:00] you know.

Tanishka: And she is a

Sumedha: woman with

her own, we are not advocating for

Sumedha: Mahua, but of course, but it's just, let's just address the elephant in the room that misogyny does

Pratyush: exist. Whatever we see, her party is not even standing with her. If you say the recent statement by the TMC. They are saying he will only come in after the parliament, ethics committee's verdict.

Tanishka: That's a good thing that they are investigating into it and they're not pushing it under the carpet.

Tanishka: I guess. Right. It's also about who is part of the committee.

Pratyush: Um, committee is like, you know, it's, it is basically majority of BJP MP. So the Of course. Yeah.

Tanishka: And, uh, where do you see this going? Because last week, at least on social media, this story was all everyone was talking

Pratyush: about. We'll keep it in the public

Tanishka: memory.

Tanishka: And wait, please tell me about Henry, the dog. How is he involved? And Pratyush and I have had many

Marker

Tanishka: arguments because I'm a big dog lover. He is kind of the opposite. So yes, I have to bring up Henry, the elephant in the room or the dog in

Pratyush: the room. [00:23:00] I think last, uh, last news about Henry was Mahua's lawyer approaching the Delhi code, just asking for, I think, Henry's custody in essence for dropping the CBI case. Oh, so Henry is so important. Henry can change

Tanishka: the, it's all about

Henry , .

Tanishka: So coming back. To Sumedha'

s

Tanishka: story, a major part of your story is also about the impact that this crackdown has had on the NGOs, which I have not really read another story that goes into this as much as yours.

Tanishka: So do tell us with your case studies, what has the impact been, you know, in terms of job losses, shutting down offices andthe whole

Sumedha: overall picture. The impact is massive. We were just calculating data for Oxfam India, Care India, SLIC and Center for Equity Studies. And over 2, 400 people lost their jobs.

Sumedha: And this number is very close to the number of people who lost their jobs in Byju's. And we have to understand this in the context that NGO sector is responsible for 2 to 3 percent of the GDP. Okay. Even if it's not a major contributor, it's a contributor. Yeah. And [00:24:00] how in other way we can see the loss is that because we are based out of Delhi, so, and because of the limited resources and all, we were able to focus only on these big international NGOs or the big or the very popular domestic NGOs.

Sumedha: But if we understand the whole Funding structure of the NGOs in India. We have to understand that it's the Oxfam India or it's the Care India, which has that kind of technical capabilities to get funding to be able to apply for proposals from BMGF, like big donors like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Open Society Foundation, like whatever it is.

Sumedha: So like it's, it's these NGOs. So when they get a big chunk of funding, it's them which, uh, allocates the small, small amount for various projects to small NGOs, which are distributed across the country. So if, if their FCRA funding has been choked, it's directly gonna impact the small NGOs in the country across the country, despite the fact whether they have FCRA or not.

Sumedha: So this is another big

Tanishka: impact on [00:25:00] the entire aspect, if not directly, indirectly, it is affecting the entire sector for,

Sumedha: I mean, and so many people who might be working as volunteers in that sector, for example, in the case of Care India, which, which had to let go of 2000 employees, which is a big number.

Sumedha: Only 900 of its staff was permanent. The other, the rest was volunteer or working as consultant. So they were saying Oxfam India , just not Care, but Oxfam India were also telling me the same thing that earlier they used to, you know, give permanent job to the person after two to three months of consultancy period.

Sumedha: But now they're not able to do so. And six offices of them have been shut down.

Tanishka: And it's also like, this is the sector that works towards the, uh, betterment of, you know, usually a vulnerable section of the society or betterment of any sort of section or community, you know, which needs it. So that empowerment is so important, especially when we are still a developing nation.

Tanishka: So this is going to, I'm sure affect other sectors as well.

Sumedha: And like, um, I don't [00:26:00] know, like, but a lot of people have been telling me that, India might not have been able to eradicate polio or fight against HIV if we didn't have such a strong NGO network who was working at the grassroot level in the health sector along with workers like

Asha workers or

Sumedha: Anganwadi workers because they are very, it's a very close knit community.

Sumedha: Yeah, they have to work in synergy together. So either the government, you know, is able to implement all its policy on its own and then can, they can let go of the NGO sector if they're so afraid of the criticism. But if they're not, what if they're not able to fully functional in that way and to be able to execute.

Sumedha: Yeah. It's all its policy in the right manner. Till that time we need this, we need the sector and it's good only if we accept that we need them. Yeah.

Tanishka: And when you look into the FCRA funding, before it was canceled, are you able to also find from where it was coming? Who it was coming from? Is that data that is, yeah,

Sumedha: they have made the access that these NGOs have to make their data publicly available online in their annual reports. So for example, in the case of CHRI, [00:27:00] their major donor was, Open Society Foundation, which is owned by George Soros, . So, you know, a lot of media reports came out with investigative pieces that after CHRI's license was suspended, they came out with investigative pieces saying that, Oh, this was the NGO we have founded was funded by George Soros.

Tanishka: What about the other NGOs? What were the countries? Is there any, like, data that indicates what countries ?

Sumedha: Again, we were not able to compile that data, but that would not have been difficult to pull out had the Ministry of Home Affairs was still regularly putting out its annual report. So after 2013, no annual reports about the NGOs complying with the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act has come out. So till 2013, we have those annual reports which mentioned like who are the biggest donors, top 15 donors, top 15 countries. But why we don't have that data. So they've just

Tanishka: stopped putting it out.

Tanishka: They have just stopped putting .

Before

Tanishka: 2013, every year

it used to come out.

Tanishka: It

Sumedha: was, it was an annual thing. Another interesting thing which Ministry of Home Affairs has done is that [00:28:00] Indian Express reported on that. Hmm. That. They pulled out all the data of annual reports and receipts by these NGOs, because as per the Act, these data has to be made publicly available.

Sumedha: But last year only, or I think this year, they pulled out that data saying that it's unnecessary for people to watch it. So that's why we have not been able to, you know, like, I would have loved to know, like, who are the biggest donors, you know, which countries and we need that kind of data, but unfortunately we don't have.

Sumedha: So a lot of RTIs have been filed in Ministry of Home Affairs asking for all the cancellation orders of those 20, 000 NGOs, but they have been, the RTI activists have been denied those RTIs. And

Tanishka: Sumedha, you spent a lot of weeks on this story. You know, I remember we discussed this, like what were the major obstacles you faced while reporting on this?

Tanishka: Because, there can be, I can think of so many options. So I would, we would just like

Sumedha: to hear from you.

The

Sumedha: most difficult part was that they were all talking to me anonymously. And when people talk anonymously, it's very hard to, you know, cross check things as reporters. [00:29:00] So like, yeah, I mean, Oxfam India, people would have, you know, like talking to me, not anonymously, but I understand where they are also coming from because they are very scared.

Sumedha: Like you said, they

Tanishka: have their cases pending. Yeah, they have their cases.

Sumedha: And it's not just, you know, like FCRA. There are a lot of things, for example, in the case of Center for Equity Studies, why they are afraid? In 2020, it all started from, I think, NCPCR, National Commission for Child Right Protection.

Sumedha: They raided all the child protection centers set up in Delhi by Center for Equity Studies. So Center for Equity Studies is owned, the founder is Harsh Mander. So, and we know Harsh Mander has always been very critical of the government. So it started with NCPCR raiding all the shelter homes in 2020 or I think 2019.

Sumedha: This is much before FCRA was suspended or their FCRA was suspended. So after NCPCR, on the basis of NCPCR's findings, Delhi Police Economic Wing [00:30:00] registered a case. Then on the basis of that case, ED registered a case. Then their FCRA was revoked and FCRA was revoked saying that, you know, they were not complying with FCRA norms.

Sumedha: And then on the basis

of

Sumedha: that ,CBI

case

Sumedha: was also registered. So like they're

bhai ab to.. .

Sumedha: I was

Pratyush: talking, it started at

Sumedha: NCPCR

Pratyush: to

C BI

Tanishka: from

t

Tanishka: here.

Sumedha: And it's like all possible government agency you can think of. And then there was this very interesting anecdote I will share with you.

Sumedha: I was talking to someone in Care India. So I was asking them , you know. Please come on record, you know, just, you know, why don't you tell me these things openly? And I was asking for a lot of other information also. He's like, we don't want ED knocking at our doors. Bhai, bas ab

wahi

Sumedha: bacha hai.

Sumedha: Yeah. So this is like one common consensus among the, in the NGO sector. But there's another common consensus is like, bhai ab sab

kuch to ho gaya hai

Sumedha: so we don't have any other option. We have to be vocal about it. Yeah. So I met both the kind of officers.

Tanishka: Interesting. Uh, do read the rest of [00:31:00] Sumedha's story, which is behind the paywall.

Tanishka: If you're not a subscriber, subscribe and catch the rest of the details from newslaundry. com. Now for the last, and also read Pratyusha's story just because it's not behind the paywall, but it is a very interesting read. I think this is a topic that has been on everyone's hot topic,

it

Tanishka: is the hot topic.

Tanishka: You've got the hot story. And now for the last section of our podcast, recommendations. I hope you guys know what you're going to recommend to our viewers, what to watch, read, listen to.

Pratyush: My recommendation for the week is from the New Yorker. It is written by Haruki Murakami, , the Running novelist.

Pratyush: Okay. It's about how he, how running, like, you know, to summarize it in one sentence, it would be like, isn't

Tanishka: this the article based on which the book was, written?

I am not sure .

Tanishka: He has a book about running, which is like

an autobiography .

Tanishka: Basically,

Pratyush: it's like how running,

has

Pratyush: helped him to grow as a novelist, how it is a very important part of him [00:32:00] over the last 33 years.

Pratyush: So it is interesting. It's a very interesting read and you'll get to know about how from his like, you know, the jazz club he used to like, you know, how he started a career as

a

Pratyush: novelist and I really liked the essay.

Tanishka: Is this not what I talk about when I talk about running, the book? Is it different? I'm not sure. He talks a lot about running

Pratyush: then. Yeah. Then he talks. Yeah. He like, it's this whole essay is about running only. Wow. It's interesting.

Pratyush: I also do like, you know, why I like this, like, you know, his article because I have also started running

in last 4 months .

Pratyush: So basically I was getting a lot of inspiration. He was talking about the same things when you feel like, you know, let's not go to run today. Like we have some work. Then he writes how, how he convinced himself to go for running, how privileged he is as a novelist.

Pratyush: So it is the smallest thing you can do. So this get, this also motivates me to go for running. So that's why this is my recommendation for

Tanishka: the week. I really approve of this [00:33:00] recommendation. Murakami can write about the blandest things and it will still make for such an engaging read. So I will take your recommendation.

Tanishka: I hope others do as well.

Sumedha.

Tanishka: I also have a

Sumedha: recommendation from New Yorker. Okay.

Tanishka: We

Pratyush: are

Tanishka: not being sponsored by New Yorker, but if they do want to collaborate with us,

Pratyush: you can tell your email address.

Pratyush: For collaboration.

Sumedha: Oh God. So the piece is titled, listening to Taylor Swift in Prison. Yeah. And I don't think I should be revealing anything about the piece because it's just not a reading. It's an experience. Yeah. And this man shares his experience about listening to Taylor Swift, while he was in prison.

Sumedha: And the subhead of the pieces, her music makes me feel that I'm still part of the world I left

Tanishka: behind. I would like to recommend Khufiya on Netflix. It stars

Tabu .

Tanishka: And my new favorite Vamika, which I think you like as well,

since

Tanishka: we watch

[00:34:00] ed

Tanishka: her on Jublee, it's a spy movie, that is done very well.

Tanishka: My colleagues, I just called it cringe and I got very upset because I thoroughly enjoyed it.

So

Tanishka: yeah, do watch it. I mean

Tabu ,

Tanishka: if nothing else. And with that, this podcast is adjourned. Newslaundry

Manisha: is possible because of our paying subscribers. We don't run on corporate or government ads. YouTube can be part of changing the news

model .

Manisha: Go to newslaundry. com slash subscription. Be a part of the community that pays to keep news independent. For the smoothest news laundry experience, download our app, watch our shows, listen to our podcasts, read our reports, stay informed, pay for news, protect democracy, save the world.

Reporters Without Orders Ep 294: NGOs losing FCRA licences, Mahua Moitra row

TAGS

Comments

You may also like