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.
