Author: P.N. Benjamin
Publication: Vijay Times
Date: February 19, 2007
Money has been flowing into the NGO sector,
but very few of the charitable outfits allow public scrutiny of their accounts.
So, one of the recommendations of the Veerappa Moily-chaired second Administrative
Reforms Commission is to bring the NGO-sector in the purview of the proposed
three-member Rashtriya Lokaukta. It has put the spotlight on the vexatious
issue of the accountability of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
NGOs have long been a part of Indian life
championing a slew of social issues and delivering a wide variety of services.
The Central Social Welfare Board has been providing financial support to voluntary
agencies for four decades. In 1986 a new government agency, the Council for
Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) was established
to promote NGOs even as the State stepped up funding of their activities.
Huge funds began flowing in during the 1990s when NGO involvement was made
mandatory by various international bodies including UN agencies as pre-condition
for governments receiving funds for socio-economic programmes.
Few figures are available for how much money
Indian NGOs raise within the country. But foreign funding for their activities
has risen sharply from Rs 1412 crore to Rs 6,200 crore in 2005 growing at
a compounded annual rate of 14 per cent every year. This mirrors the overall
sharp increase in spending on 'community' services in the country.
There is very little financial regulation
of NGOs as matters stand. The Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA),
under which organisations that receive foreign funds have to report annually
to the Home Ministry the sources and use of the money, is focussed on ensuring
internal security. It is not concerned with wastage or misuse of funds, but
with use of these funds for political, communal or other such activities.
Similarly, annual submissions to the registrar of societies or to charity
commissioners are for all practical purposes mere formalities, with little
scrutiny if public money is being prudently spent by charities. This is in
stark contrast to what exists in the government where the Comptroller and
Auditor General's office investigates whether the physical achievements match
the funds spent. The Kelkar Committee had recommended the creation of a National
Charities Board to assist the government in regulating charities as is the
case with the National Charities Commission in the UK.
Transparency, or rather the lack of it, has
long been a problem with the NGO sector. One telling example of this is how
few NGOs bother to make their annual accounts available for public scrutiny.
Besides being the pub and IT capital, Bangalore
can also be called the NGO capital of India because in the past few years,
there has been a mushrooming in the number of NGOs. Along with this rise comes
the question of credibility of these organisations. According to a report
published a couple of years ago, of the over 700 NGOs then in Bangalore "perhaps"
50 published their annual statement of accounts!
A substantial portion of the funds required
for their functioning come from foreign funding agencies, as revealed by the
Home Ministry recently in its annual reports. 600-odd NGOs in Bangalore City
alone received nearly Rs.700 crores in 2005. Some of the major beneficiaries
of foreign funding in Bangalore are: Church's Concern for Child and Youth
Care (CCCYC), Campus Crusade for Christ, Mysore Resettlement and Dev. Agency
(MYRADA), Indian Society of Church of Christ, Habitat for Humanity in India,
Christian Church in India, Bridge Foundation., Karnataka Jesuit Education
, and Veda Vigyan Vidya Pita. Outreach Samuha, Humanistic Inst., Biblical
Baptist Institutions Incorp., and Bangalore Rural Edn. & Dev. Society.
Graham Hancock's damning 1989 expose, Lords
of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business,
estimated that most of the $60 billion plus that comprised governmental, UN,
and World Bank or IMF-type "aid" was siphoned off. Mostly by elites
in poor nations, special interests (like agribusiness) in donor countries,
but also, startlingly, the aid agencies' own personnel budgets, which waste
as much as 80 percent of the funds for lavish (first-class) air travel, salaries,
and perquisites.
Unfortunately, the same appears to be true
of NGOs. Despite their saintly image in the media, some have connections to
dubious groups in India. Some misuse their funds, for instance to pay for
trips by their "volunteers" to "lecture-tours" or wasted
on extravagant overheads
In the aftermath of the tsunami many NGOs
have become merely fronts for religious conversion. Yes, everyone loves a
good tsunami. There have been sordid tales about how certain "charities"
refused help unless the targets of their munificence converted. More insidious
are groups with deceptively appealing siren songs. Most of these organizations
have become personal fiefdoms for self-glorification, or else unwitting tools
in the hands of anti-nationals.
A word to the wise donor: caveat emptor, buyer
beware! All NGOs are not created equal.
