prasad1
Active member
In a significant order on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court unblocked Rs 1.87 crore received by NGO Greenpeace from its Amsterdam headquarters. The NGO had filed a case after the ministry of home affairs in June last year directed the Reserve Bank of India to take prior permission of the ministry before clearing any foreign aid to the NGO from Greenpeace International and Climate Works.
Saying that there is no material evidence against the organisation and that the government's move is "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional", the high court said that all NGOs were entitled to have their viewpoints and because their views are not in consonance with that of the government's, it does not mean they were acting against national interest. This statement will hopefully stop the government to move cautiously against such organisations in future, especially if they don't have ample proof.
"Whatever we do at the ground level has a political connotation. Even awareness programmes about rights of a citizen, for example, the Right to Education Act or the NREGA, can be construed as 'political' in nature. Like the 'public purpose' in the land acquisition act, this is a grey area," a senior NGO activist told me on condition of anonymity. Others said that this provision is being used at local level by even petty officials to stop NGOs from questioning their decisions, many of which could be faulty.Instead of painting the entire sector black, the government must focus its energies on weeding out NGOs that squander money. A 2013 report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights alleged that over Rs 1,000 crore of state funding to the sector was decided by bribes and political influence.
It is generally believed that the Act covers only non-profit organisations, and not others. This is not true. While it covers NGOs, it also covers persons in sensitive government positions and political parties.
So, why is the government focusing its energies on easy targets, like NGOs? The answer is easy, so no prizes for guessing this one.
Target NGOs: Why Greenpeace got the rough treatment
Saying that there is no material evidence against the organisation and that the government's move is "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional", the high court said that all NGOs were entitled to have their viewpoints and because their views are not in consonance with that of the government's, it does not mean they were acting against national interest. This statement will hopefully stop the government to move cautiously against such organisations in future, especially if they don't have ample proof.
"Whatever we do at the ground level has a political connotation. Even awareness programmes about rights of a citizen, for example, the Right to Education Act or the NREGA, can be construed as 'political' in nature. Like the 'public purpose' in the land acquisition act, this is a grey area," a senior NGO activist told me on condition of anonymity. Others said that this provision is being used at local level by even petty officials to stop NGOs from questioning their decisions, many of which could be faulty.Instead of painting the entire sector black, the government must focus its energies on weeding out NGOs that squander money. A 2013 report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights alleged that over Rs 1,000 crore of state funding to the sector was decided by bribes and political influence.
It is generally believed that the Act covers only non-profit organisations, and not others. This is not true. While it covers NGOs, it also covers persons in sensitive government positions and political parties.
So, why is the government focusing its energies on easy targets, like NGOs? The answer is easy, so no prizes for guessing this one.
Target NGOs: Why Greenpeace got the rough treatment
