Skip to content
Advertisements

NGOs Need International Protection From Hindu Nationalism in India

Narendra Modi | Kremlin

Roomana Hukil, McMaster University

The return to power of Narendra Modi’s right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) creates uncertainty about the future of advocacy in India.

Since 1976, civil society organizations have faced multiple operational challenges as successive governments have tried to undermine their work with accusations of “anti-nationalism” and “sedition.”

It’s important to examine the role of Hindu nationalism — also BJP’s founding ideology — since it regards NGOs as undemocratic and anti-Indian. But it’s equally critical to remember there are provisions guaranteed under international law to protect NGO activity in India.

Hindutva politics and NGOs

BJP’s Hindutva ideology is based on the advancement of a Hindu rashtra, or Hindu kingdom. The underlying tenet is to regulate the working of civil society through Hindu religious doctrine that imposes vigilantism, violence and punishment on those who defy order.

Hindu nationalism reinforces the glorification and revivalism of Hinduism, the supremacy of a nation and invokes intolerance towards other non-Hindu groups that seek sociocultural change and justice in society.

The BJP views NGO activists as defiant because they challenge conventional notions of power, social structures and hierarchies that conflict with the idea of Hindu majoritarianism and status quo culture.

For instance, the Modi government targeted faith-based organizations in 2017 for their alleged involvement with religious conversions. Compassion International, a foreign-funded Christian charity group, was shut down and asked to partner with other religious organizations apart from Christians if it wanted to re-register as a legal enterprise again.

Similarly, several local as well as transnational NGOs seeking justice for Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 were threatened with investigation and bank account closures if they continued their work.

While previous governments have been intolerant towards NGOs in the past, the BJP is taking it further, polarizing civil society with far-right politics. Transnational NGOs have been targeted for “serving as tools for foreign policy interests of western governments,” but local NGOs that don’t fall under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) mandate are also experiencing repression and harassment.

In 2018, 13 activists were killed during the Sterlite protests in Toothukudi, Tamil Nadu.

In Pune, several lawyers, academics and poets were arrested for their alleged involvement as “[Urban Naxals]” practising unlawful activities last year. Additionally, recent amendments to the Forest Rights Act proposes restoring authoritative powers to forest authorities. This will deny land ownership rights of forest dwellers and reduce accessibility to tribal land through force and vandalism.

Systematic dismantling of NGOs

The BJP has meticulously orchestrated a systematic dismantling of NGOs (non-governmental, non-profit organizations) that has put the future of Indian advocacy surrounding socioeconomic and environmental issues in jeopardy.

Congressional amendments to the FCRA in 2010 made it clear that there would be stricter oversight and monitoring of foreign-funded NGOs that engage in critical discourse.

These amendments included:

  1. Regular registration renewals;
  2. Setting up of separate bank accounts for foreign and domestic contributions;
  3. Prescribing various offences and penalties for defaulters, including suspension and cancellation of registration licences.

In effect, the FCRA crippled the NGO sector, subdued critical dialogue and restricted transnational partnerships in civil society deemed crucial for effective policy-making.

However, with the BJP in power, the scope of transnational advocacy has been even further reduced.

Since 2014, local activists have been finding it difficult to obtain financial, technological or capacity-building support from abroad or from local officials because external NGOs and local philanthropic organizations are reluctant to aid rights-based advocacy. While the FCRA curtails foreign funding, philanthropists currently shy away from supporting critical activity for the fear of appearing anti-government.

Activists are now concerned about the prospects for activism in India, and are worried about their day-to-day survival in the state as the BJP continues to penalize dissenters.

In this light, what can international and local organizations do to safeguard the interests of NGOs in the future?

International intervention is crucial

In 2016, the United Nations Special Rapporteur pointed out that India was placing unreasonable restrictions on transnational advocacy networks by silencing them on obscure grounds. It asked the Indian government to repeal the FCRA, which didn’t happen.

This is because currently, UN regulations aren’t rigorously enforced to prevent governments from dismantling civil society operations in the Global South. If enforced, they could guarantee and promote NGO rights surrounding freedom of assembly and association. Sanctions should also be imposed to keep non-compliant and exploitative governments in check.

A common platform for discussion can help NGOs review government policies and deal with repressive actions. For instance, certain South African states allow NGOs to gather once a year to discuss issues of common interest. In India, that doesn’t happen.

There’s also a need for change in the culture of Indian philanthropy to ensure NGOs are supported and not questioned about their credibility. Activists must be treated as equal stakeholders in society so that money is distributed for civic education, legal literacy and accountability-related work.

Amid this cultural ecosystem change is the need for NGOs, in turn, to be fully transparent about their funding and operations.

Now that the BJP has won the election with a majority, it gives the Indian government the legitimacy to act freely and bend laws without being questioned because acquiring an electoral mandate by the state means complete adherence to government policies and structures.

But democracy isn’t just about winning elections. It is about equal participation. Socioeconomic and environmental reforms cannot be left exclusively for the government to manage. The international community must help ensure that civil society and the citizenry are being heard to counter India’s conservative policies and right-wing politics.


Roomana Hukil, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Support Us
Red Revolution has a number of costs involved not only with the running of the site but also future plans for expansion of our reach. These include payments for domains, feature packages, advertising, photo and content libraries and more.

If you’ve liked what you’ve read on Red Revolution, please consider a kind donation or taking a look at our carefully chosen related products on many articles.

You can donate via our Support Us page via PayPal or Bitcoin. All donations are kept private and secure.

Your generosity is appreciated.


The New Faces of Fascism: Populism and the Far Right 

By Enzo Traverso

What does Fascism mean at the beginning of the twenty-first century? When we pronounce this word, our memory goes back to the years between the two world wars and envisions a dark landscape of violence, dictatorships, and genocide. These images spontaneously surface in the face of the rise of radical right, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and terrorism, the last of which is often depicted as a form of Islamic fascism. Beyond some superficial analogies, however, all these contemporary tendencies reveal many differences from historical fascism, probably greater than their affinities. Paradoxically, the fear of terrorism nourishes the populist and racist rights, with Marine Le Pen in France or Donald Trump in the US claiming to be the most effective ramparts against ‘Jihadist fascism’. But since fascism was a product of imperialism, can we define as fascist a terrorist movement whose main target is Western domination? Disentangling these contradictory threads, Enzo Traversos historical gaze helps to decipher the enigmas of the present. He suggests the concept of post-fascisma hybrid phenomenon, neither the reproduction of old fascism nor something completely differentto define a set of heterogeneous and transitional movements, suspended between an accomplished past still haunting our memories and an unknown future.


The Conversation

Advertisements

Red Revolution View All

News, articles & stories from the worlds of politics & history, with a dose of retro culture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.