Jose Maria Miranda
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) came into force in 1976, during the Emergency, to control the receipt of foreign funds. It was later totally revamped, with a new Act being approved and enforced in 2011. The existing law did provide for government control, transparency and the regular submission of accounts by organisations receiving foreign funds.
There is now a proposal for amendments, which tighten renewal procedures and activities. They also include controversial provisions for a government-appointed Designated Authority to take over, manage, or dispose of assets of NGOs and trusts if their registration expires, is denied renewal, or is cancelled. It is this proposal that has been the subject of fierce opposition from some political parties, civil society bodies, and minority and religious groups. They argue that the measures are punitive, creating a chilling effect on charitable operations. Church bodies, minority-run schools, hospitals, and welfare centres fear state interference and disruption of critical social services in tribal and rural areas due to the powers granted to the Executive to seize control of such institutions and places of worship. Human rights groups also argue that tighter, discretionary restrictions target civil society organisations engaged in dissent, advocacy, or human rights reporting.
Due to intense pushback and perhaps because of remarks by a US Republican Representative, Riley Moore, who classified the Bill as anti-Christian and said it could lead to strained relations with the US, the Bill has now been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further review. The report needs to be submitted to Parliament by the first week of its Winter Session. The only saving grace in the Bill seems to be that it lowers certain criminal penalties from five years to one year in prison. Meanwhile, two notifications issued in June last, among other things, specifically prohibit the use of foreign funding for proselytisation and conversion activities.
While the Bill has come in for stiff criticism, there are also voices in support, particularly on social media, calling it necessary for the nation’s security. However, there are enough laws in the country which rightly do not allow any activity contrary to national security and also stipulate strict punitive measures for such incidents. But BJP never fails to find excuses to impose autocratic measures to advance its anti-minority agenda and to project itself as the sole defender of the country’s national security. It attempts to show off its patriotism by proclaiming every step as being in the nation’s security and labelling its opponents as anti-nationals to lower them in public esteem. These are invariably attempts at diverting people’s attention from many serious issues afflicting the country, which citizens keep raising time and again.
Our own CM has been among those who subscribe to this ‘patriotic’ way of thinking and support FCRA amendments. He is keen on showing his unfailing servility to the Centre in every step it takes. His communal bent of mind has often been seen in his assertions that there are conversions in Goa, especially of the financially weak and uneducated, who are being preyed upon with false hopes and promises. In the Legislative Assembly, he advocated an Anti-Conversion Law. Even before becoming CM, he had warned those who dared to say Viva Portugal or Pakistan Zindabad of serious consequences, though such slogans had never been raised. It was obvious which religious communities he wished to target.
The Governments, both at the Centre and in the States, including ours, are known for being intolerant, committing excesses, and misusing or misinterpreting the law. We have examples of these in our own State, where the Ministry of Home Affairs recently cancelled the registration of the Diocesan Society of Education and the Centre for Social Communications due to the non-receipt of foreign funding from 2021 to 2024. The High Court stayed the order, as DSE has claimed that it is fully active, using local funds and voluntary contributions. The DSE runs several schools, higher secondary schools and colleges in Goa. The Hon Court has argued that the certificate does not stipulate foreign funding as an essential requisite if the institution is carrying out its activities using local funding.
Indian courts have also repeatedly ruled under Article 30(1) of the Constitution that minority educational institutions have full autonomy to select and appoint their own teaching and non-teaching staff without government interference, even when Governments grant aid to such schools.
The High Court had directed in October last that the salaries of staff in minority-run schools in Goa could not be withheld due to internal management issues and ordered them to be paid. However, these orders were defied, and over 400 primary and pre-primary teachers and staff across institutions run by the Diocesan Society of Education are facing delayed approvals, unpaid salaries, and pending dues due to administrative disputes with the Directorate of Education. Now, the Director and two Deputies of Education are facing contempt of court proceedings filed by DSE.
These two cases alone speak of Governments’ unwarranted interference and high-handedness, especially when it comes to minority institutions. These are, in fact, doing yeoman service across all communities, especially to weaker sections, with Goa having a majority of non-Christians in all Diocesan schools. Christian educational institutions are among the best in the country, and many politicians, including some in the BJP, have studied in these schools and colleges, and no one has ever complained about conversions. Christian hospitals, homes and orphanages render excellent service to the less privileged. The bogey of unproven conversions is aimed at running down these institutions. It is not jealousy alone but possible attempts at snatching away educational institutions and handing them over to saffron outfits to inculcate communal and divisive ideas in young minds.
(The author is a former banker, presently involved in activism and writing on issues concerning Goa )
