In his inaugural address to the 16^th Lok Sabha on June 9, 2014, the President Shri Pranab Mukherjee described the thrust of the new government in this principle—“Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas”. The Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, while speaking in the parliament on the motion of thanks to the President’s address on June 11, 2014, appealed to the nation that development should be a people’s movement. During the course of his speech, the President reiterated that the new government led by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. ‘will work to re-establish the credibility of the institutions of democracy. and function on the mantra of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’.

The thrust of the above principles and mantra have several practical implications. First, the inclusive nature of development, so that none is left behind, is to be ensured through inclusive participation of all. The value of inclusive participation as a defining principle of development by the new government is noteworthy indeed. Second, there is great emphasis on good and maximum governance, beyond the mere roles of the government. In this mantra, roles of the private business, policy think tanks, development organisations, local community actors and NGOs become critical to support ‘maximum’ governance. Third, there is a recognition that working together is critical to re-energise and re-activate various institutions of democratic governance. These include panchayats, DPCs, municipalities, line departments, statutory commissions (like Finance, Information, Human Rights, SC/ST, Women, etc) and regulatory commissions (like Telecom).

That the new government is publicly stating the above priorities and principles for its own functioning over the next five years should indeed have stimulated many civil society organisations and actors to identify spaces and means for engaging together. The practical realization of these principles can be actively supported through the networks, social capital and practical expertise of thousands of civil society actors across the country. The inclusive, participatory movement for development with maximum space for good governance is similar to the missions also pursued by many such civil society actors.

However, quite unfortunately and perhaps deliberately, a planned ‘leak’ of  IB report in the same week as President’s address to parliament was being debated, has unnecessarily diverted attention to the ‘sinister’ side of the new government’s intention to reign in independent and critical voices of NGOs. The print and electronic media has covered various sections of this ‘leaked’ report at an unprecedented level over the past 4-5 days. All kinds of imaginary scenarios of ‘suppression of dissent’ and authoritarianism are being painted by all sorts of voices. As a consequence, the attention of much of civil society on the thrust of the new government, as illustrated in the President’s address, has been lost sight of.

All the contents, and nearly all the language of the text, of this IB Report is ‘old hash’, and has been written about over the past several years. All the investigations on sources and use of funds have been carried out during 2009-11 (especially during the regime of Shri P Chidambaram as Home Minister). The only ‘new’ speculation is that all these ‘agitations’ by NGOs have caused 2-3 % decline of GDP (and it is pure speculation which has since been ‘rubbished’ by several senior economists). It will indeed be heartening if combined contributions of all NGOs (not just the agitational kinds) would make such an enormous impact on the GDP of the country! That there are officials and non-officials associated with previous regimes who want to ‘scare’ the media and civil society against the new government and the Prime Minister is not surprising at all to have deliberately ‘leaked’ this ‘report’ at this juncture.

Let us not also kid ourselves in believing that democratic governments do not get ‘irritated and upset’ with strident dissent and critique of its policies and programmes. In the face of such dissent and critique from NGOs (and others), the authorities respond to ‘overcome’ such criticism through a variety of means, ranging from persuasion and dialogue to security and legal restrictions on movements of people, ideas and resources. A current example of this phenomenon is visible in Brasil—both on the soccer fields and on the streets; and the popularly elected ‘people’s’ government in Brasil has used all possible means from the above range. Let us also recall that the first act of the then hugely popular Rajiv Gandhi government in January 1985 was to legislate a highly restrictive FCRA (the act that controls foreign contributions to NGOs). And the then government used its huge majority in parliament to ‘push through’ a highly contentious legislation in Shah Bano case, in the face of strong critique from women’s organisations and activists.

That the IB report focuses only on foreign funding of ‘agitationists’ amongst NGOs is indeed a diversion. The protests, critiques and dissent from practitioners, intellectuals and NGOs are not based on source of funding. Domestically rooted and funded protests against violation of dignity and rights are taking place throughout UP these days due to growing incidences of rape of women and long hours of shortages of power. In today’s context, the foreign investment in many  Indian businesses and media houses is so widespread that it would be hard to figure out if a particular business foundation (or CSR project) is Indian or foreign (under the meaning of FCRA).

It seems to me that civil society actors need to focus their attention on the commitments of principles and democratic practices made by the new government through the President’s address to the new parliament a week ago.  By bringing its expertise and actively engaging in policy development and programme implementation on the ground, NGOs can push the new government to practice its proclaimed principles and mantras. The watch-dog role of civil society is crucial so that ground realities can be brought to the attention of national government as practice of these principles and mantras moves forward.

Dissent, disagreements, dialogues, consultations and contestations are an integral part of forging a consensus to work together to re-build institutions and culture of democracy in India; without active, engaged and vocal civil society, maximum governance will not be realizable in the next five years.

Rajesh Tandon
President, PRIA, New Delhi