FCRA Should Be an Instrument of Financial Accountability Not of Security

Amending the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) with some relevant clauses for the social sector could maintain financial accountability without bringing in security considerations for organisations. However, this did not find favour with the government.  

The cancellation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) license of Centre for Policy Research (CPR), one of the country’s famed think tanks, on the charges of multiple violations raises several critical questions regarding both the sides.

For CPR, which is  celebrating its 50th anniversary, charges such as ‘hurting India’s economic interests’ by alleged ‘mis-utilisation of funds received from foreign sources for organising protests and funding non-FCRA entities to fight legal battles against development projects, including coal mines’ are serious.

In fact, the state surveillance of its activities has been on since 2014. On September 7, 2022 it was subjected to an Income Tax survey and its IT exemption was cancelled on 30 June 2023. It eventually got redressal, both, from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. It is now left with just the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) grant since it is one of the 24 ICSSR funded institutes.

The entities

Entities such as CPR are created by societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, passed by the British parliament. The Act exists in the Indian sub-continent as well as in some other former British colonies. It permits a group of desirous persons – presently seven in India – to register a society for literary, scientific and charitable purposes, framing a memorandum of associations (signing it too) and rules for its functioning. The Act has been partially modified in some states.

A very broad spectrum of societies is registered under this Act, that creates anomalies at times. No wonder, in cases of political dissidence, the government charges them for violating the terms of registration and memorandum of association. Late Dr Rajanikant and Dr Mabelle Arole, who founded the famous Jamkhed Rural Health Project in Maharashtra, told me during field work for my first research at CPR in 1981 that people came to them asking about strategies on how to pressurise the government and administration into bring civic amenities to their villages. Several entities face such predicament when their defined role performance creates situations for them to stick their neck out to advise people and groups at the grassroots level on how to overcome systemic resistance to change.

Also read: Centre for Policy Research Calls MHA’s Decision to Cancel FCRA Registration ‘Incomprehensible’

The UN had recognised the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in rural development soon after its creation in 1945. NGOs became a major initiative for a large number of persons and groups driven by the zeal of social service. Social activist Anna Hazare’s initiatives in Maharashta’s Rale Gan Siddhi has acted as a model for many Indian activists since 1975, leading to proliferation of such entities for varied objectives.

By the 1990s there were efforts to redefine NGOs as voluntary or civil society organisations. A CPR study of 1993, of which I am a co-author, termed it as Volag (Voluntary Agency). All these organisations together have created a wide gamut of activities over decades. They have had very few funding sources within India – the Tata Trust was an exception. Corporate philanthropy has been limited in India. Foreign foundation such as the Ford Foundation emerged as major sources for most of them. Thus, foreign funding of such entities became routine in India.

The FCRA since 1976

Raising the bogey of “foreign hand”, Indira Gandhi brought the FCRA during the Emergency in 1976 and in a bid to create surveillance regime for the NGOs, put it under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). For all such entities receiving foreign funds through foundations, corporate grants and so on, the FCRA license administered by the MHA became obligatory. It has not only continued thereafter, but has also become a permanent feature for the scrutiny of foreign funds for such entities. The FCRA has been amended four times since.

In 2010, in the wake of anti-nuclear protests driven by some human rights bodies in Tamil Nadu’s Kudankulam that were receiving foreign funds, the Manmohan Singh government tightened the FCRA.  Yet, it did not stop the same government to consult and use them for creating a governance model using the National Advisory Council chaired by Congress veteran Sonia Gandhi.

Since the accountability of the voluntary sector in financial matters was questioned, the P.V. Narasimha Rao (1991-96) government had provided a window to them to explain, interact and cooperate with the government. Even as the voluntary sector accepted the need for accountability in view of the inevitability of foreign funding, following extensive deliberations, they suggested that instead of an instrument of surveillance and security, the FCRA should be used as one of financial accountability.

The purpose could be fulfilled by amending the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) administered by the Ministry of Finance, with some relevant clauses for the voluntary sector.  This would have made it compulsory for the donors to report such funding to the MoF with mandatory annual account submission for the concerned voluntary organisations. This, they argued, would keep financial accountability without bringing in security considerations. However, this did not find favour with the government.

The questions regarding the transfer and use of the funds in other heads, including administrative heads, are more contentious.  Rigid categorisation often does not work with such bodies as they do not generate a separate administrative grant. Many times, some related expenses are adjusted against foreign grants, giving the political dispensation an opportunity to ask uncomfortable questions and cancel the FCRA license, which has been resorted to in the case of CPR.

A careful look at the charges against CPR reveals the complexity of role performance that the Indian state uses to securitise studies and their dissemination process using the FCRA as an instrument of surveillance. Should an academic entity such as CPR not allow the use of its studies by activist groups to highlight the predicament of the underprivileged? How can they prevent a protest that uses its findings? A similar cancellation took place in the case of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an entity that worked on human rights and police reforms. The list is indeed long.

The distrust against the voluntary sector 

CPR and such institutions have been under scrutiny for years, irrespective of their emergence as an important segment of international developmental initiatives. However, since they are a significant part of international and the Indian social life, they must function within the structures of accountability created by the government, which must also be uniform and transparent.

The love-hate relationship between the government and the NGOs has continued in India with each regime. In both its avatars, the UPA had selected organisations as part of the NAC, but neither the FCRA was relaxed, nor other enabling reforms undertaken for the sector. In fact, in 2013 the MHA tightened the FCRA by imposing prohibitive conditions for donors. Several programmes had to be folded up mid-way.  The NDA government since 2014 has followed the same path and they became even more severe in 2019.

Ajay K. Mehra is a political scientist. He was Atal Bihari Vajpayee Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, 2019-21 and Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Evening College, Delhi University (2018).

Centre for Policy Research Calls MHA’s Decision to Cancel FCRA Registration ‘Incomprehensible’

“CPR firmly reiterates that it is in complete compliance with the law, and has been cooperating fully and exhaustively at every step of the process.”

New Delhi: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has cancelled the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), The Hindu reported.

This registration had earlier been suspended in February 2023. The policy think-tank had said at the time that it is in complete compliance with all laws and was working with the authorities to have the license issue resolved.

However, on January 10, CPR learnt that its FCRA registration now stands cancelled. President of the organisation Yamini Aiyar told The Hindu that CPR is weighing its options on how it can seek justice.

In a statement released on Wednesday (January 17), Aiyar said, “The basis of this decision is incomprehensible and disproportionate, and some of the reasons given challenge the very basis of the functioning of a research institution. This includes the publication on our website of policy reports emanating from our research being equated with current affairs programming.”

“During the tenure of our suspension, we sought and obtained interim redress from the honourable Delhi High Court and will continue to seek recourse in all avenues possible. This cancellation comes after a decision to suspend the FCRA status in February 2023. These actions followed an Income Tax “survey” that took place in September 2022. The actions have had a debilitating impact on the institution’s ability to function by choking all sources of funding. This has undermined the institution’s ability to pursue its well established objective of producing high quality, globally recognised research on policy matters, which it has been recognised for over its 50 years’ existence. During this time the institution has been home to some of the country’s most distinguished academics, diplomats and policymakers,” it continues.

“CPR is a 50-year-old institution that has a proud legacy of deep contributions to India’s policy making ecosystem, and over the past five decades has been home to many distinguished faculty, researchers and members of the board. CPR firmly reiterates that it is in complete compliance with the law, and has been cooperating fully and exhaustively at every step of the process. We remain steadfast in our belief that this matter will be resolved in line with constitutional values and guarantees,” it concludes.

In September 2022, the Income Tax Department had carried out searches at CPR’s offices. Other NGOs, including Oxfam India, were also targeted. Since then, CPR said, it has responded to all the notices served to it.

In an order dated February 27, 2023, the MHA had alleged that CPR has been using its FCRA funds for purposes other than the educational programmes for which the licence was granted.

Academics and researchers from across the world had criticised the Union government’s actions against CPR. Calling CPR “one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions”, scholars had said it has a “reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars”.

The Delhi high court had earlier stayed the I-T Department’s proceedings against CPR, and the Supreme Court had supported this stay. CPR had moved the Delhi high court of Delhi against the I-T department’s order, which sought to cancel its registration under Section 12A with retrospective effect, thereby taking away its tax exemption status. The hearings in the Delhi high court on the matter are ongoing.

Think Tank CPR: SC Dismisses Income Tax Dept Appeal Against HC Stay on Proceedings Under FCRA

In a setback to tax authorities, a division bench has said that they ‘are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the high court.’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Income Tax (I-T) Department’s appeal against a stay granted by the Delhi high court in favour of the 50-year old, reputed think tank, Centre for Policy Research (CPR) in respect of cancellation of its registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

“In view of the fact that the order impugned is interim in nature, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the high court,” LiveLaw reports a division bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar as saying.

Established in 1973, Centre for Policy Research, or CPR, one of India’s most respected and oldest think tank and research centres, has been targeted on multiple scores, and scholars and academics globally have protested moves that appear shrouded in talk of irregularities, but smack of vendetta appear to be well in sync with democratic backslide that has squeezed civil society in the extreme.

In March last year, in an open letter, top academics from universities in the US, the UK, Europe, and Australia had said they are “shocked and dismayed” at the government action. Calling CPR “one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions”, the signatories say it has a “reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars”. Signatories included Adam Tooze, Daniel Honig, Christophe Jaffrelot, Alpa Shah, Filippo Osella (who was deported from India despite having a valid visa) and others.

CPR’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) licence was suspended last year, crippling its ability to ensure funding for research. Questions were then asked if research done by CPR on the ecology, impacting on the mega business group perceived to be close to Prime Minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party, Adani could be linked with the Modi government’s actions against the think tank. The IT department’s notice to CPR had prominently cited CPR’s “ties with an NGO in Chhattisgarh that has been associated with protests against mining in Hasdeo. What the notice, however, did not state is that Hasdeo is the site of a massive Adivasi movement against the Adani Group for over a decade.”

CPR had moved the Delhi high court of Delhi against the I-T department’s order, which sought to cancel its registration under Section 12A with retrospective effect, thereby taking away its tax exemption status, reports LiveLaw. It was represented by senior advocate Arvind P. Datar, who argued that cancellation of registration could have been ordered only for the previous year in which the violation was noticed, and if at all, for “subsequent previous years”. It was urged that the impugned order cancelled registration for several financial years, while dealing with “issue-wise” purported violations, which infracted Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act.

Datar had also raised the issue of “violation of principles of natural justice” before the high court, contending that CPR was not given the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded by the revenue and relied upon in its order. “Further, it was highlighted that in connection with a show cause notice, no personal hearing was granted.”

The Delhi high court will hear the case next on January 16.

Delhi HC Stays Income Tax Proceedings Against Centre for Policy Research

CPR had approached the high court against notices issued by the Income Tax Department.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court has stayed the income tax proceedings against public policy think tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR), The Indian Express has reported. CPR had approached the high court against notices issued by the Income Tax Department.

“According to us, the matter requires examination. Besides this, as noticed above, it is, at least, prima facie, evident to us that Section 149 of the (Income Tax) Act, as amended, may not be applicable… In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the continuation of the reassessment proceedings, till further directions of the court,” a division bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia said on May 24.

The court issued notices to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 14 and another respondent, the newspaper reported, and listed the matter for hearing on November 22.

In September 2022, the I-T Department had conducted a ‘survey’ at CPR’s office in Delhi. In February 2023, the Union home minister had suspended CPR’s Foreign Contributions Regulation Act licence. The organisation had said then that it was in complete compliance with the law.

According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Arvind P. Datar appeared for CPR and said that the tax reassessment relates to the assessment year 2016-17 and the proceedings began after a survey conducted by the IT authorities at the CPR premises. He argued that authorities did not furnish the entire survey report to the think tank. He said that this was in violation of principles of natural justice.

“Datar had argued that the amended Section 149 of the Act (which came into effect April 1) was applied to CPR, although the transaction related to AY (assessment year) 2016-17. Section 149(1)(b) states that no notice under Section 148 for the relevant AY can be issued if three years, but not more than 10 years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, unless the Assessing Officer has evidence that income of Rs 50 lakh or more has escaped tax assessment for that year,” The Indian Express reported.

CPR is at present chaired by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor and political scientist Meenakshi Gopinath.

Yamini Aiyar is its president and chief executive. Among other board members are former foreign secretary Shyam Saran, IIM Ahmedabad professor Rama Bijapurkar and Supreme Court advocate Shyam Divan.

Why CPR Is Necessary and the Suspension of Its Registration Dangerous

‘CPR offers an open, welcoming and challenging platform for the much-needed conversation with India and about India, a state that will exert a huge influence over the entire world in the 21st century.’

The following article first appeared on Chartbook, a newsletter on economics, geopolitics and history from Adam Tooze. It has been edited lightly for style.

Dear friends, I don’t usually employ Chartbook newsletter for campaigning purposes. But then it is not usual for research centers, which I have been attached to and which serve as vital nodes in the global network of thought, to come under gratuitous and direct attack. This is what is happening with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi which I had the privilege of visiting in the autumn of 2022.

When I arrived in Delhi it had just been raided by the tax authorities. Researchers had had their laptops and phones impounded.

As Vinay Sitapati commented in the Indian Express:

“The authorities could have simply posed questions via email. But the raid-like quality of this survey – with bellicose tax officials and tipped-off cameramen – was meant to convey a message.”

Now in March 2023, the Centre’s future has been put in jeopardy by the suspension of its foreign funding license.

In light of this harassment of the CPR, I joined a list of international researchers in signing a letter of support for CPR. I put the letter and the list of signatories in quotes so that you can clearly distinguish my commentary from the parts that are agreed amongst us.

Since this newsletter is read by folks in think-tanks, academia, government and business around the world, Chartbook seemed like the right platform to raise awareness of the CPR’s situation. These are our colleagues who are under attack.

Letter from Concerned International Faculty and Researchers

“As researchers and scholars with a deep interest in India, we are shocked and dismayed to learn that the Government of India has suspended Centre for Policy Research’s (CPR) registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act. Coming on the heels of the Income Tax survey conducted on CPR last year, this action is clearly aimed at undermining a leading research institution and jeopardising its existence. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will impair the pursuit of research and independent judgment in the country.

“Established in 1973, CPR is one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions. Over the past the five decades, it has served as a vital and resolutely non-partisan centre of knowledge and research on key public policy questions and challenges confronting India and the world. The excellent scholarship produced by CPR has also consistently illuminated and informed Indian public debates. CPR has the rare distinction of working with successive central and state governments as well as a range of other institutions across the country.”

For the range of issues that the CPR covers, check out the videos of the CPR Dialogues 2022 covering the clean air crisis

And rural policy issues

As you will be able to judge, this is the kind of engaged, critical, deeply informed expertise that is essential to democratic governance.

The letter goes on:

“The governing board of CPR, comprising eminent Indians committed to public service, has held the organization to the highest standards of intellectual rigour and institutional probity.

Former members of the board include figures as distinguished as Dr Manmohan Singh, 13th Prime Minister of India.

Suspending the CPR’s registration is akin to suspending the operation of Brookings or Chatham House on the suggestion that “they have a case to answer”.

As the open letter goes on:

“Precisely because it is an Indian institution steeped in the Indian policy milieu, CPR has been a close and indispensable interlocutor to academics and researchers working on India across the world.”

As a rank outsider to India, this is what most forcibly struck me about CPR. It offers an open, welcoming and challenging platform for the much-needed conversation with India and about India, a state that will exert a huge influence over the entire world in the 21st century. Check out, for instance, the Q&A that followed my keynote at the CPR dialogues conference in 2022.

And the conversation with Pratap Mehta

“Through its rigorous research and active engagement the CPR has earned a reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars. It has also facilitated the engagement of a large number of scholars with India over the years and has mentored some of the finest young researchers in India.”

During my visit I was schooled on Indian politic, government and much else besides by the President and CEO of CPR, Yamini Aiyar. In December she gave an excellent interview to the Council of Foreign Relations on why think tanks matter to Indian policy. She is one of the most prolific and in-depth commentators on the Indian welfare state.

Sociologist and anthropologist Mekhala Krishnamurthy blew my mind in tireless conversations about India’s digital registrations systems, state capacity and the operations of local farm markets. I came away with a fundamentally new understanding of India’s development challenges and possibilities.

Navroz Dubash took time to introduce me to global climate politics from an Indian point of view. His work along with a global team on Varieties of Climate Governance in Environmental Politics is agenda-setting across the world. ‘India in a Warming World‘, edited by Dubash, is an essential reference work for anyone interested in global climate politics. It is precisely the kind of work through which CPR helps Europeans and Americans to revise their understanding of global issues under the influence of a distinctly Indian point of view.

There were other conversations, more than I can recount here, on the politics of Delhi, Indian foreign policy and European and global history. As the letter goes on:

“In turn, CPR’s commitment to rigorous academic inquiry has made it the partner of choice for many universities, research institutions and philanthropic foundations outside India. CPR is a highly valued member of the international research community—one that has considerably enhanced the reputation of Indian academic and research work on the global stage.

“The recent moves against CPR by the Indian government amount to an abrogation of the institutional independence that is crucial to the production and dissemination of knowledge. In so doing, they also strike a blow at intellectual freedom and public reason that are cornerstones of Indian democracy. We respectfully urge the Indian government to reconsider its decision. We affirm our full support to the President of Centre for Policy Research and her colleagues.”

At the time of writing, the list of signatories to the letter is as follows:

Dan Honig Associate Professor University College, London

Karuna Mantena Professor of Political Science Columbia University

Adam Tooze Professor of History Columbia University

Ashutosh Varshney Professor of Political Science Brown University

Prerna Singh Associate Professor of Political Science Brown University

Tariq Thachil Professor of Political Science University of Pennsylvania

Sanjoy Chakravorty Professor of Geography and Urban Studies Temple University

Paul Staniland Professor of Political Science University of Chicago

Mukulika Banerjee Associate Professor of Anthropology London School of Economics

Christophe Jaffrelot Professor of Indian Politics and Sociology Kings College London

Andrew Kennedy Associate Professor Australian National University

Pradeep Chibber Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley

Ira Katznelson Professor of Political Science and History Columbia University

Jan Werner-Mueller Professor of Social Sciences Princeton University

Sumit Ganguly Professor of Political Science Indiana University

Uday Singh Mehta Professor of Political Science City University of New York

Mark W. Frazier Professor of Politics The New School

Shanta Devarajan Professor of the Practice of International Development Georgetown University

Gary Bass Professor of Politics and International Affairs Princeton University

Lousie Tillin Professor of Politics King;s College London

Parick Le Galès Resarch Professor of Sociology, Politics and Urban Studies Sciences Po

Olle Törnquist Prof. Emeritus of Politics & Development University of Oslo

Poulami Roychowdhury Associate Professor of Sociology McGill University

Michael Burawoy Professor of Sociology University of California, Berkeley

Mike Levien Associate Professor of Sociology Johns Hopkins University

Rina Agarwala Professor of Sociology Johns Hopkins University

Emmerich Davies Assistant Professor Harvard University

Lucas González Professor Escuela de Política y Gobierno

Phil Harrison Professor University of the Witwatersrand

Rajesh Veeeraghavan Assistant Professor Georgetown University

Adam Auerbach Associate Professor American University

Kim Lane Schepple Professor Of Sociology Princeton University

Alexander Lee Associate Professor of Political Science University of Rochester

Anjali Thomas Associate Professor of International

Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology

Jishnu Das Professor Georgetown University

Maitreesh Ghatak Professor of Economics London School of Economics

Pranab Bardhan Professor University of California, Berkeley

Sumitra Badrinathan Assistant Professor American University

Bhumi Purohit Assistant Professor Georgetown/ UC Berkeley

Rani Mullen Professor The College of William & Mary

Alpa Shah Professor of Anthropology London School of Economics

Rachele Brule Assistant Professor of Political Science Boston University

Sanjay Ruparelia Professor Toronto Metropolitan University

Aditya Dasgupta Assistant Professor of Political Science University of California, Merced

Rikhil Bhavnani Professor of Political Science University of Wisconsin, Madison

Christopher Clary Assistant Professor State University of New York, Albany

Pradeep Chhibber Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley

Larry Diamond Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution

Irfan Nooruddin Professor Geogetown University

Gyan Prakash Professor Princeton University

Aditi Malik Assistant Professor College of the Holy Cross

Jennifer Bussell Associate Profesor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley

Nayanik Mathur Professor Oxford University

Indrajit Roy Senior Lecturer University of York

Emma Mawdsley Professor of Geography University of Cambridge

Darryl Li Assistant Professor University of Chicago

Megnaa Mehtta Lecturer in Social Anthropology University College, London

John Echeverri- Gent Professor of Politics University of Virginia

Christine Fair Professor Georgetown University

Neil DeVotta Professor of Politics and International Affairs Wake Forest University

Wilhelm Krull Founding Director The New Institute

John Harriss Emeritus Professor of International studies Simon Fraser University

Dinsha Mistree Research Fellow Hoover Institution and Stanford Law School

Sunil Amrith Professor of History Yale University

Rohit De Associate Professor of History Yale University

Sudipta Kaviraj Professor of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Columbia University

Atul Kohli Professor of International Affairs Princeton University

Maya Tudor Associate Professor of Government and

Public Policy Oxford University

Gabi Kruks-Wisner Associate Professor of Politics and Global studies University of Virginia

Adam Ziegfeld Associate Professor Temple university

Sanjay Reddy Professor of Economics New School of Social Research

Ravinder Kaur Professor University of Copnhagen

Francesca Jensenius Professor of Political Science University of Oslo

Tanushree Goyal Assistant Professor of Politics Princeton University

Simon Maxwell Former Director Oversees Development Institute

Robert Stavins Professor of Energy & Economic Development Harvard Kennedy School

Mike Hulme Professor of Geography Cambridge University

Matto Mildenberger Assistant Professor University of California, Santa Barbara

Harald Winkler Professor University of Cape Town

Patrick Heller Professor of Sociology Brown University

Hochstetler, Kathryn Professor of International Development London School of Economics and Political Science

Peter Newell Professor of International Relations University of Sussex

Vinay Gidwani Distinguished University Teaching Professor University of Minnesota

Matthew Lockwood Senior Lecturer University of Sussex

Holdren, John P. Co-Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program Harvard Kennedy School of Government

David Engerman Professor of History Yale University

J. Timmons Roberts Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology Brown University

Raphael Kaplinsky Emeritus Professorial Fellow Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex

Carlota Perez Honorary Professor University of Sussex

Rumy Hasan Senior Lecturer University of Sussex

Filippo Osella Professor of Anthropology University of Sussex

Ben Rogaly Professor of Human Geography University of Sussex

Harro von Blottnitz Director Energy Systems Research Group University of Cape Town

Lucy Baker Senior Research Fellow University of Sussex

Stephen Howes Professor of Economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy Australian National University

Matthew Paterson Director, Sustainable Consumption Institute University of Manchester

Milan Vaishnav Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

‘Dangerous Precedent’: International Scholars, Researchers on CPR’s FCRA Suspension

Calling CPR “one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions”, the signatories say it has a “reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars”.

New Delhi: A group of nearly 100 university faculty members and researchers based outside of India have written an open letter criticising the Union government’s decision to suspend the Centre for Policy Research’s FCRA registration.

In an order dated February 27, the MHA has alleged that CPR has been using its FCRA funds for purposes other than the educational programmes for which the licence was granted. Because of this, the notice says, the organisation’s FCRA registration stands suspended for 180 days or until further notice.

CPR has denied the MHA’s allegations, saying that are in complete compliance with the law and have responded to all of the ministry’s queries.

In the open letter, professors from universities in the US, UK, Europe and Australia have said they are “shocked and dismayed” at the government action. Calling CPR “one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions”, the signatories say it has a “reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars”.

Signatories include Adam Tooze, Daniel Honig, Christophe Jaffrelot, Alpa Shah, Filippo Osella (who was deported from India despite having a valid visa) and others.

§

Letter from Concerned International Faculty and Researchers

As researchers and scholars with a deep interest in India, we are shocked and dismayed to learn that the Government of India has suspended Centre for Policy Research’s (CPR) registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act. Coming on the heels of the Income Tax survey conducted on CPR last year, this action is clearly aimed at undermining a leading research institution and jeopardising its existence. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will impair the pursuit of research and independent judgment in the country.

Established in 1973, CPR is one of India’s oldest and most esteemed policy research institutions. Over the past the five decades, it has served as a vital and resolutely non-partisan centre of knowledge and research on key public policy questions and challenges confronting India and the world. The excellent scholarship produced by CPR has also consistently illuminated and informed Indian public debates. CPR has the rare distinction of working with successive central and state governments as well as a range of other institutions across the country. The governing board of CPR, comprising eminent Indians committed to public service, has held the organization to the highest standards of intellectual rigour and institutional probity.

Precisely because it is an Indian institution steeped in the Indian policy milieu, CPR has been a close and indispensable interlocutor to academics and researchers working on India across the world. Through its rigorous research and active engagement its has earned a reputation for excellence that is second to none among international scholars.  It has also facilitated the engagement of a large number of scholars with India over the years and has mentored some of the finest young researchers in India.  In turn, CPR’s commitment to rigorous academic inquiry has made it the partner of choice for many universities, research institutions and philanthropic foundations outside India. CPR is a highly valued member of the international research community—one that has considerably enhanced the reputation of Indian academic and research work on the global stage.

The recent moves against CPR by the Indian government amount to an abrogation of the institutional independence that is crucial to the production and dissemination of knowledge. In so doing, they also strike a blow at intellectual freedom and public reason that are cornerstones of Indian democracy. We respectfully urge the Indian government to reconsider its decision. We affirm our full support to the President of Centre for Policy Research and her colleagues.

Name Designation Institution
Dan Honig Associate Professor University College, London
Karuna Mantena Professor of Political Science Columbia University
Adam Tooze Professor of History Columbia University
Ashutosh Varshney Professor of Political Science Brown University
Prerna Singh Associate Professor of Political Science Brown University
Tariq Thachil Professor of Political Science University of Pennsylvania
Sanjoy Chakravorty Professor of Geography and Urban Studies Temple University
Paul Staniland Professor of Political Science University of Chicago
Mukulika Banerjee Associate Professor of Anthropology London School of Economics
Christophe Jaffrelot Professor of Indian Politics and Sociology King’s College London
Andrew Kennedy Associate Professor Australian National University
Pradeep Chibber Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley
Ira Katznelson Professor of Political Science and History Columbia University
Jan Werner-Mueller Professor of Social Sciences Princeton University
Sumit Ganguly Professor of Political Science Indiana University
Uday Singh Mehta Professor of Political Science City University of New York
Mark W. Frazier Professor of Politics The New School
Shanta Devarajan Professor of the Practice of International Development Georgetown University
Gary Bass Professor of Politics and International Affairs Princeton University
Lousie Tillin Professor of Politics King’s College London
Parick Le Galès Resarch Professor of Sociology, Politics and Urban Studies Sciences Po
Olle Törnquist Prof. Emeritus of Politics & Development University of Oslo
Poulami Roychowdhury Associate Professor of Sociology McGill University
Michael Burawoy Professor of Sociology University of California, Berkeley
Mike Levien Associate Professor of Sociology Johns Hopkins University
Rina Agarwala Professor of Sociology Johns Hopkins University
Emmerich Davies Assistant Professor Harvard University
Lucas González Professor Escuela de Política y Gobierno
Phil Harrison Professor University of the Witwatersrand
Rajesh Veeeraghavan Assistant Professor Georgetown University
Adam Auerbach Associate Professor American University
Kim Lane Schepple Professor Of Sociology Princeton University
Alexander Lee Associate Professor of Political Science University of Rochester
Anjali Thomas Associate Professor of International Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology
Jishnu Das Professor Georgetown University
Maitresh Ghatak Professor of Economics London School of Economics
Pranab Bardhan Professor University of California, Berkeley
Sumitra Badrinathan Assistant Professor American University
Bhumi Purohit Assistant Professor Georgetown/ UC Berkeley
Rani Mullen Professor The College of William & Mary
Alpa Shah Professor of Anthropology London School of Economics
Rachele Brule Assistant Professor of Political Science Boston University
Sanjay Ruparelia Professor Toronto Metropolitan University
Aditya Dasgupta Assistant Professor of Political Science University of California, Merced
Rikhil Bhavnani Professor of Political Science University of Wisconsin, Madison
Christopher Clary Assistant Professor State University of New York, Albany
Pradeep Chhibber Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley
Larry Diamond Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution
Irfan Nooruddin Professor Geogetown University
Gyan Prakash Professor Princeton University
Aditi Malik Assistant Professor College of the Holy Cross
Jennifer Bussell Associate Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley
Nayanik Mathur Professor Oxford University
Indrajit Roy Senior Lecturer University of York
Emma Mawdsley Professor of Geography University of Cambridge
Darryl Li Assistant Professor University of Chicago
Megnaa Mehtta Lecturer in Social Anthropology University College, London
John Echeverri-Gent Professor of Politics University of Virginia
Christine Fair Associate Professor Georgetown University
Neil DeVotta Professor of Politics and International Affairs Wake Forest University
Wilhelm Krull Founding Director The New Institute
John Harriss Emeritus Professor of International studies Simon Fraser University
Dinsha Mistree Research Fellow Hoover Institution and Stanford Law School
Sunil Amrith Professor of History Yale University
Rohit De Associate Professor of History Yale University
Sudipta Kaviraj Professor of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Columbia University
Atul Kohli Professor of International Affairs Princeton University
Maya Tudor Associate Professor of Government and Public Policy Oxford University
Gabi Kruks-Wisner Associate Professor of Politics and Global studies University of Virginia
Adam Ziegfeld Associate Professor Temple university
Sanjay Reddy Professor of Economics New School of Social Research
Ravinder Kaur Professor University of Copnhagen
Francesca Jensenius Professor of Political Science University of Oslo
Tanushree Goyal Assistant Professor of Politics Princeton University
Simon Maxwell Former Director Oversees Develpment Institute
Robert Stavins Professor of Energy & Economic Development Harvard Kennedy School
Mike Hulme Professor of Geography Cambridge University
Matto Mildenberger Assistant Professor University of California, Santa Barbara
Harald Winkler Professor University of Cape Town
Patrick Heller Professor of Sociology Brown University
Hochstetler, Kathryn Professor of International Development London School of Economics and Political Science
Peter Newell Professor of International Relations University of Sussex
Vinay Gidwani Distinguished University Teaching Professor University of Minnesota
Matthew Lockwood Senior Lecturer University of Sussex
Holdren, John P. Co-Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program Harvard Kennedy School of Government
David Engerman Professor of History Yale University
J. Timmons Roberts Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology Brown University
Raphael Kaplinsky Emeritus Professorial Fellow Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
Carlota Perez Honorary Professor University of Sussex
Rumy Hasan Senior Lecturer University of Sussex
Filippo Osella Professor of Anthropology University of Sussex
Ben Rogaly Professor of Human Geography University of Sussex
Harro von Blottnitz Director Energy Systems Research Group University of Cape Town
Lucy Baker Senior Research Fellow University of Sussex
Stephen Howes Professor of Economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy Australian National University
Matthew Paterson Director, Sustainable Consumption Institute University of Manchester
Milan Vaishnav Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

 

‘We Are in Complete Compliance With the Law’: CPR on FCRA Registration Suspension

“We are absolutely confident that the matter will be resolved speedily, in fairness and in the spirit of our constitutional values,” the organisation said.

New Delhi: In a statement on Wednesday, the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) said that it hopes the Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision to suspend the organisation’s Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act registration will be resolved soon. CPR also said that all its accounts are in order and it has always acted in accordance with the law.

In September last year, the Income Tax Department had carried out searches at CPR’s offices. Other NGOs, including Oxfam India, were also targeted. Since then, CPR said, it has responded to all the notices served to it. “CPR has and continues to cooperate fully with the authorities.”

“We are in complete compliance with the law and are routinely scrutinised and audited by government authorities, including theComptroller and Auditor General of India. We have annual statutory audits, and all our annual audited balance sheets are in the public domain. There is no question of having undertaken any activity that is beyond our objects of association and compliance mandated by law,” the statement continues.

Given the new order, suspending the FCRA registration, CPR says it will look into “all avenues of recourse available”. “Our work and institutional purpose is to advance our constitutional goals and protect constitutional guarantees. We are absolutely confident that the matter will be resolved speedily, in fairness and in the spirit of our constitutional values,” the organisation said.

In its statement, CPR also highlighted that it has several high-profile former government servants and diplomats associated with it, and has also worked on a number of government projects

“Founded in 1973, the Centre for Policy Research has been one of India’s leading policy research institutions, home to several eminent thinkers and policy practitioners whose contribution to policy in India is well recognised. It is an independent, non-partisan institution that conducts its work with complete academic and financial integrity. CPR works with government departments, autonomous institutions, charitable organisations and universities in India and across the globe. The institution’s work is globally recognised for its academic and policy excellence. Full-time and visiting scholars at CPR include members of NITI Aayog (Government of India’s think tank), former diplomats, civil servants, members of the Indian Army, journalists and leading researchers.

Through its five-decade long history, CPR has worked in partnership with governments and grassroots organisations – these include partnerships with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Government on Odisha, Government of Punjab, Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of Meghalaya, Government of Rajasthan amongst others. Through their research and writing, CPR scholars have made pioneering contributions to public policy in India.”

In an order dated February 27, the MHA has alleged that CPR has been using its FCRA funds for purposes other than the educational programmes for which the licence was granted. Because of this, the notice says, the organisation’s FCRA registration stands suspended for 180 days or until further notice.

‘Recent Income Tax Raids Are an Attack on All Citizens of India’

In a statement, more than 600 Indian citizens from 25 states and UTs condemned the government’s action as “alarming and unfounded”.

New Delhi: The recent series of income tax raids on Indian and global think tanks, independent media promoters and other non-profit organisations is “alarming and unfounded”, said more than 600 Indian citizens from 25 states and UTs while condemning the government action.

In a solidarity statement, they noted that “in the not-too-distant future they will come for us, each one of us. Not just for civil society. Or civil servants. Or any other group.”

The statement refers to the IT department conducting ‘surveys’ on the think-tank Centre for Policy Research, the NGO Oxfam India and the media funding body Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation on September 7. All three organisations have denied any wrongdoing and have reaffirmed their commitment to their goals.

The signatories include teachers, homemakers, pensioners, social workers, doctors, personnel from the armed forces, journalists, researchers, bankers, academicians, film makers, writers, lawyers, retired civil servants and business persons.

According to the signatories, the statement is titled “In Solidarity with Us” because, “even though the income tax raids are currently directed at only a few of us — those few who are working, despite daunting challenges, to keep not just the government, but also all of us awake and aware of our rights in a constitutional democracy.”

“They — the ones on whom the raids are currently being conducted — are not against the government. They are FOR the nation. Just as we are. All of us. And the more we remind ourselves and our government of this, the more they will remember that they are here not for themselves, but for us. For all of us,” the signatories argued.

The full statement and the list of signatories are reproduced below.

§

IN SOLIDARITY WITH US

We, the people.

That is who the following statement is in solidarity with.

We, as in all of us.

Not just civil society. Or civil servants. Or retired personnel from the defence forces, or the judiciary, or the academic community, or the media, or the business world, or any other governmental or non-governmental institutions.

Because when we talk as groups, we can be perceived as indulging in us vs. them.

Since September 07, an array of nonprofits, including a think tank, some international NGOs and a funder of independent media, have been ‘raided’ and subjected to intrusive, sweeping seizures of information by Income Tax authorities without any reasons being provided. In the wake of these alarming, unfounded raids — this statement is in solidarity with all of us. Including the personnel from the Income Tax department ordered to carry out these raids without questioning either their government or their conscience.

Because, in the not too distant future, when they come, they will come for us, each one of us. Not just for civil society. Or civil servants. Or any other group. They will come because they don’t make any distinction between a government and the nation it is meant to serve. They will come for anyone who does make that distinction.

They will come because they fear that each of us, citizens of this great nation, will awaken and point out that distinction. And that we will do it as us, all of us, not just as civil society or civil servants or any other group.

That is why this statement is in solidarity with ALL of us. Even though the income tax raids are currently directed at only a few of us — those few who are working, despite daunting challenges, to keep not just the government, but also all of us awake and aware of our rights in a constitutional democracy.

They — the ones on whom the raids are currently being conducted — are not against the government.

They are FOR the nation. Just as we are. All of us. And the more we remind ourselves and our government of this, the more they will remember that they are here not for themselves, but for us. For all of us.

That is why, in light of the alarming, unfounded Income Tax raids across the country over last week, this statement is in solidarity with us. All of us.

Solidarity Statement Against IT Searches by The Wire on Scribd

Income Tax ‘Surveys’: CPR and IPSMF Deny Wrongdoing, to Cooperate With Authorities

Centre for Policy – a policy think tank – and the Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation – which funds independent media organisations – reiterated commitment to their work.

New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and the Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation (IPSMF) – two entities that were the subject of ‘surveys’ by the income tax (IT) department on September 7 – said they have not violated any laws and are fully cooperating with the authorities.

CPR is a policy think tank while the IPSMF funds independent media organisations. Their offices, along with the non-governmental organisation Oxfam India, were all surveyed by the IT department from September 7 onwards.

In a statement, CPR’s president and chief executive Yamini Aiyar said that CPR has all the requisite approvals and sanctions, and is authorised by the government as a recipient under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.

She said that CPR is a non-profit, non-partisan independent institution that is “dedicated to conducting research that contributes to high-quality scholarship, better policies and a more robust public discourse”.

“We hold ourselves to the highest standards of compliance and are confident that we have done nothing wrong. We are committed to working with the authorities to address any questions they might have.
We remain committed to our mission to provide rigorous research to policy making in India,” the statement said.

In a statement, IPSMF chairman T.N. Ninan said that the IT officials’ “survey” at the foundation’s Bengaluru office continued till 4:30 on Friday. The officials went through the papers and records of the Foundation and asked questions, he said.

“The Foundation’s staff were cooperative and answered all questions put to them on a wide range of matters. The officials took statements from three senior staff members. All laptops and mobile phones were taken for cloning data in them and returned last night,” the statement adds.

IPSMF believes that its affairs are “entirely in order”, Ninan said, while rejecting media reports linking the IT survey to foreign funding and the funding of political parties. “We wish to make it clear that the Foundation has received no foreign funds at any stage, and has funded only media entities,” the statement said, reaffirming its belief in its “mission of supporting independent and public-spirited media” and continuing its work.

IPSMF has granted funds to The Wire in the past.

The media collective Digipub, of which The Wire is a part, condemned the IT surveys and said, “Without any clarity on allegations or evidence, Income Tax teams are being used to intimidate and harass organisations involved in public service journalism. This is a brazen waste of human resources and of the efforts of government officials who have joined the service to add value to India’s administrative mechanism.”

Union Budget: Despite Rise in Demand, MGNREGA Allocation Remains Unchanged

The Union government has allocated Rs 73,000 crore for MGNREGA, the rural jobs guarantee scheme, for the 2022-23 fiscal year, the same as the past fiscal. The revised estimate for the last fiscal was Rs 98,000 crore.

Mumbai: Contrary to expectations that the government would combat the COVID-19 pandemic-induced mass unemployment, the Union Budget’s allocation for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (MGNREGA) has remained stagnant.

The government has allocated Rs 73,000 crore for MGNREGA, the rural jobs guarantee scheme, in the upcoming fiscal. The budget estimate for the 2022-23 fiscal year is the same as the past fiscal. However, the revised estimate for the MGNREGA programme stands at Rs 98,000 crore, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced in her Budget speech.

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has widened inequality and pushed a large population towards abject poverty. The lack of employment opportunities has been exacerbated by the government’s failure to provide a safety net. And curtailing the budgetary allocation on a demand-driven scheme like MGNREGA has had a lasting impact on the lives of the rural poor.

There has been a steady decline in the budgetary allocation and eventual spending on providing rural employment in the country. MGNREGA, the government of India’s flagship programme introduced in 2006, aims at enhancing the livelihood security of households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment. It had practically been a lifeline for the rural poor, more so during the national COVID-19 lockdown in March-June 2020.

Also Read: MGNREGA Was a ‘Lifesaver’ for Labourers During Lockdown: Gujarat Government

There has been a steady decline in the budget estimate and the eventual revised budget for the scheme. The budget estimate in 2021-22 was Rs 73,000 crore – 34% less than what was actually spent on the scheme in 2020-21. And this year’s budget estimate is around 25% lesser than the revised budget of the past year.

By the end of 2019, around 1.7 crore households had availed employment under the MGNREGA scheme. This number saw a dramatic jump by December 2020 – indicating that the rural poor were desperate and were struggling for survival. In 2020, around 2.7 crore households availed employment under the Act. The demand for work has only seen an upward move, with 2.4 crore people demanding work under MGNREGA.

Centre for Policy Research (CPR), one of India’s leading public policy think tanks, in its pre-budget analysis had pointed out several serious issues that are plaguing the rural employment scheme. It said the percentage of unmet demand, which is the difference between employment demanded and employment provided, was highest in April and September 2021 at 33% and 31%, respectively. “For FY 2021-22 till 31 December 2021, around 91 lakh households that demanded work had not yet received it,” a brief report by CPR notes.