Bloomsbury Intelligence & Security Institute (BISI)

View Original

Modi’s Stifling of India’s Civil Society

Kira Persson | 4 March 2024


See this map in the original post

Summary

  • Since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, civil society organisations have faced severe challenges — thousands of charities have been shut down or drained of resources. 

  • Targeting of organisations appears to be politically motivated and part of a wider Hindu-first ideology that shows increasing hostility to perceived threats to Modi’s ambitions. 

  • The crackdown is likely to have costly consequences, as a prosperous civil society has historically provided India with innovation and stability. 


Since India’s independence in 1947, its civil society has taken weight off the state’s shoulders by providing important services to the population and filled gaps where state capacity and efforts have been lacking. Today, it is one of India’s largest sectors. However, since Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, civil society organisations have been severely affected.  

While many nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) still operate in India, a vast amount face threats and excessive force. Since 2014, thousands of charities have shut down or been drained of resources. The federal government has deployed various legal means—such as defamation and counterterrorism laws—to silence perceived critics. Amnesty International said financial and investigative agencies of the government are weaponised to harass, intimidate, silence, and criminalise independent voices. The Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) has been used to prohibit NGOs’ access to foreign funding. As many NGOs rely heavily on foreign aid, the manipulative use of the FCRA impedes their functioning and development. V-Dem, a Swedish think-tank, said India’s democracy has significantly deteriorated since 2014. On the 0 to 1 Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) scale, India’s level fell from its peak at 0.57 in 2013 to 0.34 by the end of 2020 — one of the most dramatic shifts globally. Civil society is one of the sectors that has taken the hardest hit. 

 

Since 2014, almost 17,000 licences to receive foreign funding have been suspended. Among the affected organisations are Care India, and the Centre for Policy Research (CPR). The former is an NGO focused on women and girls in health, education, livelihood, and disaster response. It played a significant role, alongside state and local governments, in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter is a leading think-tank based in Delhi, which lost its license on allegations that it diverted its funding towards causes affecting India’s economic interests. World Vision India, a Christian NGO focusing on children in poor communities, also lost its license. The affected organisations are largely non-Hindu, faith-based NGOs, or perceived ideological opponents of Modi’s government. Hindu NGOs supporting the BJP, are rarely, if ever, targeted.  

Additionally, the diverse and prosperous Indian civil society has long functioned as a buffer in turbulent times — ethnic tensions have been alleviated by a cross-cutting civil society that has fomented local understanding of how to address grievances and keep ethnic hostility at bay. Hence, the crackdown on India’s civil organisations is also a crackdown on innovation, effective policymaking, and a body that has aided social well-being and stability in India for decades. 

Buiobuione / Wikipedia


Forecast

  • Short-term: There will most likely be a continued disruption of humanitarian aid, health services, and education programs delivered by NGOs, as they face funding cuts, operational challenges, or are forced to shut down. This will put pressure on poor communities and minority groups.  

  • Long-term: NGOs and individuals who fear the repercussions of criticising the government and its policies may resort to self-censorship. If the BJP wins the upcoming election, independent thinking is likely to become more challenged, prompting resources and brainpower to move abroad or to alternative sectors. This would undermine independent monitoring and reporting.