It was a very illuminating debate. I have not read Depinder’s note and, therefore, I will have to depend on the debate that I just heard. Depinder’s note, I thought, could well be termed as the first chapter of the history of NGO era in India. A full-fledged attempt is necessary to analyze the role of NGOs and write the history of this sector. Depinder is right in explaining the transition from state-led capitalism to ‘regular’ capitalism. The stress on the ‘small scale’ was also suited to those who could provide funds on a small scale vis-à-vis the State. This way, NGOs embellished with socialist ideas, were tools of the funding agencies from the capitalist countries; they took over some essential duties of a hard-pressed government that was supposed to take up severe ‘adjustments’ and drastic ‘structural changes’. Big companies began to invest, as succour, through NGO route investing in a country to support an ‘adjusting’ government. The neo-liberal policies have not been given up yet the NGO sector is facing demise. Why? Depinder showed how they emerged but did not show why they declined. There may be a few internal reasons or it may not be just because of the present government’s policies. Manu Kaushik’s question raised my hopes that this question would be answered. Rajesh came tentatively close to it; Depinder grasped but dropped the catch. The reason is, that the Right itself began to change for the worse at the beginning of the 21st century. Vivekanandan referred to it in different words. You fail to answer if you do not take note of changes within the Right. Ultra-right forces had already begun to attack the globalization and immigration policies of the Right. Try to Google-search the terms like ‘globalisation’ ‘structural changes’ etc that were frequently found in newspapers in 1980s and 90’s. They had vanished for a long time till recently when IMF certified that Brazil is a good boy, and with that, the phrase ‘structural reforms’ rose from the slumber to appear in reports. Ultra-rights are not interested in globalisation; they are protectionists and nationalists. Drying up foreign funds may also have to do something with this international phenomenon. The globalisation and structural reform argument lasted for about two decades, As they fell into disuse NGO sector also began to crumble in India. Modi government is not so much against NGO’s work as it is against its socialist and human rights garnishing. Meanwhile, in the liberalisation decade, people began to feel its impact. In that situation, NGOs’ role came for criticism. The term NGOisation was coined by political activists who found it difficult to raise voices for the people who were now Labharthis. NGOs put the independent movements on a back foot. Yet, NGOs continued to pay fat salaries to their executives which led to moral questions. You got huge funds from big capitalists, talked about poverty in a five-star hotel, and claimed to be the saviours of the people! Right or wrong. this is the perception that prevails and, is one reason why any action against NGOs by the Modi Government does not elicit sympathy among even Labharthis As I understand, some macro level political international and national level changes, internal weaknesses including dependence on funds, and lacking the ability to connect with people are the reasons of the decline of NGOs.
A very thought provoking session and must watch for professionals who want to join or continue in the social sector especially NGOs.
It was a very illuminating debate. I have not read Depinder’s note and, therefore, I will have to depend on the debate that I just heard. Depinder’s note, I thought, could well be termed as the first chapter of the history of NGO era in India. A full-fledged attempt is necessary to analyze the role of NGOs and write the history of this sector.
Depinder is right in explaining the transition from state-led capitalism to ‘regular’ capitalism. The stress on the ‘small scale’ was also suited to those who could provide funds on a small scale vis-à-vis the State. This way, NGOs embellished with socialist ideas, were tools of the funding agencies from the capitalist countries; they took over some essential duties of a hard-pressed government that was supposed to take up severe ‘adjustments’ and drastic ‘structural changes’. Big companies began to invest, as succour, through NGO route investing in a country to support an ‘adjusting’ government.
The neo-liberal policies have not been given up yet the NGO sector is facing demise. Why? Depinder showed how they emerged but did not show why they declined. There may be a few internal reasons or it may not be just because of the present government’s policies. Manu Kaushik’s question raised my hopes that this question would be answered. Rajesh came tentatively close to it; Depinder grasped but dropped the catch.
The reason is, that the Right itself began to change for the worse at the beginning of the 21st century. Vivekanandan referred to it in different words. You fail to answer if you do not take note of changes within the Right. Ultra-right forces had already begun to attack the globalization and immigration policies of the Right. Try to Google-search the terms like ‘globalisation’ ‘structural changes’ etc that were frequently found in newspapers in 1980s and 90’s. They had vanished for a long time till recently when IMF certified that Brazil is a good boy, and with that, the phrase ‘structural reforms’ rose from the slumber to appear in reports.
Ultra-rights are not interested in globalisation; they are protectionists and nationalists. Drying up foreign funds may also have to do something with this international phenomenon. The globalisation and structural reform argument lasted for about two decades, As they fell into disuse NGO sector also began to crumble in India. Modi government is not so much against NGO’s work as it is against its socialist and human rights garnishing.
Meanwhile, in the liberalisation decade, people began to feel its impact. In that situation, NGOs’ role came for criticism. The term NGOisation was coined by political activists who found it difficult to raise voices for the people who were now Labharthis. NGOs put the independent movements on a back foot. Yet, NGOs continued to pay fat salaries to their executives which led to moral questions. You got huge funds from big capitalists, talked about poverty in a five-star hotel, and claimed to be the saviours of the people! Right or wrong. this is the perception that prevails and, is one reason why any action against NGOs by the Modi Government does not elicit sympathy among even Labharthis
As I understand, some macro level political international and national level changes, internal weaknesses including dependence on funds, and lacking the ability to connect with people are the reasons of the decline of NGOs.