Shillong: Meghalaya Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) president Vincent H Pala on Monday described the proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) as “one of the most dangerous bills” in independent India, alleging that the proposed provisions could put properties belonging to churches, NGOs, schools and hospitals at risk.
Pala was speaking at a protest against the proposed FCRA amendments. He said the Congress was not opposed to regulation of foreign contributions but alleged that the proposed amendments went beyond regulation and could allow the attachment of properties belonging to organisations whose FCRA registrations are cancelled, not renewed or surrendered.
“We are not against the Government of India. We are here to work together. India will be strong if the people of India, the minorities, the Church and the NGOs are working together,” Pala said.
He specifically raised concerns over Clause 16A, alleging that it could empower authorities to take over an organisation’s property if its FCRA registration was cancelled, not renewed or surrendered.
“If you cannot renew the FCRA or if they cancel your FCRA, or if you surrender the FCRA, they will take your property,” he alleged.
Pala said the provision could have significant implications for institutions in Meghalaya that have historically received foreign contributions.
He cited a hypothetical example of a church constructed at a cost of Rs 10 crore, saying its property could potentially be affected even if only Rs 10 lakh of its funding had come through FCRA contributions. He made a similar argument in relation to schools and hospitals.
“People may not be familiar, but people will know what is St Anthony’s, what is St Edmund’s, what is Loreto and what is Nazareth,” Pala said, referring to educational institutions in Meghalaya. He also referred to healthcare institutions run by churches and NGOs, including Roberts Hospital.
Pala claimed that the number of FCRA registrations in the country had declined from more than 50,000 previously to around 14,000, and said there were about 2,313 active registrations in the Northeast and around 70 in Meghalaya.
The figures were presented by Pala during the protest.
Pala said the Congress itself does not have an FCRA registration but was opposing the proposed amendments on behalf of institutions and people who could be affected.
“We are not here for the interest of the party, but we are here to fight for the poor people,” he said.
He alleged that the proposed amendments could disproportionately affect minority institutions, particularly Christian organisations, and called for greater public opposition to the Bill.
Pala said the campaign would also be taken up at the national level, including in Parliament and through protests.
Congress general secretary Manuel Badwar criticised the National People’s Party (NPP)-led Meghalaya government, alleging that it had not done enough to oppose the proposed amendments.
“When there’s a direct attack on a community as such, and we’re talking about a community which is very small in proportion to the entire country, a party in power in a state like Meghalaya… I think the NPP ought to have done a lot more. A lot, lot more,” Badwar said.
He accused the state government of trying to project opposition to the Bill without taking sufficient steps to influence its outcome.
“I call it a whitewash, a hogwash,” he said, alleging that the NPP and BJP were “hand in glove”.
Badwar also defended the Congress’s decision to organise protests against the proposed legislation, saying political parties have a role in opposing legislation because governments and political parties are responsible for making laws.
“A lot of people keep on saying that such movements should not be done by a political party, but I look at it differently. This has everything to do with an Act. This has everything to do with enacting a law. So who makes the law? It’s the government that makes a law. It’s the political party that makes a law,” he said.
Badwar described the proposed FCRA legislation as “the most draconian bill” he had seen in his years in politics and alleged that it was intended not only to regulate foreign contributions but also to “grab” properties.
He also questioned whether the proposed provisions would withstand legal scrutiny and said the legislation should have been examined by a parliamentary committee.
Also Read | NU study puts economic value on 47 forest products in Nagaland, Meghalaya