US lawmaker's comments on FCRA expose foreign influence on internal matters that India seeks to regulate: Report
Brussels, Aug 8
US Republican Congressman Riley Moore's criticism of the proposed amendments to India's Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, arguing that they could allow the Indian government more control over churches and Christian organisations and negatively affect India-US relations, amounts to little more than propaganda, a report has stated.
His intervention, ironically, lends weight to the very rationale behind the FCRA. When lawmakers from another country publicly interfere in laws governing foreign funding within India, it only reinforces New Delhi's argument that external influence over domestic institutions is "neither hypothetical nor obsolete", according to a report in the 'European Times'.
"As the Indian Parliament prepares once again to debate the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), a familiar narrative has re-emerged. Critics portray the legislation as an attack on civil society, an assault on Christian organisations and yet another sign of India's supposed departure from democratic norms. This narrative, however, ignores a fundamental question: why should India be denied the sovereign right to regulate foreign influence when virtually every major democracy is moving in the same direction?" the report questioned.
The report noted that India's FCRA and its proposed amendments are not unique, but reflect a wider global trend.
"The European Union is developing new instruments to counter foreign interference and covert influence operations, particularly those attributed to Russia, China and other foreign actors. Australia has its Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The United States has enforced the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for decades. The United Kingdom has introduced its own Foreign Influence Registration Scheme," it detailed.
According to the report, the core principle behind these frameworks remains the same: foreign funding should not be permitted to influence a country's political, social or institutional landscape without sufficient transparency and oversight. The Indian Government has maintained that the proposed amendments are aligned with international best practices rather than designed to create an exceptional regulatory regime.
The report highlighted that India faces a challenge of vastly different magnitude, with the country hosting one of the largest civil society sectors in the world.
With an estimated 3.3 million to 3.7 million non-governmental organisations, India has by far the largest civil society sector, accounting for more than half of the NGOs across G20 nations. Even conservative estimates reveal that no other G20 member comes remotely close to India's scale. Italy, for example, has approximately 360,000 third-sector organisations, the European Times mentioned.
"India therefore administers by far the largest NGO ecosystem on the planet. Regulating foreign funding in an environment of this magnitude is not merely a bureaucratic exercise or a political choice; it is a matter of national security," it added.
— IANS
Reader Comments
I'm an American and I find this quite interesting. Our own government has strict rules about foreign influence, yet politicians love to lecture other countries. Seems like classic projection to me.
The EU, Australia, UK - all have similar laws. But when India proposes it, suddenly it's undemocratic? We have 3.7 million NGOs to manage. External interference in our internal matters is a real national security concern. The report makes perfect sense.
Why is there so much fuss about transparency? If the NGOs are doing genuine work, they shouldn't have anything to hide. Foreign money flowing into a country of 1.4 billion people needs proper oversight. See no problem here.
As someone who follows international relations, I find it amusing that a US lawmaker is so concerned about India's sovereignty. I wonder if he'd be okay with Indian lawmakers commenting on US immigration laws? Exactly.
I appreciate the report's balanced perspective. While I have some concerns about implementation and ensuring genuine NGOs aren't affected, the core argument about sovereign regulation is sound. We need to find the right balance between oversight and harassment.
The scale comparison is mind-boggling - 3.7 million NGOs! No other G20 nation
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.