Role of NGOs in Development

NGOS in Development

The non-party political processes of the late 1960s and 1970s centred around radicalised youth, student groups, especially from Christian organisations in southern and Western India. Influenced by liberation theology that emanated in Latin America, these Christian groups along with student unions, NSS etc. formed themselves into Action Groups, known as Community Action Groups or Social Action Groups. These could no longer operate as earlier institutions like missions, trade unions and mass organisations. They also needed a legal identity to enable them to receive funds. The chosen forum of institution was the Society or Association formed under the Societies Registration Act. These were legally identified with the earlier welfare and charity institutions, which were called NGOs or non-governmental organisations. Some of these organisations such as VISTAS in Maharashtra and Association for the Rural Poor in Tamil Nadu, took up ‘conscientisation’ (the method of raising political consciousness of the oppressed, developed by Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educationist) programmes. The Naxalite movement in Andhra Pradesh formulated the concept of ‘Sangham’ adopted by some NGOs like the CROSS in Hyderabad.

While there is no universal definition and form of NGO, traditionally the term referred to social welfare organisations, including the Lions Club or Rotary. Later, the term included Action Groups which needed a formal structure to administer their funds and therefore registered under the Societies Registration Act or Public Trust Act. This enabled them to receive funds from various donor agencies-national and international. As considerable amounts poured into these groups in the 1980s, the government promulgated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. From the mid-1980s, the government also started using these organisations to implement developmental programmes, first through CAPART and then through various social welfare ministries. The term NGO became increasingly associated with organisations ‘contracting development programmes’. Small groups grew in size, finances, and visibility. The result is the emergence of an NGO sector today.

NGOs as Developmental Agencies

In most of Third World countries, and India, in particular, non-governmental organisations are now playing an important role in the developmental processes. The globalisation of economies of the world within the neo-liberal framework has ushered in an era of global markets and the creation of an organisation-World Trade Organisation (WTO)-that is to regulate, set up new rules of global trade and commerce. The new critical approach to development has shifted focus from structure (state) to actors (civil society). The top-down approach has been displaced by bottom-up community participatory approach. Micro-local actors and projects that were to ‘empower’ people i.e. facilitate people’s own developmental efforts is now the order of the day. The NGOs have become the mediators in these efforts. The state is now seen as an ‘enabling state’, that is to say, a state that would facilitate ‘marketising’ of the economy and the state itself would withdraw or play a limited role in the economy. NGOs are now an important part of the civil society and legitimate negotiators on behalf of the people. The World Bank reports on development acknowledge NGOs as part of the civil society and often negotiate with them on the implementation of various important programmes.

The new economic policies heralded in the early 1990s in India acknowledge the role of NGOs in implementing developmental programmes. A plethora of NGOs operate in Andhra Pradesh in various fields-for removal of urban poverty, slum improvement, for providing livelihood for women etc. The state itself has formed an NGO funded by the World Bank-the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty etc.

With the processes of globalisation since 1990s, the NGOs are seen as important actors in the implementation of structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank and IMF. Privatisation policies and the withdrawal of the state from important sectors of the economy have made the state dependent on the NGOs for implementing developmental programmes. NGOs have become professional, managerial bodies with structures and organisations that do not concern themselves with power, politics, and state but with ‘delivery systems’ for structural adjustment. NGOs have also been accused of lack of accountability and transparency. As receivers of funds from outside, often their accountability is to the donor agencies. Very large NGOs are not accountable to either government bureaucracy or peoples representatives. The National Dairy Development Board is an example. The centralising trend initiated by large NGOs is exhibited not just in large scale dairying that is penetrating rural areas in more and more regions but also in the even more larger terrains of forestry, dry land farming, wasteland development and other new avenues of colonising the vast hinterland of village India and tribal hinterland. To this end, a Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (SPWD) was formed in 1982, with the collaboration of Ford Foundation and the Central government. Thus government NGOs or GO-NGOs became tools for a new delivery system. Another example of such NGOs with inspiration from donor agency is the World Bank funded Watershed Development, and Joint Forest Management Programmes (JFM). Today there is a criticism that the JFM has degenerated into a form of labour sub-contracting of the work of the Forest Department to the members of the Vana Samrakshana Samithis (VSS). Today, most ‘North’ donor agencies have shifted their focus to lobbying and advocacy as the most civil forms of delivering social justice and equity and calling the shots-child labour, Northern Environmental Concerns, AID & Human Rights, Democratisation and Governance.

NGOs today are a fact of the developmental, socio-political scene. The initial enphoria of the 1960s when they were radical enough to challenge the corrupt and authoritarian state has slowly waned. Today a number of NGOs are implementing government projects when governments and state are fast losing their autonomy. Andhra Pradesh is an example par excellence where the World Bank inspired programmes are contracted by the government which in turn sub­contracts to the NGOs. The Livelihoods Programme supported by the British DFID for urban poverty alleviation and the programme for rural poverty elimination under the Society for the Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) supported by the World Bank are interpretations of government, international financiers, and NGO collaboration.

NGOs and Social Movements

The diversity of activities of NGOs makes their classification somewhat complex. NGOs cannot be discussed without mentioning other non-party political processes as these are part of the same continuum with interplay, interrelationships and contradictions. A first distinction that is made is between charitable and other organisations from the point of view of their activities and historical perspective. While it is not difficult to distinguish NGOs from political institutions, it is with mass-based and popular issue based initiatives, with loose institutional forums that problems, perspectives, roles and process emerge. The most important distinction is made between NGOs and people’s movements. NGOs are institutional in nature receiving funds from donor agencies from outside and governed by long term perspectives. People’s movements are perceived as organised struggles by affected communities with a focus on immediately perceived needs and threats and a more personal involvement of the leadership.

One of the key developments that took place in the1970s was the emergence of Civil Liberties groups. The emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi government and state repression have given rise to human rights groups-some with radical Marxist perspectives and some within the liberal framework. These groups became meeting ground for interaction between NGOs and individuals who otherwise had serious differences on perspectives. For example : Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Peoples Union for Democratic Rights etc. As Human Rights became an important issue, today a number of NGOs have a human rights desk which take up issues of violations even if in a limited framework, or collaborate, support human rights organisations which are more peoples movements than NGOs.

People’s movements have also evolved into NGOs which play a crucial role at the macro-level in projecting the rights of the marginalised communities. An example is the fishermen’s movement. The efforts of the movement were aimed at protecting the rights of traditional fish workers of Kerala threatened by the introduction of mechanised craft and turning the self employed men into wage labourers. The movement developed a large support base, and was able to engage within a struggle against international interests that were pressurising India to open its massive resources to the detriment of both the traditional fishing communities and the mechanised industry. The movement spread to various fishermen’s belts throughout the country and the National Fishermen’s Forum was formed. The Forum is one of the first success stories of unionisation in the unorganised sector.

A number of NGOs have emerged out of people’s movements centred on dalits, tribals and women. It was in 1972 that a radical group in Maharashtra constituted the dalit panthers, modelled after the black groups in the US The emphasis was on cultural assertion and self-respect with a central role to protect dalit literature. Today an NGO-DAPPU in Andhra Pradesh is an umbrella organisation of several dalit groups. The National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), Dalit Women’s charter of rights and demands, and various other dalit organisations have renewed the debate on caste.

Another social movement of the 1960s and 1970s that has implications for political processes and more particularly for developmental issues is the women’s movement. Gender today is an important analytical category for political and developmental processes. NGOs are deeply involved in women’s issues and development thanks mainly to a strong women’s movement and the emphasis on such programmes by donor agencies. The shift in discourses from ‘women in development’ to ‘Gender and Development’ to women, environment and development has contributed to the critique of enlightenment ideology and development concepts based on Western standards and rallies. While strongly opposing destructive development projects, as well as the new economic policies (neo-liberal policies and globalisation) many women’s groups have been working with other movements on alternatives based on principles of democracy, social justice, peace and environmental sustainability. Today, practically all NGOs have a Gender desk or gender aspects included in their project work.

In India, peace issues have not been predominant in the development agenda of NGOs. The Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND) was formed in 1984. The Balliapal Movement against Missile Test firing range, the Anti-Kalga Nuclear Plant Movement came into confrontation with the military industrial complex. The increasing communal hatred has also led movements against communalism and fundamentalism. Communalism combat, a publication that counters communal hatred has also led movements against communalism and fundamentalism. Post-Pokhran is witnessing a new anti-nuclear and peace movement.

An area where non-governmental initiatives have played an important role is peace and security. For instance, transfrontier collaboration in the anti-slavery campaign began among the Quakers in the 18th Century; cross-national peace movements have flowered periodically since the middle of the 19th Century. Today institutional frameworks for cross-border contact are phenomenal in number. According to a conservative count, these were close to IGOs, over 17,000 INGOs in the 1980s, including cross-border associations in the professions, international foundations of political parties, transnational academic bodies, press groups, to international foundations and other service organisations etc. A significant feature of post-Cold War international relations in several parts of the world has been the emergence of dialogues, training, research and exchange programmes which focus on issues ranging from economic cooperation and social issues to political security matters. For example, in South Asia while cooperation in the areas of both economic and security relations is moving at a comparatively slower pace, NGOs and social activists are using the concept “Track Three” which refers to activities that focus on contemporary policy issues which explicitly function apart from or beyond government (e.g., the Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy).

Classification of NGOs

NGO activities can be classified into a number of broad domains :

a) relief and charity b) development c) mobilisation and organisation d) politics e) political education.

The organisational classification is :

a)   Development and charity groups

b)   Action-groups involved primarily in the processes of conscientisation and mobilisation of the oppressed without any stated political perspective or some time even anti-political.

c)   Political groups with political perspectives and goals.

d)   Pre-party political formations with the purpose of graduating to political parties.

e)   Support groups carrying out specialised tasks of bringing out journals, documentation and resource centres, lawyers forums etc.

This classification is not an exhaustive one as there can be other variables or mixed groups.The sources of inspiration for voluntary organisations have been Gandhian, Socialist and Marxist or neo-Marxist. While the Gandhian inspiration built on the experience of the freedom struggle is directed to help the rural masses to achieve their economic and social freedom, the socialist school inspired by Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan has also been historically active and suspicious of the state and Nehruvian model of development.

The Marxist and neo-Marxist perspective inspired left parties to set-up voluntary organisations with some ideological frameworks. The relations between the NGOs and political parties are not uniform. Some of the Marxists view NGOs as agents of imperialists. In Maharashtra, the Kashta-Kari Sanghatana, with a strong rural base among tribals of Dahanu, north of Bombay, was targeted by the CPM cadre who felt threatened by the inroads made by the Sanghatana into the left constituency. Similarly in North Andhra Pradesh, another organisation SAMATHA was targeted by the PWG and the organisers of the NGO had to stop their work, first in East Godavari and then in Visakhapatnam district. This happened just after the organisation had won a resounding victory for the local tribal communities in their struggle against the collusion of the government with an industry to set-up a commercial complex against the wishes of the local community, flouting the existing laws.

NGOS, STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

NGOs and government share similar concerns of poverty alleviation. However, the scale of NGOs is much smaller but more focused and with an explicit concern with participation. While some NGOs tackle the symptoms of poverty-low educational levels, ill-health etc., others concentrate on enhancing the asset position and income earning potential of the poor through land improvement schemes, credit and skills training. Nevertheless there are NGOs who attempt to politicise poor people thereby challenging directly many of the social and economic structures established by the State. Since 1980s, new kind of NGOs providing support services to other NGOs in the form of training, evaluation and documentation have emerged and are usually funded by core grants from foreign donors and from payments for staff training from individual NGOs.

There are NGOs which receive funds from the government and there are those that receive funds from foreign donors. India’s Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-90) provided for an active involvement of NGOs in the planning process with a massive increase in the volume of government funds (i.e. to Rs.1,500 million per year or US $ 170 million). Most of these funds were for NGOs to work in government programmes such as afforestation, primary health care, education, rural housing etc. NGO relations with government are not always cordial. For those NGOs receiving funds from abroad, the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA, 1976) regulates the receipt of funds and all such organisations have to register with the Home Ministry and submit audited accounts. Approximately 90 per cent of NGOs funding in India comes from foreign sources, mainly from International NGOs. In India with a tradition of self-government the suspicions with which foreign funded NGOs are regarded are not always ill founded as a number of these, flush with funds, appear to have the best of both-of being social workers with ‘fat salaries and sometimes comfortable bank balances’.

The legitimacy of these organisations dependent on foreign funds to develop villages is questionable to many and suspect as agencies of imperialism to some. Barring a few success stories such as the Chipko movement or the campaign against the Forest Bill, voluntary organisations failed to build up any effective national campaigns on issues such as Bhopal disaster. In the Western world, the NGOs and voluntary agencies are regarded as social welfare organisations and play a complimentary role. They are recognised for their organisational and managerial efficiency. However, in the Third World countries such as India, their role is somewhat different due to the very nature of post-coloniality of the state and society. The question is not one of efficient implementation of policies but one of structural transformation-local and non-local-of changing the political power relations of state and society and changing the relations with the external. This hinges on the crucial question of development of capitalism in the periphery.

The failure of developmental models and the crisis of economies in the 1970s were attributed to the failure of state and governance. States were seen as too weak to transform the civil society or as obstructive to economic development. The idea of good governance in the neo­liberal economic model is associated with the withdrawl of state from particularistic intervention in the economy and a freeing of civil society through greater reliance on NGOs, better training of civil service, decentralisation to remove obstacles to development, preferential access of the wealthier (and therefore educated) sections of society to decision making process etc. NGOs posit themselves as better equipped institutions to remove obstacles to development or take on developmental activities as is increasingly evident. They differ from the state non-market economy by the fact that they can choose more freely their staff, can impose commitment beyond formal execution of assigned tasks and have to justify themselves in order to ensure the flow of external resources. With the result, their performance is continuously evaluated. From the point of view of political economy, NGOs can influence criteria for funds. As developmental discourse includes ‘culture’ as an important variable, NGOs have successfully incorporated the language of ‘culture’ identities’ and the discourse of ‘civil’ society.

While these efforts might have the impact of democratising the civil society and thereby perhaps the State, the very agenda of aid of the donor agencies is one of creating an environment conducive to neo-liberal reforms. The inevitable contradictions of such reforms aimed at ‘good governance’, rolling back the state have had the most undesirable results for most Third World countries. While NGOs may be critical of the policies of the IMF/WB, their ability to reverse these is doubtful. The reform policies and the presence of foreign funded organisations in the South have critical implications for state and society.

The NGOs generally avoid confrontation with the state despite their radical discourse. This may be for very obvious reasons of losing permission from the Home Ministry for funds (FCRA). The methods and style of functioning of the NGOs often render them suspect in the eyes of the local people. The ‘target groups’ over whom/with whom they do project work cover small sections, nor is the project work political enough. By negotiating with the government and by providing welfare measures through its funds, the NGOs often depoliticise issues and blunt the edge of people’s struggles. The ‘professionalism’ of NGOs seems to fit well with the “managerial discourse” of the World Bank and the IMF; managerial efficiency and professionalism are preferable to political activism. As the NGOs provide employment to substantial numbers of the middle class, rural and urban, they do help without being an answer to the problem of unemployment. The shift in the recent years from the centre to the local/region in the Indian federal polity has given rise to a localism boom. The reason, atleast partly, it is argued, lies in the rise of NGOs.

 Future Perspectives

The new social movements of the 1960s and the 1970s have given rise to the discourse of civil society. The hitherto marginalised sections-the tribals, dalits, women raised questions with regard to the state and exercise of state power that in turn gave rise to new articulations of nations and nation-states. The NGOs by lending support and funding them have institutionalised some of these movements; at the same time they had the impact of depoliticising them. The shift from class struggles, people’s movements to groups, project work, net working etc, has blunted the edge of these struggles. However, it would be wrong to say that all NGOs are alike. There are NGOs which are sensitive to the local needs and cultures and do not impose themselves on the people. Several individuals sympathetic to peoples struggles (for example the dalit and women’s movements) support them. It is important to recognise the kind of social changes that are now being witnessed and NGOs contribute to this change. However, the globalisation processes, the dominance of the market forces indicate that the global agendas are set by the TNC, IMF and World Bank creating a culture of capital and shaping consumer citizens the world over. Would the NGOs contribute to this process or counter it by taking ideological positions? What would be the nature of social transformations the world over, and what kind of a state, economy and civil society would they create? A question that pertains to the ‘histoire de longue duree’-Long term history.

SUMMARY

Contemporary world witnesses the rise of a plethora of international organisations involving the cooperation of both states/governments and non-governmental units/actors. These organisations perform various kinds of functions, dealing with a variety of issues. Their classification is based on their membership and structures. International non-governmental organisations are those organisations in which governments and states are not members. Yet, they operate within and across national boundaries and are subject to the restrictions of national governments. Non­governmental organisations (NGOs) as voluntary organisations have grown in number operating in a variety of areas. From the 1960s, we witness the rise of new social movements which have played an important role in activising the civil society. NGOs have contributed to institutionalising these movements and as development agencies, they have contributed to the rise of an NGO sector. Classification of NGOs and their functions is a complex one. Any assessment of NGOs must be based on this transparency as receivers of funds from outside, as deliverers of goods and their contribution to the assertion of rights of marginalised sections of the society. Despite the increasing assertiveness of NGOs role, they cannot be a substitute to states and governments. Globalisation does not abolish states but the boundaries of state power may be reworked.