Why should social service depend on foreign money? Those opposing the FCRA Bill need to answer this basic question first. Has India become so poor that every school, hospital, shelter or welfare project must look abroad for funding? Why cannot Indians support social causes through local donations, corporate contributions and our own resources? And why this sudden anxiety over tighter scrutiny of foreign funds?

The question becomes even more uncomfortable when money comes from questionable sources, and nobody offers convincing answers about where it goes. Social service is certainly a noble cause. But should it become a convenient cover for projects whose real beneficiaries are not the poor but organisations and individuals enjoying comfortable lifestyles funded by foreign donors? Should India create a new class of people who depend on foreign money while claiming to serve Indian society?

The loudest opposition to the FCRA Bill has come from opposition parties, Christian church organisations and sections of the NGO sector. Congress, TMC, CPI(M) and DMK have described the measure as unconstitutional and repressive. Church organisations fear its impact on schools, hospitals and charitable institutions receiving foreign funds.

Their objections centre on government control over properties, alleged targeting of minority institutions, increased executive power and possible pressure on civil society. But reducing the entire debate to politics would be a mistake.

The Bill does not prohibit foreign donations. It seeks to ensure that foreign money is transparent, properly accounted for and spent only on declared and legitimate purposes.

Foreign money is not some heavenly blessing that falls from the sky. It comes from somewhere, for some purpose, and carries responsibility. That is precisely where the old system had a glaring gap.

Suppose an organisation loses its FCRA registration. What happens to the land, buildings and other assets created with foreign contributions? What happens if the organisation voluntarily gives up its registration or allows it to expire? Who controls those assets?

The old law did not provide a sufficiently clear answer. The proposed legislation attempts to plug that loophole by creating a Designated Authority to manage such properties. Assets created with foreign funds cannot simply become ownerless once an organisation loses its registration.

Otherwise, properties worth crores could become vulnerable to private use, dubious transactions or closed-door deals. Critics may call this government overreach. But accountability cannot be called oppression merely because it makes somebody uncomfortable.

The Bill also provides for provisional vesting of such properties. That does not mean permanent confiscation. If an organisation restores or renews its registration within the prescribed period, there remains a route for the property to be returned. In other words, there is supervision, but there is also a safeguard.

Transparency is the heart of the matter. If foreign money enters India, citizens have every right to know who sent it, how much was received and where it was spent. When the amounts run into thousands of crores, accountability cannot be treated as a minor technicality.

Between 2019 and 2022, organisations received more than ₹55,000 crore in foreign contributions. Can a country simply say, “Take the money and don't ask questions”?

Thousands of organisations have also had their FCRA registrations cancelled or allowed to lapse. In such circumstances, clear rules governing assets created with foreign contributions are not only desirable; they are necessary.

The Bill also attempts to bring greater coordination into investigations. FCRA is a central law with implications for foreign relations and national interests. Requiring state agencies to obtain central permission before launching investigations could prevent multiple agencies from conducting overlapping or conflicting probes. And contrary to the impression being created, the Bill does not shut the door on judicial remedies.

Decisions of the Designated Authority can be challenged through revision and appeal before the district judge. An official's decision will not become the final word. Judicial scrutiny remains available.

Even the argument that the Bill is simply “draconian” because of its punishments needs closer examination. For certain violations, the maximum prison term is reportedly being reduced from five years to one year.

So, while monitoring is being strengthened, punishment is also being made more proportionate. The central point is simple. Foreign assistance is not being banned. Accountability is being demanded.

NGOs, charities and religious organisations that genuinely serve society can continue receiving foreign contributions, subject to the law. The bargain is hardly unreasonable: Take foreign money if you need it. Serve society. But show the books.

India has never lacked a tradition of charity. Temples, gurdwaras, mosques, churches, business communities and ordinary citizens have supported the poor for centuries. Hospitals, schools, shelters, kitchens and charitable institutions have flourished through Indian philanthropy.

So why should every social project automatically look towards foreign coffers? Foreign cooperation is not a crime. Nor should foreign funding automatically be treated with suspicion. But placing foreign money beyond scrutiny is equally dangerous.

The world's major democracies monitor foreign funding and foreign influence. The United States, Britain, Australia and Canada all have mechanisms to track foreign money and influence.

The reason is obvious. Foreign influence today does not arrive only through diplomatic channels. Money, organisations, digital networks, advocacy campaigns and political narratives can intersect in complicated ways.

In such an environment, transparency is not an enemy of civil society. It is its protection. The FCRA debate, therefore, should not be reduced to government versus NGOs, or majority versus minority.

It should be about one simple principle: If the money is clean, why fear the audit? An organisation doing genuine social work should have little to fear from transparency. But if an organisation cannot explain where its foreign money came from, how much it received and where it went, questions are not only legitimate: they are necessary.

Democracy needs trust. But democracy does not demand blind trust. Foreign money deserves scrutiny precisely because it can carry influence along with funding. Transparency is not persecution. Accountability is not repression. India is capable of serving its people with its own resources. And when foreign assistance is accepted, accounting for every rupee should be regarded not as a burden, but as part of serving the nation.

Social service must be welcomed. Foreign assistance can be welcomed. But foreign money without accountability? That's where the red line should be drawn.