DR JAYANT KUMAR
A significant section of the Indian civil society, it seems, is struggling for survival as the bulwark it rests on is giving way under the plethora of intricacies which have led to systematic destruction of link not only between grass root organizations and the medium and large ones but significantly the donor fraternity.
The factors responsible for this are not only the FCRA, Income Tax and other laws which has led to curtailment and containment but also the fear fueled around compliances, a
gradual departure from grassroots approach and the huge dilemma that the donors are facing in
this backdrop. Drying up of resources at grassroots and the inability of CSR to reach and service the gap is another significant cause.
The grassroots initiatives supported by donors directly and through medium and large civil society organizations in various forms have always been the pillar of social action in India. The large-scale rejection of FCRA licenses have snapped much needed supply of funds as sub-grants and other vital support for capacity building, strengthening systems and procedures etc. to the small or grass roots organizations. But the irony is that though the grass roots organizations have far outnumber the medium and large non-profits, if one delves into the pattern of FCRA renewal, it will severely impact the former because of acute shortage of resources and partnership from medium and large organizations.
Grassroots work takes a hit
With most large and middle level CSOs struggling for their survival with new and diversified
activities, the grassroots work which gave these organizations a resource sharing platforms and
legitimacy are now drifting away from their roots and repertoire of skills. Their relationship with
grassroots initiatives have now been greatly curtailed. One of the primary support to grassroots
initiatives used to come from sub-granting.
Donors’ dilemma
In the current scenario, the donors including those supported by their back donors seem to be in a dilemma as to how to deal with new contours emerging in the country, particularly with concerns of the civil society actors. On one hand are the medium and the large organizations with whom they shared decades-long relationship based on trust, respect and common agenda of social
transformation, on the other are the grass roots organizations which actually take forward the transformative agenda. In the absence of sub-granting the purpose of taking to the grassroots the agenda of transformation is impaired. Subsequently the hesitancy of the donors to directly fund work of small initiatives at grassroots raises concerns.
These donors also contributed to the shaping of the development discourse for the last four plus decades but are now anxious, cautious and fearful. They are perhaps apprehensive of government’s hardened stance that may lead to difficulty regarding their operations. Thus the support will come only to the organizations who are capable of complying with the various Government regulations (requirements) and meeting their back donor requirements. Hence only compliance ready organizations are likely to receive support.
The absence of small or grass roots organizations in the current equation will result in gradual shrinking of social transformation action they vouched for decades. There also appears to be a lack of desired evidence on the part of the donor to facilitate ongoing hand-holding in strengthening compliances. The
donors’ requirement is increasingly focused on proving/attaining verifiable objectives and indicators with clear measurable outcomes. The need and space for qualitative achievements are no more significant as they are considered unmeasurable.
The well-established notion that development and change is unpredictable and difficult to measure in numbers is no longer the consideration. This approach thoroughly overlooks intangible qualitative changes and their impact. This makes the whole transformation approach project driven. Such trends indicate further marginalization of grassroots initiatives.
CSR-the paradigm shift and the grassroots initiatives
This has left the CSOs space unchallenged for CSR donors. But unfortunately, they have not been able to reach significantly out to the small or grass roots organizations including those with strong transformative agenda. If one carefully looks at the pattern of CSR support, they have not been able to seize the opportunities and fill the gap. The CSR has generally overlooked support to grassroots and transformative action thereby charting an independent “project based” course of action.
High balance sheet demands have further complicated the situation with very low administrative cost allowed making it impossible for the small initiatives to access CSR resources.
Further, the prefunding appraisal followed by CSR and meeting the criteria is a challenge to grassroots organizations. It has scope for improving assessments and procedures which could assist smaller initiative to access resources from CSR. The relationship between most of the CSR initiatives and the
CSOs is an unbalanced or unequal partnership. We now see a paradigm shift from needs of the
community based social justice to visible and neutral project oriented activities depending on
priorities of the supporting agency.
However, there is tremendous scope for CSR to increase focus on grassroots CSOs. So, in spite of having FCRA license the grassroots initiatives and actions are not receiving the required support for pursuing transformative agenda from any quarters. It seems that the whole strategy of mass mobilization and social movement actions will gradually cease to exist.
The decision makers in CSR need to take note of it and create space for grassroots actors. Ensuring Compliance: Need for a softer push for governance and financial accountability While CSOs failed to read the situation and do a course correction, the individuals or firms responsible for providing good governance tools and robust financial systems should also take the blame. At a crucial time when CSOs needed strengthened handholding, these sounded alarm about the possible fallout of new laws which created fear and anxiety among small, medium and large
organizations alike. The fear factor around “compliance” needs to be addressed with a positive and facilitative mindset. Large number of stakeholders concerned about grassroots have now become skeptical about their role. This is an approach which is a complete departure from the past.
Today,the need is to reduce the fear amongst donors and CSOs alike. This fear is more acute and
heightened at the grassroots level. This also completely lacks the essence of “partnership”. That this partnership is blatantly unequal can be gauged from the fact that the small and grassroots
organizations look ill-assorted or low in confidence in dealing with these individuals and firms most of whom always act from the position of superiority quite similar in dominance of hierarchy. So what is at stake? Certainly the legitimacy of the civil society actions which drives strength from mass mobilization and grassroots initiatives and in pursuing transformative agenda, with or without FCRA. Unless the domestic stakeholders and donors, internal and external, recognize the criticality of grassroots initiatives and mobilization and innovate ways and means to support such actions, the existential threat to local CSOs would be real and imminent.
(The Writer is Senior development expert and former chairperson of VANI (Voluntary Action Network India). At present, he is the head of programme for CASA.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us

Save