Poll politics halts FCRA amendments, but for how long?

Schools, hospitals, or charities run by NGOs/CSOs could be taken over by the ‘designated authority’ — in effect, enabling a State takeover

The Narendra Modi government has stepped back from passing the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act (FCRA) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Parliament because of immediate political optics and protests. The bill has only been deferred, not withdrawn.

Protests by Opposition political parties, minority institutions, and fear of alienating minority voters on the eve of the five-State polls — especially, the Christians in Kerala and the Christians and the Muslims in Tamil Nadu — have forced the government’s hand.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is most worried about Kerala, where it has been wooing the Christian vote. Historically, Christians, who form nearly 18.4% of the State’s population, have favoured the Congress-led United Democratic Front. The BJP, however, hopes to swing them as a bloc to facilitate its entry into mainstream Kerala politics.

The BJP itself has fielded prominent Christian candidates in key constituencies: Minister of State for Fisheries at the Centre George Kurian from Kanjirappally, Kerala Congress-defector turned BJP candidate P C George from Poonjar, his son Shone George from Pala, and Anoop Anthony Joseph from Thiruvalla. The opposition of church leaders to the FCRA Amendment Bill, especially of the Syro-Malabar Bishops and the Catholic Bishops' Conference, has, however, cast doubts over their prospects.

Given the various provisions of the bill that the Christian community sees as biased against it, the Modi government may find it difficult to allay their fears. The FCRA Amendment Bill is seen by critics as an attempt to centralise control over foreign funds, curbs minority rights, and tighten the executive’s hold over NGOs.

The bill proposes the creation of a ‘designated authority’, appointed by the Union government, to manage foreign contributions and assets of all NGOs whose licences are cancelled, suspended, or surrendered. In effect, NGO assets can be seized even after they have stopped receiving foreign funds. The limits of its authority are not defined and there is no appeal mechanism for NGOs to reclaim their property.

This will take away the autonomy of such NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) forever. Their schools, hospitals, or charities could be taken over by the ‘designated authority’ — in effect, enabling a State takeover. The authority can hand over their control to government ministries or departments, turning them into quasi-government bodies.

They could, in principle, also be transferred to organisations or NGOs acceptable to the government. Minority institutions could move into the hands of organisations that ideologically represent the majority community. The ‘designated authority’ could then become a backdoor to expand the influence of State-aligned NGOs.

With such legal ambiguity in the bill, religious and minority groups fear that the proposed amendments would impact minority institutions disproportionately, as they rely heavily on foreign contributions for their charitable work. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has flagged these apprehensions in a letter to the Prime Minister and cautioned that the passage of the bill could erode the trust of minorities in governance.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India has warned that the bill could cripple Christian institutions — especially schools, hospitals, and charities working with the marginalised sections of society — dependent on foreign contributions. Several CSOs have also warned of the State takeover of assets.

The Modi government has defended the proposed amendments on grounds of national security. For one, it may cite ‘foreign influence’ on domestic issues, as it has against some NGOs working as pressure groups against infrastructure projects, nuclear power stations, etc. The government also views NGOs operating in border states and conflict zones with suspicion if they receive foreign funds, which may indirectly support insurgencies or separatism. It may also argue for stricter controls to check money laundering, terrorist financing, and opaque money transfers using NGOs. Using these arguments, the government has dismissed the Opposition’s claim that the bill is biased towards minority institutions.

The link between apparent financial regulation and the BJP’s pet ideological project is too apparent to be denied. Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai’s claim that foreign funds may be used for religious conversion, makes no attempt to hide the bill’s objective to prevent erosion of what the BJP calls India’s ‘civilisational values’ and Hindu cultural identity. This ideological intent is not explicit in the bill. So, while the legal argument is about ensuring transparency and national security, its ideological potential has been made explicit by the minister to the ruling party’s Hindu majoritarian base.

Even if the bill is neutral, the very fact that minority institutions are relatively more dependent on foreign contributions for their charitable activities means that they will be disproportionately affected.

Trusts and institutions associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also have FCRA licences (Seva Bharathi and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, among others, for example) and receive foreign funds. But they also have large domestic fund-raising networks, reducing their dependence on foreign funds. Their foreign funding is supplemental, while for several Christian and Muslim institutions, it is existential.

Many Christian educational institutions, hospitals, and charities are traditionally tied to global church networks. Several Muslim charities rely on donations from the Gulf countries for community welfare and educational projects. The global religious infrastructure of the minority religious communities, therefore, makes them significantly more dependent on foreign contributions. So, whether the amendment bill is explicitly ideological or not, the minority institutions feel that the bill has a structural bias against them.

The FCRA cancellations and punitive action against NGOs in the past lends credence to fears that enforcement allows for political targeting. For example, the suspension of the FCRA licences of Greenpeace (for opposing coal mining and nuclear power) in 2015, Amnesty International India’s in 2020 (for undermining India’s sovereignty and internal security) and Missionaries of Charity (for conversion; later restored) in 2021 was justified invoking national security — economic, political, and cultural.

The proposal for a new ‘designated authority’ fits into the same pattern — sweeping powers to seize NGO and civil society assets with vague national security justification.

It is this historical experience of FCRA regulations that makes minorities apprehensive. The passage of the bill may have been deferred, but it remains on the government’s agenda. It can be pushed through Parliament after the five-state legislative elections are over, and the political climate is less sensitive.

Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)