Vulnerable Sections

Model Answer

Introduction

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976, was enacted to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contributions by NGOs and individuals in India. The most significant amendments occurred in 2020, aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability. However, these changes have raised concerns regarding their implications for civil society.

Key Amendments and Their Implications

Decrease in Administrative Expenses

One notable amendment reduced the cap on administrative expenses from 50% to 20%. This change severely limits NGOs’ ability to allocate funds for essential operational costs, such as staff salaries, office rent, and training. According to a report by the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, this restriction could undermine the sustainability of many organizations (CBGA, 2021).

Prohibition on Sub-Grants

The new regulations prohibit NGOs from transferring foreign funds to other entities, affecting collaboration with smaller grassroots organizations that depend on larger NGOs for financial support. While intended to prevent fund misuse, this restriction may hinder effective program outreach and development in underserved areas (Human Rights Watch, 2020).

Mandatory Aadhaar Requirement

The amendment mandates that NGO office bearers provide Aadhaar numbers for registration and renewal. Critics argue this raises privacy concerns and potential misuse of personal data. The government claims it enhances accountability, but organizations fear it may deter participation due to privacy issues (Privacy International, 2021).

Centralized FCRA Account

NGOs are required to open an FCRA account in a designated State Bank of India branch in Delhi. This centralization can simplify monitoring for the government but may pose logistical challenges for NGOs in remote regions, potentially complicating access to funds (The Hindu, 2020).

Extended Suspension of Registration

The government can now suspend an NGO’s FCRA registration for up to 360 days, increased from 180. This extension provides more time for investigations but risks paralyzing NGOs’ operations due to funding unavailability (Economic and Political Weekly, 2021).

Enhanced Government Discretion

The amendments grant the government greater discretion to cancel FCRA licenses if NGOs are deemed detrimental to public interest. Critics argue this vague criterion could be misused to suppress dissent and limit civil society activities (Amnesty International, 2021).

Conclusion

While the amendments to the FCRA aim to improve accountability, they pose significant challenges to the operational capacity of NGOs in India. Striking a balance between regulation and the vibrant functioning of civil society is crucial for democracy’s health.

Model Answer

Introduction

The emergence of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in India has played a crucial role in developmental activities, particularly in rural areas. While some argue that this growth reflects a gradual withdrawal of the state from development, it can also be viewed as a complementary strategy to empower communities and foster sustainable development.

Role of SHGs in Developmental Activities

Financial Inclusion

SHGs significantly contribute to financial inclusion by providing access to credit, savings, and insurance services, particularly for marginalized groups such as women and the poor. This access enables families to manage finances more effectively and invest in their futures.

Women’s Empowerment

Participation in SHGs empowers women, granting them decision-making power, enhancing self-confidence, and facilitating opportunities for skill development and entrepreneurship. This empowerment is vital for promoting gender equity in society.

Livelihood Generation

SHGs create sustainable livelihood opportunities by facilitating skill development, promoting micro-enterprises, and providing access to markets and resources. This has led to improved economic conditions for many rural households.

Social Cohesion

By uniting individuals from diverse backgrounds, SHGs foster social cohesion and a sense of collective responsibility. This community-driven development approach enhances problem-solving capabilities within communities.

Measures Taken by the Government of India to Promote SHGs

National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)

Launched in 2011, the NRLM aims to promote SHGs and enhance their capacity to access financial services, develop livelihood opportunities, and participate in decision-making processes.

Micro-Credit Schemes

The government has introduced various micro-credit schemes, such as the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) and the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, to provide affordable credit to SHGs and support their entrepreneurial activities.

Skill Development Programs

Several skill development and training programs have been initiated to enhance the employability of SHG members, promoting self-reliance and economic independence.

Marketing Support

The government organizes trade fairs, exhibitions, and buyer-seller meets to provide marketing support to SHGs, helping them access broader markets for their products.

Financial Incentives

Financial incentives like interest rate subsidies and credit guarantees are offered to encourage banks to extend credit to SHGs, facilitating their growth and sustainability.

Conclusion

Through various initiatives to support SHGs, the Government of India is fostering a synergistic relationship between state-led efforts and community-based actions. This collaborative approach enhances sustainable, inclusive, and equitable development for all citizens.

Model Answer

Introduction

In India, various commissions such as the National Commission for Women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes are established to address the needs of vulnerable groups. However, the multiplicity of these commissions often leads to overlapping jurisdictions and duplicated functions, raising the question of whether merging them into a single umbrella Human Rights Commission would be a more efficient approach.

Arguments in Favor of Merging Commissions

1. Streamlined Functioning: Combining these commissions could lead to streamlined operations, reducing complexity and duplication of tasks. A unified body would simplify processes and enhance efficiency in addressing grievances.
2. Cost-effectiveness: Merging commissions can result in significant cost savings by minimizing administrative overhead and optimizing resource utilization. This would allow for better allocation of funds towards initiatives that directly benefit vulnerable groups.
3. Holistic Approach: An umbrella Human Rights Commission would be better equipped to tackle the interconnected nature of human rights issues in India. It could address overlapping concerns related to caste, gender, and minority rights more effectively.
4. Enhanced Visibility: A single commission could have greater visibility and influence, making it easier for vulnerable sections to access the support and services they need. This could lead to improved awareness and advocacy for their rights.

For instance, South Africa’s Human Rights Commission serves as an umbrella organization that oversees the rights of all citizens, including vulnerable groups, demonstrating the potential benefits of such a structure.

Arguments Against Merging Commissions

1. Loss of Specialization: Specialized commissions like the National Commission for Women have successfully addressed gender-specific issues. Merging them may dilute their focus and compromise their effectiveness in advocating for women’s rights.
2. Bureaucratization: A large, centralized commission may become overly bureaucratic, hindering its ability to respond swiftly to the needs of vulnerable groups. This could lead to delays in addressing critical issues.
3. Limited Focus: A single commission may struggle to provide adequate attention to the diverse needs of each vulnerable section, potentially leading to some groups being underrepresented or overlooked.
4. Inadequate Representation: An umbrella commission may not accommodate the same level of representation as multiple specialized bodies, which could diminish the voices of marginalized communities.

Conclusion

While merging commissions may enhance efficiency and visibility, it risks diluting the specialized focus and diverse representation necessary to address the unique challenges faced by each vulnerable group. A balanced approach could involve retaining specialized commissions while fostering enhanced coordination and cooperation within a broader human rights framework, ensuring that the specific needs of each vulnerable section are met.