Do not try to stifle dissent by NGOs

The Intelligence Bureau report on NGOs may only go to further the environment-versus-development debate, but no more than that. In ascribing motives to virtually all NGOs and environment activists, an obvious attempt has been made to serve political masters. Such a sweeping report flies in the face of the argument that a strong and self-confident nation should be able to digest dissenting opinion.

It is possible that many activists and NGOs are money-making rackets. They will have no answer to why they are unable to spell out the same arguments on the need to conserve the planet in the developed countries, which have been guilty of polluting the Earth for close to 200 years. The same nations now preach to everyone on how to protect the Earth.

However, not every piece of advice on conservation is bad. We have a lot to learn of soil-conservation techniques and how to bring down power consumption, etc. The point is a big country like India should have the confidence to face criticism and not be seen to stifle all dissenting opinion. Measures like counter-propaganda can be taken without having to flex too much official muscle. Foreign-funding of NGOs does not necessarily endanger India’s economic security even though there may be a clear pattern to much of the opposition to major projects that are opposed only in Third World countries. There are also NGOs that are not funded from abroad. However disruptive protesters and dissenters may seem in general, no state can afford to take an inhuman approach.

A wise nation would play it delicately, going to the heart of the matter in a methodical, issue-based manner, rather than employing a knee-jerk one-approach-suits-all bulldozer mentality. We are aware that Indian coal is not the cleanest in the world, and that burning it throws up awkward issues, but there are ways to get past them, like coal gasification technology in extraction and cleaning up emissions. No one needs to tell us that thick forests, rich soil and clean water and air are crucial to good living.

Far from treating NGOs as criminals programmed only to serve the agenda of their donors, it is incumbent on the government to listen to all concerns while reserving the right to act as it must when it comes to national priorities, particularly considering we are dealing with an aspirational India in urgent need of widespread development.

NGOs don’t cut much ice when they start preaching. To be watchful of foes as well as friends is statecraft. India should learn to do that without getting vocal about it. In any case, the IB should have better things to do than study NGOs unless they are a security threat.