By S Gerald Jacob and Dr. Karamala Areesh Kumar –
The proposed 2026 amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) have once again sparked controversy in India, making it an important issue in public discourse. The legislation was first enacted in 1976 and underwent a major revision in 2010, framed as a safeguard to ensure that foreign donations do not undermine the country’s vital national interests. In 2020, the Act saw yet another round of sweeping changes that sharply curtailed the operational autonomy of non-governmental organisations, required them to maintain a State Bank of India account in New Delhi, capped administrative expenses at 20 per cent, and prohibited sub-granting. Now, the 2026 amendment poses a threat to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the Indian state and civil society, shifting it from simple administrative regulation to an existential threat.
At the heart of the current crisis are two new, deeply concerning provisions: the automatic expiration of licenses and the creation of a ‘designated authority’. Under this amendment, if an organisation’s FCRA license expires, even due to technical delays or a lack of response from the government during the renewal process, the license automatically lapses. Instantly, the assets and properties of that institution fall under the control of the designated authority. This body is granted the power to seize and sell these properties without any judicial review or proper charge sheet. For civil society, this feels less like oversight and more like an impending acquisition of assets under the guise of ‘public purpose’. To arbitrarily seize colleges or places of worship established decades ago simply because an administrative license lapsed is an overreach that challenges the very foundation of a democratic system.
The anxiety this has caused among minority institutions is palpable. Archbishop Joseph D’Souza, president of the All-India Christian Council, argued that the amendment is a “straightforward loot and theft of the Christian institutions and their properties” and that it is an agenda to seize the nation’s institutions. The institutions most severely impacted by these amendments are the socio-economic backbone of our communities: schools, colleges, hostels, orphanages, and hospitals. These are facilities that primarily serve the poor and marginalised, the vast majority of whom belong to the Hindu community. The term ‘foreign aid’ is often weaponised in political discourse to sound inherently anti-national, but much of this funding actually comes from non-resident Indians, or global citizens simply wishing to support charitable activities. Speaking recently to a Malayalam news channel, Archbishop Mar Thomas Tharayil of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Archdiocese of Changanassery poignantly highlighted the devastating human cost of these strict regulations by asking the question, “When we close down a boys’ home or a girls’ home, a home that takes care of our children, these children either go into the streets or they go into someone else’s hands, isn’t the loss to this government itself?”
On the other hand, the government justifies these regulations by highlighting the national security concerns. However, this justification is increasingly viewed as a tool for polarising votes rather than safeguarding the nation. Archbishop D’Souza pointedly asked, “Does a Christian school affect national security? In the last 50 years, when has the Christian community engaged in any acts of terrorism?” Far from promoting violence or anti-national sentiment, these institutions are actively building and educating India. Look at the phenomenal life-saving efforts of Bengaluru-based institutions like St. John’s Medical College and the St. Joseph’s institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These represent just two of many similar examples across the nation that clearly demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the country.
Furthermore, stakeholders have expressed concern about the bill’s democratic integrity, highlighting the strategic timing of the legislative move. Archbishop Tharayil has observed that the legislation has been brought before the House precisely when a large number of MPs are preoccupied with assembly election campaigns across four states and one union territory. The absence of several key opposition voices has only deepened the suspicion that this is a deliberate attempt to push the measure through without the benefit of rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. As the Archbishop poignantly questioned, “To present this at this time and get it passed without discussions, is that the plan?” Attempting to push such a consequential piece of legislation forward in the absence of debate not only undermines the democratic process but also reinforces the perception that the state is avoiding transparent accountability.
The path forward must rely on a delicate balance between transparency and trust. While regulatory measures are undoubtedly necessary to prevent the misuse of funds, they should never come at the cost of the plurality of civil society. We need clear implementation processes, robust judicial checks and balances against the designated authority, and meaningful dialogue with the affected communities. Ultimately, the battle over the FCRA amendment transcends the mere regulation of foreign funds and forces us to ask whether we are safeguarding or dismantling the very idea of Indian democracy.
————————–
S Gerald Jacob is a PhD Scholar, Political Science, St Joseph’s Research and Innovation Council (SJRIC), St. Joseph’s University, Bengaluru, India, Email: [email protected]
Dr. Karamala Areesh Kumar, Head, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy (IRP and PP), St Joseph’s University, Bengaluru-560027, India, Email: [email protected], [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-3908-071X, Scopus ID: 57653964500.