Court’s reversal of government’s decision to block funds to Greenpeace in India from its headquarters is a blow to its illegal efforts to muzzle civil society voice.

The Delhi High Court’s reversal of the Union government’s decision to block funds to Greenpeace in India from its headquarters in Amsterdam is a blow to its illegal efforts to muzzle civil society voice. The court found “no material on record” that justified the government action.

The court said if the NGO had violated any law, it may be prosecuted, but it should be done under an appropriate law. "How do you (MHA) respond to the NGO's allegation. At least, you should say something. First you freeze the account then you investigate the case, which is very, very uncommon,” the judge said.

The government, or rather the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), didn’t have a legally tenable response other than the statement that Greenpeace International was on its watch list.

Reportedly, Greenpeace is not an isolated case. The MHA had put nine more donors on a “prior permission category” which meant that money from them cannot be transferred to Indian recipients without its clearance. The list included regular development partners such as DANIDA and HIVOS. The RBI had asked banks to be “meticulous" in complying with the MHA order.

The government was in the dock recently for preventing a Greenpeace activist from travelling to London to participate in a meeting with British MPs. She was stopped before boarding the plane at the airport without any clear justification. Reportedly, it was based on a lookout circular of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), with questionable legality.

The MHA’s paranoia of Greenpeace and other NGOs hark back to the days of the emergency when civil society organisations were viewed with extreme suspicion and many of them were blacklisted. In the new world order, when civil society’s role as both a facilitator of democracy and development, and a watchdog is acknowledged beyond doubt, only autocratic governments try to stifle them. With its action on Greenpeace, India has in fact joined the ranks of countries such as Pakistan, Hungary, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Russia and Venezuela, whose governments are paranoiac and intolerant to public dissent.

Governments’ paranoia of civil society appears to be a measure of its insecurity over public dissent. A report by The Economist says that an “intelligence dossier claiming that the activities of foreign-funded NGOs had cut India’s growth rate have sparked fears that Narendra Modi, the nationalistic new prime minister, will tighten the rules further.” During emergency, Indira Gandhi also feared that foreign funded NGOs were fomenting trouble.

If the government is transparent and accountable (two unavoidable features of democratic governance), why should it worry about civil society voices? Curbing the movement of activists and harassing them may be the norm in China and Sri Lanka, but it doesn’t befit the great democratic tradition of India.

As The Economist noted, “more and more autocrats are stifling criticism by barring non-governmental organisations from taking foreign cash.” In 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai highlighted three general principles to protect civil space. The ability to seek, receive and spend money is one of them.

It’s also time to reiterate the importance of civil society in governance and social development. For instance, The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), notes how the “success of development and participatory governance depends on both a robust state and an active civil society with healthy levels of civic engagement.”

Civil society organisations (CSOs)are not just advocates of change, but they play an important role in bottom-up development wherein they work with poor and marginalised communities that government often find hard to reach. CSOs have the capacity and reach to work in grey areas that governments, for legal reasons, cannot. They help develop and implement policies and programmes for places and communities that the government delivery systems fail to reach.

The World Economic Forum (The Future Role of Civil Society, 2013)summarises the importance of CSOs by their contribution to society - as a watchdog, service provider, capacity builder, expert, citizen’s champion and definer of standards among others. Most importantly, they also represent the idea of voluntarism for common public good.

Stifling the voice of a free civil society is as bad as stifling free media and other institutions of democracy. It certainly doesn’t befit modern India.