Had the government not been under pressure, it would have tried to push the FCRA, or Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, in Parliament.
But the students’ protest has perhaps taught it to tread with caution and give up its past tactics of bulldozing matters even while being on a weak wicket.
Take the Delimitation-cum-women reservation Bill, for instance. It was midway during the state assembly elections that the government had called a special session of Parliament to push through the Bill. Given that the government did not have the numbers, the Bill fell through and was defeated on the floor of the House. There were no surprises here because an astute government like the BJP could not have miscalculated or tripped on the numbers game or thought it would win when it did not. None of that. The purpose was more political rather than legislative. It was to position itself as a party which is pro-women and thus accrue an electoral advantage in the ongoing elections which were then underway. That was in April this year.
Fast forward to July and things underwent a dramatic change. Following the students’ protests over the NEET exam paper leaks, the government is on a backfoot.
The countdown started when the government was forced to relent on a near impossible demand of students seeking Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.
After that there seems to be no let up. The Opposition has held forth on several issues, including the FCRA Bill.
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on August 12 for examination. It is still under consideration.
Of course, the government did not give in completely, but went half way. While the Opposition had demanded that the Bill be withdrawn, the government deferred bringing the Bill to the House.
As things stand, the 31-member committee, comprising members of the Opposition and the ruling party, will submit its report in the forthcoming winter session of Parliament.
This is the second time that the government has had to defer bringing the Bill to the House, thanks to a pushback from the Opposition as well as Christian leaders in several non-BJP ruled states.
The Bill is a proposed amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the law that governs how Indian individuals, associations and companies may receive and use money, securities or articles sent to them from a source outside India.
Till the battlelines were not drawn both in Parliament and among political parties, the word FCRA was alien to the common man. Except for the beneficiaries, very few knew what this was all about. The word foreign funding was familiar, but its implications were not. At least not till the Parliament took it up.
Before the why and whereof, it is important to decode the provisions of the Bill, underscore the nitty gritty, and of course, examine why the Opposition is opposing it tooth and nail. At one level, it can be argued that it is the Opposition’s job to oppose and the government’s to propose, but is that the only reason or does the Opposition have enough arguments to counter the government’s claims?
But first the Bill and what it stands for.
Through the FCRA Bill, the government seeks a greater control over foreign-funded assets through a designated authority. This authority would be empowered to take over the management of foreign contributions and assets created using foreign contributions when an organisation’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or ceases because it is not renewed.
In its present form, the FCRA regulates foreign donations received by non-governmental organizations, trusts, societies, educational institutions and religious organizations.
Procedurally, any organization receiving foreign funding must obtain FCRA registration from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The registration must be renewed every five years, failing which the organisation cannot legally receive foreign contributions.
As of now, 16,000 associations are registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) framework, receiving nearly Rs 22,000 crore in foreign contributions annually.
According to the data cited in the Bill’s background, India had 14,449 active FCRA registrations as of July 15, 2026. At the same time, 22,498 registrations had been cancelled and another 15,212 had expired. Between 2019 and 2022, organisations with FCRA registrations received foreign contributions worth Rs 55,741 crore.
The Bill also proposes a minimum utilisation threshold for renewal. Organisations that have received or utilised less than Rs 10 lakh in foreign contributions during the previous two financial years may not be eligible for renewal of their FCRA registration.
Other proposals highlighted in the Bill include restrictions on transferring foreign contributions to other organisations, timelines for receiving and utilising approved foreign funds, and additional disclosure requirements under the accompanying FCRA Amendment Rules, 2026. These rules require organisations to specify the purposes for which foreign contributions will be used, the states where projects will be implemented, and details relating to their activities, websites and social media presence.
What has raised the hackles is the appointment of a designated authority which seems to be a bone of contention for those opposing the amendments.
The government has defended the proposed amendments, saying they are aimed at improving transparency and accountability in the use of foreign contributions.
While introducing the Bill, Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said its objective was to make the use of foreign contributions “more transparent and accountable”. He also said organisations working in line with India’s sovereignty and integrity would not face unnecessary hurdles, while action would be taken against those acting against the law or national interest.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has asserted that the FCRA amendment Bill only seeks to stop the use of foreign funding against national security and interests and not to target any religious organisation. He also sought to reassure organisations raising concerns, saying genuine institutions working for the country’s welfare would not be disturbed.
In fact, the word “genuine” is the key. While the government is justified in scrutinising the source and use or misuse of these funds, chances of it going beyond its mandate cannot be ruled out. Having said that, one cannot deny that accountability vis-a-vis foreign funds inflow is a must. As of now, it seems to be a “free for all” with money from countries coming in and being used for purposes other than what it is slotted for.
Even while there is no substantive evidence, there are enough indications that many agitations, be it the farmers protests or the anti-CAA protests were funded from outside India and by forces and entities inimical to national interests.
Add to this the allegations of the recent students protests being backed by a foreign hand. So, it makes sense that the government should step in to regulate this free flow.
What can be worse than criticism from US Congressman Riley Moore, who described it as “a clear attack against Christians” and warned it could become a bilateral issue between India and the United States. His argument: legislation could allow the government to take control of churches and religious charities. Even while the government has dismissed this as being India’s “internal matter”, US criticism on laws or their proposed amendment is certainly suspect.
Pitch this against the Opposition’s argument that excessive powers to the executive would adversely affect the functioning of NGOs and charitable organisations. If the Congress described the Bill as a “threat” to the minorities on grounds that it is an attempt to “intimidate and control” Christian institutions, the TMC called it a “draconian law” and “excessive executive control” over NGOs and other organisations working in the education and healthcare sectors.
That apart, several NGOs, churches and civil society organisations have expressed concern that assets created over many years using foreign contributions could come under the authority’s control if an organisation loses or fails to renew its FCRA registration. These concerns have been particularly vocal in Kerala, where several Christian organisations run schools, hospitals and welfare institutions that have historically received foreign funding.
There may be some truth in these arguments, but there is also enough evidence of misuse and diversion of funds to encourage an anti-India rhetoric and sentiment.
Therefore, against these arguments and counter arguments, what stands out is national interest; what gains supremacy is “country first”: what gets precedence is India, above all else. The government may be on a slippery ground when it comes to misusing the provisions of the new law—if it becomes one—but it certainly is on a strong footing on the issue of checking foreign funds to fuel agitations aimed at derailing the “India ahead” narrative.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator
The post Where Foreign Funding Meets National Interest appeared first on India Legal.