India’s ambassador to the United States, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, issued a detailed “Myth vs Reality” explanation on X, seeking to counter criticism that the legislation could restrict legitimate foreign funding, target religious organisations or enable arbitrary government control of charitable assets.
The intervention followed objections from US Republican Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia, who alleged that provisions in the Bill could permit government takeovers of churches and religious charities. Moore described the proposal as an attack on Christians and warned that its passage in its present form could become a matter of concern in bilateral relations.
New Delhi had already rejected Moore’s criticism. External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said legislative matters were for Parliament to decide and pointed out that the United States and several other countries regulate foreign financial flows.
Kwatra broadened that response by arguing that regulation of overseas funding was neither unusual nor directed at a particular community. He cited foreign-influence and financial disclosure regimes operating in the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom while describing oversight of cross-border money as a widely accepted sovereign function.
The ambassador said the legislation does not prevent lawful civil society organisations from receiving overseas donations. Organisations working in health, education, disaster relief, research and humanitarian programmes continue to be eligible for foreign contributions provided they comply with registration, banking and reporting requirements.
He also challenged claims that the FCRA system had substantially reduced overseas funding for voluntary organisations. Foreign contributions received by registered organisations increased from about $1.2 billion in 2010-11 to roughly $2.67 billion in 2024-25, he said. Only about 14,450 organisations among the country’s more than three million non-governmental organisations currently hold FCRA registrations.
The proposed amendments have nevertheless generated concern because they expand the framework governing assets created partly or wholly from foreign contributions.
The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, creates a Designated Authority to supervise, manage or dispose of foreign contributions and related assets when an organisation’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or ceases because it has not been renewed or its renewal application is rejected.
Existing law already provides for foreign contributions and assets created from them to vest in a prescribed authority when registration is surrendered or cancelled. The 2026 proposal extends that framework to cases where registration ceases and establishes a more detailed mechanism for managing the affected assets.
Kwatra said the changes should therefore not be characterised as introducing wholesale seizure powers. Where registration is subsequently restored, renewed or freshly granted, the Bill provides for unutilised foreign contributions and relevant assets under provisional vesting to be returned.
Places of worship receive specific protection under the proposed legislation. The Designated Authority must ensure that the religious character of such property is maintained. The government has stressed that the FCRA applies uniformly regardless of religion, community or ideology and that faith-based education, charitable activity and maintenance of places of worship remain eligible for foreign funding within the regulatory framework.
Critics remain concerned about the consequences for organisations that fail to secure renewal. The Bill would allow assets created from foreign contributions to vest permanently in the Designated Authority if registration is not restored. The authority could then use the property for public purposes, transfer it to government agencies or dispose of it under prescribed procedures.
The proposed framework has also drawn scrutiny because the law does not provide a statutory appeal mechanism specifically against refusal to renew an FCRA certificate. Questions have consequently been raised over the safeguards available to organisations whose registrations lapse and whose foreign-funded assets could subsequently come under the authority’s control.
Home Minister Amit Shah has sought to address concerns raised by church groups and political representatives, assuring them that the proposed provisions would not operate retrospectively. Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma raised the issue during discussions with Shah and sought protections for charitable and religious institutions.
Opposition parties are also pressing for wider parliamentary scrutiny. NCP working president Supriya Sule has called for the Bill to be withdrawn in its present form or referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, while Congress leaders have accused the Centre of imposing excessive controls on voluntary organisations.
(IPA Service)
