SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 2014
Imagine life without mobile phones now. But there are many who are suffering from the waves of those towers and they do complain. What's the option? Reduce connectivity? How many would like that? The only option, therefore, is to strike the best possible balance between development and pain. Our population has grown from around 36 crores in 1947 to 1.2 billion currently. That doesn't seem to bother anyone anymore. And the demands of this huge population are varied and endless. Under these circumstances the objective of the govt is "the greater good of the greater number". This is why an IB report pointing to a number of NGOs stalling the development of India, various projects, causing delays and acting for foreign vested interests has rattled the media and a lot of the NGOs. Almost all of these NGOs are extensively funded by foreign agencies.
Much of what the IB report says is nothing new and has been in the public domain for long. I don't even think the report got "leaked". I believe it was deliberately handed over to TimesNow by a rogue in the Home Ministry to sound a warning to many of these NGOs. Some of the smooth-criminals who have been a nuisance to various projects are in this pic:
Medha Patkar has been agitating against the Narmada dam for ages. Tagging along with her was Genocide Suzy (who hates everything about India). The SC had approved raising the height of the dam to 138 metres. On June 12, when the GOI approved the increase of 17 metres to the dam to the approved level, Patkar called it "illegal". So even the SC ruling is illegal for her. Having realised the stupidity of calling it "illegal", in later statements she calls it "undemocratic". I believe we have all seen how all the Commie undemocratic forces gathered under the comforter that Kejriwal has covered himself with. The Narmada dam provides water to millions of historically water-starved people in Saurashtra and Kutch besides other parts of Gujarat. Naturally, many residents around the dam would be displaced. It is right to protest and seek the best compensation for the displaced people but to agitate that dams shouldn't be built and they are illegal is essentially an anti-people, anti-national activity. That apart, Patkar's dubious foreign funding comes from vested interests which enables her to personally live a life of comfort while scavenging on the pain of others
Then there are others like Harsh Mander, Teesta Setalvad, and Shabnam Hashmi who have scavenged on riot victims of Gujarat. The more they lied the more funds they got from India, political parties and from abroad. I don't need to provide links because these rogues are now known for their fraudulent financial activities. Teesta has even reportedly used the "riot funds" for her personal shopping, jewellery and fine wines. SP Udaykumar is quite a character. On Timesnow he disclosed he had received lakhs of rupees from abroad, including some research funding from Ohio University. All that research money had nothing to with nuclear projects and nobody knows what research he did. Some "hippy" that Udaykumar referred to as a contact turns out to be an "agent" who carried hand-sketched maps of 16 nuclear plants in India. Oh yes, normal people do carry maps of nuclear plants in India, don't they? This scumbag led a serious and long protest against the Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu with no legitimate reason except fear-mongering. Obviously, Udaykumar was being influenced and funded by foreign crooks that have their vested interests in blocking some project or the other in India. And sure enough, the current "rent-an-agitation" warehouse manager, Arvind Kejriwal landed up in Kudankulam too.
The agitations by Patkar and other scavengers of misery have cost a lot. According to an estimate the delays in the last 10 years has cost nearly 45000 crores to the Narmada dam which is more than the cost of the project itself . The mysteries of that wonderful gang, called Greenpeace, is just about unravelling. It was long known that this group is in India to only create ruckus and nuisance for any project that benefits India. However, the crooks from this organisation, which originates from Canada, targeted only Indian organisations and projects and not projects by MNC. This series of tweets by IBTL shortens the story:
Greenpeace not only funded agitations in general, it even funded agitations by an AAP party member. If one looks closely, the AAP party is nothing but an Apex body of all such foreign-funded NGOs, most of them involved in anti-national agitations and activities. They are hell-bent on stopping every project that India wants to undertake in any territory. It's hardly surprising, therefore that the most popular form of management by Arvind Kejriwal is street agitations and dharnas. Nothing else suits them. For more on the various other NGOs like CRY, World Vision, MARAG who have been involved in unusual funding and money-laundering please read these posts: "Children as leverage" – Part1 and Part 2 as also "Confederation of Indian agitators". Some of these NGOs operate as children's services but are missionaries in disguise who seek to convert children to Christianity. That's their "return on investment". Some of them operated as "professional agitators" against projects in Gujarat.
Cordaid and HIVOS are Dutch organisations that are strangely exercising great interest in India. On June 11 in a discussion on Timesnow it turned out that Cordaid first operated in Kashmir for Human Rights and later suddenly turned to the North East sector. From human rights in Kashmir their attention turned to Palmolein and mining and Uranium in the NE. Both these NGOs are also known to have contributed a good deal of funds to, you guessed it, Arvind Kejriwal and his NGOs and IAC (read this post which has links to various reports). General Bakshi (retd) on Timesnow pointed out that there are 90000 tons of Uranium deposits in the NE but till date not 1 gram of Uranium has been extracted due to these NGO agitations and the influence they bring from the foreign govts controlling them. Given this, the following passage from the Sunday Guardian (April 2014) should not shock anyone at all:
"Hillary Clinton likes to operate through NGOs, which are given funding through indirect channels, and which target individuals and countries seen as less than respectful to her views on foreign and domestic policy in the target countries," a retired US official now based in Atlanta said. He claimed that "rather than US NGOs, (the former) Secretary of State Clinton favoured operating through organisations based in the Netherlands, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries, especially Norway" as these were outside the radar of big power politics. These NGOs were active in the agitation against the Russian nuclear power plant at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, with "funding coming mainly from a religious organisation based in Europe that has close links with France."
The IB report was probably put out to scare some of the errant NGOs but there is definitely a desperate need to get rid of foreign NGOs and foreign-funded NGOs whose actions are motivated not by genuine causes but by "political" persuasions of the country funding them. Some of these NGOs don't even have much cause to exist anymore. There was a time when the govt did not have a ministry for environment or statutory clearances as a requirement. Our courts too have been very active on these concerns. So for these "specialist" NGOs for quite a few causes are not really needed anymore. The only lame argument that will come up against this is "Govt is corrupt" but then these NGOs have proved equally corrupt too. The NGO domain itself has become one big profitable "business" industry and a tool for money-laundering. There are many politicians who operate NGOs to launder black money. They run educational institutions under such spurious NGOs.
One can't want to fly in jet aircrafts and complain about the noise. It's not a design flaw in the engine; it's the nature of the beast. The same applies to air force jets. Even their training flights cause enough noise to upset neighbouring residents. Ask the residents near Pune airport what noise those Sukoi training flights cause. Do away with those jets? The Mumbai airport is bang in the middle of the city and residents around the airport have to live with the noise of an aircraft every minute. Stop all flights? Airports at other metros are somewhat away from the city but residents still have to bear with the noise. There is a new Mumbai airport that is ready but that too will be surrounded with population. Of course, aviation engineers are constantly working on technology to reduce the noise levels of engines. Our "needs" turn into "wants" in no time and India is a country where a large population is still grappling with basic needs of life: water, housing, food, sanitation, jobs and so on. This lofty ideal of leaving a better planet for the future is adorable but it shouldn't imply much of the present population should live a miserable life.
There are, definitely, thousands of NGOs who are into genuine social service and healthy activities. However, the rogues mentioned in this post are the ones who are darlings of our media and get the most attention due to their constant "rent-an-agitation" operational mode. We have 3.3 million NGOs says Indian Expresswhich is nearly one for every 400 Indians. By that measure all of India's problems should have been well under control. If the poor are getting poorer and farmers commit suicides, then many NGOs too have to bear some responsibility for standing in the way of progress. I am in no doubt that most of the NGOs covered in the IB report (even far-fetched as accused by some) are not here to serve India. They are here to kill India. Softly!
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2014
If an organisation goes to a bank for a loan, one of the documents that are usually demanded is a "Fund-flow statement". This fund-flow is to show how and from where funds will be received and how they will be applied. This is a projection and can include the proposed loan sought from the bank. This is not to be confused with a cash-flow statement. The reason for analysing the fund-flow is to estimate if the unit can meet its objectives with the loan sought and if the application is a genuine estimate. The bank's main concern is, obviously, if the borrower will be in a position to return the money as scheduled. In case of NGO-funding the donor doesn't seek a monetary return. The donor pays money with belief in the stated mission of the NGO. Over the last week, the leaked IB report on NGO activities caused a flutter among some NGOs and quite a few of our media folks and celebrities. Some of them have foolishly compared foreign donations to NGOs to FDI. In terms of cash-flow it may appear the same; that is foreign money flows into the country's economy. But FDI as we know it is not free. Business and venture FDI is returnable, it's a liability and demands a measurable return on the investment. In case of NGOs it is neither returnable nor a liability. For the NGO it is an "income" (mostly tax-exempt). The only return an NGO-donor seeks is the pursuit of the "agenda" that the NGO laid out.
The "agenda" as declared to the govt and general public and as pursued by an NGO through the dictates of a large donor can often be at variance. It is naïve of some to think that anti-national agendas are going to be formally declared by an NGO. Naturally, such "hidden agendas" are not easy to prove which is why our media crooks harp on "legality". However, just as in a murder "circumstantial evidence" also receives due consideration by a court the actions of an NGO and its "hidden agenda" can be established by circumstantial evidence. This is why you get meaningless blabber as that coming from a raging Barkha Dutt:
Some of the NGOs named in the IB report aren't merely expressing "opinions" and it is surprising that TV-soap peddlers who seek the drama of agitations feign ignorance.Greenpeace (GP) and some others aren't merely expressing "opinions". Their "opinions" are often expressedphysically and sometimes invasively. Arvind Kejriwal, as Chief Minister, doing a Dharna in Delhi (on R-Day eve in a high-security zone) and obstructing normal life of citizens when his Dharna neither has permission nor is legal is not a legitimate way of expressing "opinion". He should have been arrested and prosecuted but was let-off. But hey, our media folks and Bollywood Bimbos cry "war" when they perceive a threat to "celebrity NGOs". One such Bollywood Bimbo is Nandita Das who calls the IB report an attack on civil society. She is the one who famously said on TV "I have a small kid, how can I live in this country" (In case Modi became PM and "secular" forces were defeated in election). And after saying that she promptly went abroad to give anti-Modi speeches and didn't bother to vote. That's the kind of sanctimonious bimbos who speak for democracy. We have been watching their concern for India for quite a while now.
How our ignorant media folks and Bollywood celebrities rant on some issues without much clarity is best explained in this humorous response to Barkha by R. Vaidyanathan an IIM-B professor and an expert on finance and economy:
No foreign funding for NGOs in some countries? Oh well, it is okay for India because we are poor or were. But foreign funding for NGOs need not be a natural birthright and if some Western countries don't allow it, there must be good reason. Ghulam Nabi Fai? Remember that? Even other experts like Surjit Bhalla harped on the same issue of "funding" when funding is not the only issue where certain NGOs are concerned. It is what those funds are applied for that is also important. Of course, if there are any illegalities in the funding process that adds to the crimes. And what is this outrage about? Of the 3 million plus NGOs in this country, only a handful have been named in the IB report as indulging in anti-national activities and that constitutes an "attack on civil society"? That's like the Congress saying the killing of their members by Left-wing extremists in Chattisgarh is an "attack on democracy". All other mass killings are fine and are normal killings and not an attack on democracy? A newspaper reported the following:
That simply means many of the NGOs who got funds under FCRA simply had a free run with donations and without any accountability. Along with FDI many foreign organisations also bring in newer technology to operations. Some foreign NGOs aren't different in that they too bring "technology" to agitations and protests. This technology involves carefully crafted agitations and objectives and often aims to overthrow govts. Lately, it has come to be known as "sponsored revolutions". In the response to Surjit Bhalla's uncharacteristic protest against the IB report V HariKiran best narrated the understanding of the issue and I recommend you read the whole post. Here's a brief excerpt:
"First and foremost any protest or attempts to delay projects need not break the law.There are myriad of ways in which one can protest without breaking the lawbut with the clear and deliberate intent of stopping or stalling the projects. This point does not need elaboration here. The focus of IB is not on law but intent… I am at loss on the tone and tenor with which to react to his lament that IB report is "tight lipped" about institutions and officials in the UPA government agreeing with the recommendations of these FFNGOs. Suffice it to say that IB's job is certainly not to write a thesis on "Development economics in Emerging Countries- Challenges and Solutions." IB is an investigating agency not the Economics department at JNU, their job is not to write about the views and actions of all the stake holders".
This part is a brief introduction to the series on the crimes of certain NGOs who indulge in anti-national activities. And like the Bollywood Bimbo, it need not be confused as an attack on India or civil society or on all NGOs. In this series we will look deeper into the funding and agitation technology of these NGOs.
NGO Funding & Agitation Technology - Part 2
There is place for all opinions in a democracy. There is abundant room for protests and agitations. These are not hindrances to a democracy but its essence. But time is equally of essence. How long do we protest and agitate? How long do two parties keep insisting their opinion must prevail? In the end either some compromise is worked out or one party wins the battle by the acceptance, defeat or death of the other. Don't look too far for an example of compromise in differing opinions. The partition of India was opposed by a large number of people but those in power made the compromise. We moved on. Unfinished debates usually take a deadly turn. We have seen that for Telengana too, haven't we? Kashmir? Some countries wage wars to settle difference of opinion. Some people even kill footballers for losing a match in the World Cup through self-goals. Therefore, the argument that there is place for all opinions in a democracy is true but the debate cannot be forever. On critical issues someone has to bring the curtains down.
In the case of Narmada Dam it took the SC to bring the curtains down. But even that is not acceptable to Medha Patkar. What will be acceptable to her? That all her opponents die so she can prevail? We protest, we agitate, we stall and all that is fine. But surely, the SC of this country or the parliament has to be accepted as the final arbiter. One cannot go on forever with "only my opinion should prevail" kind of agitation. That then is not merely opinion; it is intolerance for an opposing view to succeed lawfully. There are still those tricksters who argue Narendra Modi is not "legitimately" elected to the PM's office. They can continue to retain their opinions but our democratic process has definitely brought an end to that debate. The problem with the Medhas, Greenpeaces and Kejriwals is that any other outcome other than that of their choice is unacceptable to them, even if lawful and legally endorsed.
Of these, Greenpeace (GP) is the McDonald's of NGOs. They operate in 40 countries have 28 regional offices, thousands of staff and unknown number of volunteers. Let's read a bit of what former GP founders say. This is an excerpt from ex-founding member Paul Watson (on the anti-whaling adventures of GP):
"Greenpeace is a major international corporation. Over the years, those of us wh