Interview
with a Christian missionary
Fr Dr Jose D. Maliekal SDB has served for over three decades in social
action and educational ministries in India, running schools and outreach
programmes for the marginalized, drawing from Gospel values of service and
justice. As he responds to this Interview on FCRA,
he foregrounds the deep apprehensions among Catholics and other minorities
regarding constitutional overreach and potential government takeover of our
institutions.
How do you interpret the intent behind India’s FCRA regulations? Do you
see them as justified?
The FCRA aims to regulate foreign funding to prevent misuse for
non-humanitarian purposes, which is justifiable in principle to ensure national
security. However, recent 2026 amendments expand government powers excessively,
allowing license denials and asset seizures without due process, seen by many
Catholics as executive overreach violating Article 26 on religious freedoms.
How does this Act affect Christianity in India? Do you think the primary
target of FCRA is Christianity in India?
FCRA severely hampers Christian NGOs by blocking foreign aid essential
for our work, leading to over 70% of religious NGOs losing registration and
ceasing operations. While not explicitly targeting Christianity, its
disproportionate effect on faith-based groups fuels fears among minorities that
it indirectly curtails evangelization and service.
Where do you draw the line between
humanitarian work and faith-based outreach? Should the two be separated?
For us missionaries, humanitarian aid is inseparable from faith—service
to the poor embodies Christ's love, as in Matthew
25. Forcing separation would sterilize our work,
ignoring how faith motivates charity; regulation should respect this integral
link without suspicion.
Have the FCRA restrictions tangibly
affected schools, hospitals, social initiatives, etc run by your congregation
or the Church in general?
Yes, restrictions have closed clinics in tribal areas and slashed school
scholarships, with my congregation losing funds for remote Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
projects. This disrupts education for Dalit children and healthcare for the
poor, heightening minority fears of institutional erosion.
How has the ban on transferring funds between NGOs altered grassroots
work, especially in remote or marginalised communities?
The sub-granting ban prevents channelling resources to local grassroots
partners, crippling work in marginalized villages where we lack direct
presence. Remote communities now face abandoned wells and orphanages,
amplifying Catholic concerns over diluted federalism and near-strangulating state
control.
Why, according to you, did Indian government choose to restrict the good
works done by groups for the marginalised people by enacting legislations like
FCRA?
The government cites curbing conversions and foreign influence, but we
see it as politically motivated to nationalize charity under majoritarian
narratives. This restricts good works for Dalits, Adivasis, labourers and other
marginalised groups, betraying constitutional secularism and minority
protections. In effect, these restrictions are directed towards negating the
agency at various levels of the Subaltern groups and homogenizing them, under
the Hindutva agenda.
What concerns you most about the proposed provisions allowing government
control over NGO assets?
Most alarming is the power to seize assets upon license expiry, even
without wrongdoing, enabling arbitrary takeovers of schools and hospitals built
over generations. Catholics fear this as unconstitutional plunder, undermining
Article 30, which ensures rights to manage minority institutions.
As a missionary, do you feel your work
is being misunderstood in today’s political climate?
Absolutely, in today's climate, our service is branded as
"conversion tactics," ignoring decades of selfless aid. This
politicization breeds hostility, with minorities dreading surveillance and
shutdowns as preludes to state domination.
If service becomes suspect and charity becomes regulated, what happens
to the moral imagination of a society?
Regulated charity turns compassion into bureaucracy, suspecting givers
and eroding trust. Society loses its ethical core, whereas voluntary service
fosters solidarity. Minorities worry that recent Amendments to FCRA paves for
authoritarian control over civil space.
Do you see this moment as a crisis or an opportunity for the Church in
India to redefine its role?
This is a profound crisis threatening our prophetic role, but it calls
the Church to self-reliance, local funding, and bolder advocacy for justice. By
highlighting overreach, we can rally for constitutional safeguards protecting
all minorities. Let me give certain pertinent details:
Recent Advocacy on 2026 Amendments
CBCI has publicly opposed 2026 FCRA Bill provisions for executive
overreach and asset seizures, urging review without filing suits yet; experts
anticipate writ petitions under Articles 14, 26, 30, and 300A in High Courts or
Supreme Court. No major Catholic-led suits against 2026 changes are reported as
of March 2026, shifting to advocacy amid fears of minority institution
takeovers.
CBCI has raised strong objections to the 2026 FCRA Bill, viewing its
provisions as a direct threat to minority rights and institutional autonomy.
Their arguments center on executive overreach and violations of constitutional
protections for religious communities.
Undue Interference in Minority Institutions
CBCI argues the Bill enables "undue interference" in Catholic
schools, hospitals, and social centers by empowering the government to dictate
operations and staffing, contravening Article 30's guarantee of minority rights
to administer educational institutions. They highlight how vague "national
interest" criteria could politicize oversight, targeting faith-based
groups disproportionately.
Asset Seizure Powers
A core concern is the provision for automatic asset forfeiture upon FCRA
license cancellation or expiry, even without proven violations, labeling it
"dangerous overreach" that risks state takeover of properties built
through decades of charity. This, CBCI contends, breaches Article 300A's right
to property and Article 26's freedom to manage religious affairs.
Lack of Due Process and Transparency
CBCI criticizes the absence of appeal mechanisms or judicial review
before license revocations and seizures, calling it arbitrary executive fiat
that undermines federalism and equality under Article 14. They warn it stifles
humanitarian work for the marginalized, equating regulated charity with
suspicion.
Broader Threat to Civil Society
The bishops frame these changes as eroding India's secular fabric,
urging withdrawal or revision to protect all NGOs while preserving
accountability without targeting minorities. This stance echoes their advocacy
for dialogue over litigation amid rising apprehensions.
Comments
Post a Comment