In the modern geo-political landscape, the presence of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) cannot be gone unnoticed. They tackle critical work that the government/administration has progressively abandoned and do some impactful change. That said, in her short essay titled The NGO-ization of Resistance, writer and activist Arundhati Roy makes an astute criticism against the ever increasing number of NGOs within the country after the neoliberalisation of India during the 80s and 90s, and their influence on deradicalizing major social and grassroot movements. She further discusses the phenomenon in the global landscape, particularly with the clinical precision through which US intervenes developing nations and their NGOs trying, at least outwardly/in the eyes of the first world media, to ‘clean up’ after the devastation left by the intervention without acknowledging their own accountability.

This essay will take a closer look at her critique and relate it to that of the early history of Hyderabad Pride Walk using Pushpesh Kumar’s essay. Further, the essay will look at the author’s own experiences with the Hyderabad division of Make A Difference (MAD) and its criticism using Roy’s lens.

An Infestation of NGOs and their "De-Politicized" Modus Operandi

Since most NGOs are hyper focused on one specific issue, and since there are an uncountable number of issues in our world, there seems to be a large number of operating NGOs, whether it be purely on paper or on practice. And more are hatched every day. A primary reason as to why the large number of NGOs should be concerning is due to the fact that it makes auditing and verifying the work done by the said NGOs rather difficult and borderline impractical. Further, due to the tax benefits they enjoy from the union government, they can be used as a front to siphon off otherwise mandatory taxes. Hence there is a fundamental problem as to how NGOs could be set up as a loop-hole mechanism for the wealthy. But that is still not the primary concern Roy discusses in her essay.

As Roy rightfully pointed out, the depoliticized NGOs are a rather sinister mechanism to establish political stability by the oppressive state, using the idea that there exists an organizational pillar that could help the people in the absence of the state – something that the state is obligated to provide in the first place. But unfortunately, unlike an effective intervention the state could make, the NGOs have no ‘real’ power to establish sustained and impactful change to communities they strive to help (Roy, 2014).

Not only do NGOs fail to make lasting contributions, but they effectively cut off the possibilities of a grassroot led mobilization from the local leaders. Moreover, the people that could’ve made a political change within their communities are recruited into the folds of the NGOs, thereby diluting their potential to make true change – and that is the revolution Roy’s title refers to. In an article writing about Roy’s essay and the white saviour complex within the students of McGill University, Yasir Piracha writes, “By depoliticizing issues that are political by nature, NGO clubs can unintentionally transfer blame to the community itself. Self-described “apolitical” organizations may neglect to acknowledge the origin of a community’s suffering, and by doing so, imply that it is somehow the community’s fault” (Piracha, 2017).

Hampered Queer Movements of Hyderabad

In his article, Radicalising Community Development: The Changing Face of the Queer Movement in Hyderabad City, Pushpesh Kumar briefly chronicles the recent history of the newly formed state of Telangana and the part trans people played in the formation, and about the recently started annual queer pride marches. He tries to find answers as to why Hyderabad was so late in developing any noticeable queer movements like the way other cities of similar stature have done in the past. Kumar writing from his own experiences and those of other queer people in the city, explains that the many of the elite queer people in the city were comfortable staying in the shadows – free of political turmoil and exhausting amount of work that must be done in the field; and even the most “progressive” corporations played a hand in it by enacting strict policies against anything queer until the 2010s. When the first pride march took place in 2013, and the subsequent one in 2014, NGOs and their corporate sponsors played a critical role in trying to appropriate and brand the march for their own portfolios.

But the trans-leadership that formed around the time of the groundbreaking NALSA judgement, took the reins of the pride march and other queer movements in and around the city, and encouraged democratic and intersectional participation. Hence, taking power away from NGOs and redistributing it to the people of the said communities was a critical step. Vyjayanthi Mohali, a trans-activist, answered the question ‘why do we need to keep the corporate sector (and NGOs) out of the queer politics?’ explained, “I will answer this question in one sentence by drawing an analogy. The reason we need to keep the corporate out is the same as why we need to keep the HIV out of human body. In as much as we need to keep HIV virus or bacteria or any external infection out of human body, people’s movement needs to be safeguarded from the corporate to maintain the democracy and to pre-empt co-opting of social movements” (Kumar, 2017).

Did They Really Make Any Difference?

Make A Difference (MAD) is an NGO working to educate children mostly living in private and public shelter homes. They are one of the major brands in the Indian NGO space. While what they do, on the surface level at least, is commendable; there exists a myriad of problems internally. My personal experience with MAD was polarising at best. On the one hand, it was enjoyable working in their Public Relations (PR) team, where I was able to meet with many interesting people. On the other hand, the concern and critiques Roy, Kumar, Piracha, and Mohali make stands valid for MAD as well.

The primary concern of the organisation is the brand image it has cultivated around itself. An elaborate guideline of things that should be done and things that should not be done were enforced within the ranks – albeit, always with a smile on their face. The second priority went into raising funds, and only after that they are concerned about the “mission” of the organisation that is to educate underprivileged children. This backward priorities hampers the functionality of the volunteers by a significant margin, and prioritising things such as renting a large venue for a ‘dream camps’ for a small number of children – which is used to generate bountiful photo ops and promotional materials, when all that money could be put into elsewhere more productive are some of the frustrating things I have personally encountered during my stay with the organisation.

Further, most of the volunteers coming from fairly well off background unknowingly exhibit the saviour complex during their stay and many more join the organisation not because they believe in the message, but as a means to fatten their own resumes for later use. One of the arguments that was thrown at me when confronting my immediate superiors in the chain of hierarchy was “half done is better than nothing at all”. Which at that point I agreed with, but now have come to realise that it creates a problem: “NGOs end up interfering with local resistance groups by dictating the agenda of support and employing local activists in the communities they wish to aid. Activism becomes an employable skill, and resistance becomes a career. While providing jobs, NGOs are also neutralizing the radical resistance movements that have traditionally been self-reliant. Local activism and grassroots movements are being submerged in a sea of well-intentioned but ultimately less effective NGOs” (Piracha, 2017).

Conclusion

While some NGOs do some major work, like the NAZ Foundation in terms of advancing the LGBTQ rights, most fail to do any lasting change at all. Roy’s criticism of NGOs and other corporate sponsored organisations does little to no work at all, but moreover they actively harm/incapacitate the good that the grassroot revolutions and movements could achieve. Institutions like the UN and the World Bank cutting resources during a crisis like the HIV/AIDS epidemic, only to pump it back years later via NGOs contribute to exacerbating the issues which could’ve been dealt with appropriately in the first place.

Such, Arundhati Roy’s real consequences of real revolution hampered by the interference of NGOs and an indifferent government has only become more relevant as each year has passed since its first publication.