By Kalana Senaratne

The struggle between Sri Lankan governments and NGOs is by no means a novel development; and their relationship, especially during the past decade, has been extremely tensed. The immediate aftermath of the tsunami disaster in December 2004 brought these tensions to the surface, with the JVP, for example, waging war against the NGOs largely due to its anti-imperialist ideology (as D. Sivaram pointed out in 2005).

This worsened during war-time, between 2006 and 2009, when the administration constantly portrayed the NGO community as an anti-Sri Lankan force. The government and many supporters of the war came to perceive NGOs as either directly or indirectly assisting the LTTE. Anti-war writings of NGO activists were considered (even by this writer) to be similar to throwing a lifeline to the LTTE. NGOs came to represent all that was considered to be against the country, their members amounting to anything from imperialists and neo-colonialists to separatists and LTTE-sympathizers.

However, this was part of a serious ideological battle. In attacking the NGOs, the Sinhala nationalists in particular sought to challenge and defeat a dominant narrative that the NGOs had believed in, and so influentially promoted: that the LTTE cannot be defeated. Therefore, the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009 was also a moment when the popular NGO-narrative was completely delegitimized. The NGO-community had to take a step (or a few steps) back, the unimaginable had indeed happened. What all of this meant in practical terms was something far more dangerous. Given that the defeat of the LTTE was also perceived as a defeat of the NGOs as the two were (often mistakenly) lumped together, the re-emergence of the NGOs post-war was always going to be perceived, inter alia, as a re-emergence of the LTTE/separatist agenda.

Come 2014, this happens. First, a directive from the NGO Secretariat that NGOs conducting “press conferences, workshops, training for journalists, and dissemination of press releases” acted “beyond their mandate” and were “unauthorized.” Then, the clarification from the External Affairs Ministry that this was merely a reiteration of the existing law, whereby NGOs registered with the NGO Secretariat were anyway liable to submit a report Annual Action Plans, detailing the type of activities they would undertake for the upcoming year; and to engage in any activity unconnected to the activities listed in the Annual Action Plan, was to exceed the mandate. And finally, the announcement that the government now intends to amend laws to ensure that all those non-profit groups and NGOs registered under the Companies Act (and which the above directive could not cover) were also to be brought within the purview of the NGO Secretariat, which operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Defence and Urban Development.

When considering the recent history of the struggle between the regime and NGOs, these developments are an unfortunate inevitability, an extension of a continuing battle. This is especially the case, now with an international probe strangulating the government. ‘Aluthgama’ too is a cause for serious concern, for NGO activities on these developments are bound to increase. The government is also irked by the approach certain NGOs and civil society activists have taken on the impending Presidential election. It is not their support for Ranil Wickremesinghe or Ven Sobitha that irks the regime. What’s irksome is the very fact that these groups are openly and quite vociferously taking on the regime, advocating for a change in the leadership.

This continuing struggle between the regime and the NGOs is not going to end anytime soon; and challenging the regime is not easy. Political support for the NGOs from the Opposition could be ineffective: the JVP is not the most committed defender of NGOs; and the UNP today appears to be less influential/powerful than some of the top NGOs in the country. The NGOs appear to be stronger as a collective, with the help of organizations such as the present Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).

This collective challenge involves a serious task; of breaking the ‘us’/‘them’ binary that has got promoted over time. The ‘us’ involves the government and all ‘patriotic’ forces, while the ‘them’ involves the NGOs/NGO-sympathizers. And central to this distinction is the notion of ‘agenda’: NGOs get portrayed and come to be defined as entities promoting agendas, while those opposing NGOs are considered to be entities without agendas.

But in principle, this distinction is largely a mythical one, or at best, is constantly in a state of flux. It’s not just the NGOs which have agendas, but governments and the states too. Politics entails the clash of agendas of governments, NGOs, political parties, activists and commentators; there are no agenda-less entities here (like kurukuru-less telephones). And one can, without equating the two groups to be one and the same, appreciate the remarkable similarities (at times, symbolic) between the two.

For example, take the ‘controversial’ issue of foreign-funding. The NGOs are often critiqued for receiving foreign funding to develop and execute projects. But one is unable to understand that foreign donors (states) and international financial institutions (some of which are the most undemocratic institutions in the world) are the prominent drivers behind the development projects of the present government (and they are being actively pursued).

Take also the issue of anti-government politics. NGOs may want to overturn governments, but every Opposition wants that too; and while NGOs want to curb powers of governments, governments want to remain in and retain their power. Just as NGOs engage in propagating their politics through various means, the government/state propagates a dominant ideology through media, educational institutions, religious leaders, different arms of the state, through art, music, novels, etc. NGO activists end up advising governments; government servants end up working in, or forming, NGOs. A government today that attacks the NGOs might, as the opposition tomorrow, need the help of those same NGOs. And perhaps ironically, a more critical gaze might show that the state and civil society groups may not really be at variance in their overarching politics on certain issues. As Prabodha Chinthaka Ratnayaka brilliantly argued recently, certain civil society groups which have dealt with the Tamil question post-war, appear to be equally or more nationalist-minded than the regime.

Therefore, the government/NGO distinction is never an enlightened/unenlightened kind of distinction; both entities are in the active pursuit of agendas. The distinction therefore breaks down. Then, in principle, the task would be to critique the agenda concerned where necessary – not this or that side of the alleged divide. At best, the contention lies in the question: which entity is hiding its agendas, the NGO or the government? Recent developments in the country, and the absurd explanations/justifications offered by government-actors, provide the answer to this question.

In such a context, the main task for the NGOs is precisely to be the opposite; to be more open and forthright about its politics. In a sense, this is inevitable, when the NGOs are pushed to the wall. More than ever before, the present demands such an open, honest, and responsible politics. In these trying times, that is bound to become the only rightful defense
.
COURTESY:THE NATION