NGO'S Foreign Funding - A Security Threat

[hello_10]

India's Transition to Global Donor: Limitations and Prospects (ARI)
India's Transition to Global Donor: Limitations and Prospects (ARI) - Elcano

Theme: India has increasingly sought to expand its activities as a donor, both to reposition itself as an emerging power and to use aid as an instrument for engaging with other developing countries. This ARI looks at the current state of India's donor programme as regards both its size and scope, identifies India's role within the multilateral aid scenario and evaluates the challenges and prospects for further growth.

Abstract: India has expanded its aid programme over the past decade, emerging as a serious donor in certain countries. While the amounts remain small, India's emergence has focused attention on its possible motives.

The term 'emerging donor' has, over the past decade, become an accepted part of the development world's lexicon, providing further evidence of the rise of emerging economies. This does not mean that the donors themselves are new. What is new is an increased recognition globally that emerging donors are now a viable complement, and in some cases a substitute, to aid from traditional donors.

The emergence of these donors is particularly evident now because it occurs at a time when the developed world faces fundamental questions about its own socio-economic model. The financial crisis has undermined confidence amongst OECD countries, put their aid commitments in doubt and given rise to questions about their social welfare and free market models. It is into this vacuum that India has willingly stepped in to offer its own philosophy of development and growth.

Disbursements by emerging donors were estimated at €8.5 billion in 2006.[1] While small (aid by OECD donors in 2006 totalled €103.9 billion),[2] the competition that these donors insert into what was once an oligopoly of high-income OECD nations has caused much consternation in development circles: China's aid programme has prompted both awe and fear;[3] India's stirs a mix of confusion and frustration abroad and pride and criticism at home.

India started its aid programme soon after independence, with the budget speech of 1958 referring to INR100 million in multi-year grants to Nepal and an INR200 million loan to Myanmar.[4] Since then, but particularly over the past decade, India's aid programme has evolved substantially, growing both in scale and ambition.

This paper analyses the evolution of India's giving in recent years. However, rather than simply describing what India gives and to whom, it primarily looks at three related questions: (1) what are the main characteristics that distinguish India's aid?; (2) as India grows into a global donor, how is it likely to view multilateral engagement?; and (3) against the backdrop of almost certain growth in giving in the future, what are the challenges and options ahead?

Analysis

Defining India's Giving

At the outset it is worth establishing what constitutes aid in the context of India's donor programme. Like most emerging donors, India's aid-related activities do not follow the traditional definition of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Rather, an alternative definition can be considered: spending that furthers India's standing as a donor. There are three parts to that spending, namely grants and preferential bilateral loans to governments, contributions to international organisations (IOs) and financial institutions (IFIs), and subsidies for preferential bilateral loans provided through the Export Import (EXIM) Bank of India.

In 2010 India's aid-related budget allocations were INR36.66 billion[6] (US$785 million in current dollars), a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.9% from 2004 to 2010. In addition, the EXIM bank in 2008 approved loans and guarantees worth INR352.47 billion with US$3.75 billion in operative lines of credit (see Table 2 and Graph 1).

These numbers, while big, cannot compare with the giving of China or any of the established donors (China is estimated to have donated US$616 million in 2007 to Africa alone).[7] Thus, India's ability to use its aid well depend not on how much it gives, but rather on how it directs its aid and what else it offers.

Towards this end the country's multilateral budget has increased rapidly. In 2008 and 2009 India spent INR30,719.4 and INR67,630 million respectively (US$2.1 billion) towards increasing its IMF share quota (IMF investment accounted for 66% of the entire budget in 2009). India has also been an enthusiastic donor to the World Food Programme (WFP).

Secondly, these deficiencies expose India to the entire risk of aid giving, in particular allegations of neo-colonialism (a criticism often directed at OECD donors) or of undermining human rights (a criticism directed at China). Any move to expand direct aid should thus be made with caution.

Conclusions: There is no doubt that recent changes to India's aid programme mirror a more general re-think of India's role in the world. Responding to increasing ambitions the programme has evolved to be more global, economic and bilateral. India has sought to engage more closely with the multilateral system, while creating its own niche within the development universe by remaining distinct from other donors.

China has often used aid to facilitate access to natural resources. India's approach, by contrast, is described by Kragelund[15] as being 'on a smaller scale, a bit tardier and not spurring the same dichotomous reactions'. It can be argued that this has prevented India's giving from realising its full strategic potential. However, that smaller scale and tardiness have also prevented India from tripping up on its own good intentions in what is still an early period of its programme.

The risk is that as India increases its giving it may try to achieve too many things –political pre-eminence in its vicinity, economic links with East Africa and access to strategic resources (natural or military) in Burma or West Africa–. As that happens, India will expose itself to the same criticisms levelled against China and against traditional donors –a risk amplified by India's institutional limitations that hinder transparency and accountability–. In short, India's ambitions will continue to outstrip available resources and capabilities.

Those limited resources should therefore be used as much to gain direct leverage as to promote India's private and non-profit sectors in the developing world. Collaboration with other donors can happen, so long as it promotes those general principles. What is needed is a more conscious, transparent and cohesive approach to develop this strategy, rather than the current opportunistic one, because these sectors have always been India's strengths.

Dweep Chanana
Advisor to private and institutional philanthropists with a Swiss private bank

India's Transition to Global Donor: Limitations and Prospects (ARI) - Elcano

If India doesn't want our aid, stop it now, Cameron told after country labels £280m-a-year donations as 'peanuts'
6 February 2012

David Cameron was under intense pressure last night to slash the £1billion in aid Britain gives to India after the country said it no longer wanted the money.

India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee said the booming country should 'voluntarily' give up the £280million a year it receives from Britain. He told the Indian parliament: 'We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development spending.'

It also emerged that in a leaked memo dating from 2010 India's then foreign minister Nirupama Rao suggested India should not accept any further aid from Britain's Department for International Development because of the 'negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID'.

Sources in Delhi suggested British officials begged India to accept the aid. One commented: 'They said British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate.

'They said it would be highly embarrassing if [India] pulled the plug.'

The revelations raised fresh questions last night for ministers who have been struggling to defend the Indian aid programme in the face of criticism from the public and Conservative MPs.

They also risk raising fresh questions about the Coalition's controversial decision to pour billions more into foreign aid at a time of deep spending cuts at home. Tory MP Philip Davies called for the Indian aid programme to be cancelled immediately.

Mr Davies said: 'India spends tens of billions on defence and hundreds of millions a year on a space programme – in those circumstances it would be unacceptable to give them aid even if they were begging us for it.

'Given that they don't even want it, it would be even more extraordinary if it were to be allowed to continue.

'There will be millions of hard-pressed families wondering why on earth the Government is wasting money in this way.'

Fellow Tory Douglas Carswell said: 'This is concrete proof that Britain's aid programme is run in the interests of Whitehall officials and the DFID machine.

'The fact is that India's economy is growing much faster than our own. We should be encouraging free trade with them and trying to learn from them rather than handing out patronising lectures.'

Tory MP Peter Bone urged ministers to abandon the 'vanity project' of pursuing a target to hand out 0.7 per cent of the UK's entire national income in aid.

He said: 'India has its own foreign aid programme so it is absurd for us to be still giving them aid. They are more than capable of looking after their own issues.

'As for the 0.7 per cent target, it is a vanity project that is being pursued for no good reason at all. I do not understand the Government's position on this and I don't think the British public do either.'

Some critics in India have also questioned the value of the aid, warning that much of it is lost to corruption and bureaucracy.

As recently as 2010 the country was the biggest net recipient of British aid, receiving £421million.

Despite India's rapid economic development the International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell decided last year to approve a further £1.1billion in aid over the next four years.

The timing of the latest revelations is particularly embarrassing for ministers, coming in the wake of India's decision last week to reject the British-built Typhoon fighter jet as preferred candidate for a £13billion defence deal.

Mr Mitchell said last year that the continuing aid programme was partly 'about seeking to sell Typhoon'.

British foreign aid: India tells Britain 'we don't need the peanuts you offer us' | Mail Online

 

[hello_10]

.

'No UK aid even if India comes begging'

`No UK aid even if India comes begging`

`No UK aid even if India comes begging`

@ FARHAAN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR MOON MISSION

nahiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

the above news is welcomed and its good if the British government live in the above belief. as it would at least avoid "Pig Talks" before any big deal/ tender like MRCA

 

[hello_10]

double post

 

[hello_10]

further to the above post of mine, one major example i give of the news as below. when i was celebrating 3rd rank of Indian economy by 2007 on PPP, at $5.16 trillion in 2007 by the old method which was adopted by both World Bank and IMF till 2007. (i was in Canning Vale in Perth that time, i remember). and within just few months, they changed this old way of measuring GDP on PPP



i do remember Indian economy on PPP came down to even 5th rank by 2008 by this new method, below to Germany too in 2007, and then only "mentality" of these Western War Champions could be fed........ and it was also very similar to my experience of watching attacks on the Indians students doing Master level studies by under high school passed locals. half of them are in fact drug addicted and were proving their superiority over those international students by those attacks

i have enormous experience of politics organized around mine since 2007, and attacks on the Indian origin were going on in US/UK/Canada during 2009-10 too, check. and once a gentleman said, "those Western Kids who are making these attacks. are mostly dependent on Welfare, while the Indians are the highest tax paying people, and their kids grow on the 'after tax' money of their Indian Parents. and thats why these local 'youths' are attacking on the Indians."

my effort is just to discuss the 'mentality' of these Foreign Funded NGO's :thumb:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-rank-top-education-income-6.html#post776923

its simple that a nation is made by its people, who may develop new technologies and improve the existing ones. nothing came from sky and nothing will ever come from sky, and we need those people who may make the nation proud from their knowledge/talent/ performance.

Indian migrants are those who pay very high tax as they fall in very high income bracket, least dependent on the Welfare and the least crime rate is registered from this community living in US/EU. many Indians came under business visa after investment in US/west itself, while most of them are very high qualified and are part of developing technologies to run the US's firms, and are doctors/ CA/ business professionals too to help them run businesses etc....

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-rank-top-education-income-6.html#post776923

 

[hello_10]

just to complete my last post, there was a certain relation between the attacks on the Indian Origins in US/UK/Australia/Canada during 2009-10, and the graph as below. here we may clearly see that 2008 Recession was the certain year since when Mexicans started going back to Mexico. and the same type of news we have about Indian Origins coming back to India since 2009 in the thread as below too.......... i mean to say, until the most competent/ most qualified Indians were moving to US/West, they were happy but when they started coming back to their home countries, they were on attack........
(its not about going to US/West or coming back, but since 2008, professionals live in a thinking that "you can't work for those Western Firms for longer which always require 'bail-outs' on time to time. and even if you earn rupees with an Indian firm, they will only grow in future." and also, there is no more big gap of technologies between Western and Asian firms, as we had during 90s.....)

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...061-india-china-gain-reverse-brain-drain.html

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...weaken-economy-hurt-americans.html#post743516

(and i have also confirmed that i did see few Pakistani/Bangladeshis too, having Hindu Type stings on the hands, who were brought to fight "in behalf of Indian Students" to make this issue a 'problem'. but the issue couldn't become problem as visa application by the Indian students fallen by 2/3rd by 2010. as no one would pay $15,000 per semester fee to fail in exams.......... it was similar to how Azmal Kasab was brought to fight in behalf of 'Indian' Muzahidin, with having Hindu type stings as below: :ranger:

 

[hello_10]

Activists bristle as India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs
May 19, 2013

Amid an intensifying crackdown on nongovernmental groups that receive foreign funding, Indian activists are accusing the government of stifling their right to dissent in the world's largest democracy.

India has tightened the rules on nongovernmental organizations over the past two years, following protests that delayed several important industrial projects. About a dozen NGOs that the government said engaged in activities that harm the public interest have seen their permission to receive foreign donations revoked, as have nearly 4,000 small NGOs for what officials said was inadequate compliance with reporting requirements.

The government stepped up its campaign this month, suspending the permission that Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), a network of more than 700 NGOs across India, had to receive foreign funds. Groups in the network campaign for indigenous peoples' rights over their mineral-rich land and against nuclear energy, human rights violations and religious fundamentalism; nearly 90 percent of the network's funding comes from overseas. :ranger:

"The government's action is aimed at curbing our democratic right to dissent and disagree," Anil Chaudhary, who heads an NGO that trains activists and is part of the INSAF network, said Tuesday. "We dared to challenge the government's new foreign donation rules in the court. We opposed nuclear energy, we campaigned against genetically modified food. We have spoiled the sleep of our prime minister."

In its letter to INSAF, the Home Ministry said the group's bank accounts were frozen and foreign funding approval suspended because it was likely to "prejudicially affect the public interest."

A government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the government is not against criticism. But when an NGO uses foreign donations to criticize Indian policies, "things get complicated, and you never know what the plot is," the official said, adding that NGOs should use foreign donations to do development work instead.

The United States is the top donor nation to Indian NGOs, followed by Britain and Germany, according to figures compiled by the Indian government, with Indian NGOs receiving funds from both the U.S. government and private U.S. institutions. In the year ending in March 2011, the most recent period for which data are available, about 22,000 NGOs received a total of more than $2 billion from abroad, of which $650 million came from the United States.

Asked last week about the Indian government's moves against foreign-funded NGOs, a U.S. State Department spokesman said the department was not aware of any U.S. government involvement in the cases. The spokesman said such civil society groups around the world "are among the essential building blocks of any healthy democracy."

The situation in India is not unlike the problems that similar groups face in Russia, where a law passed last year requires foreign-funded NGOs that engage in loosely defined political activities to register as "foreign agents."

Action after nuclear protests

Trouble for many nonprofit activist groups here began more than a year ago when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed groups from the United States for fomenting -anti-nuclear protests that have stalled the commissioning of India's biggest reactor, a Russian-backed project in Koodankulam in power-starved Tamil Nadu state.

U.S. officials, including Peter Burleigh, the American ambassador at the time, quickly moved to assure Indian officials that the U.S. government supports India's civil nuclear power program. And Victoria Nuland, then the State Department spokeswoman, said the United States does not provide support for nonprofit groups to protest nuclear power plants. "Our NGO support goes for development, and it goes for democracy programs," Nuland said. :ranger:

Although Singh was widely criticized for his fears, the government froze the accounts of several NGOs in southern India within weeks.

"All our work has come to a stop," said Henri Tiphagne, head of a human rights group called People's Watch. "I had visited [the] Koodankulam protest site once. Is that a banned territory?"

But the government's action appears to have had its desired effect. "NGOs are too scared to visit Koodankulam or associate with us now," said anti-nuclear activist S. P. Udayakumar.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said many NGOs are afraid to speak up about the suspension of their foreign funding approval, which is "being used to intimidate organizations and activists."

Analysts say the government's way of dealing with dissent is a throwback to an earlier era. But Indian authorities have been particularly squeamish about criticism of late. As citizens have protested corruption and sexual assaults on women and demanded greater accountability from public officials, authorities have often reacted clumsily — including beating up peaceful protesters and cracking down on satirical cartoons, Facebook posts and Twitter accounts.

Donors look elsewhere

Officials say NGOs are free to use Indian money for their protests. But activists say Indian money is hard to find, with many Indians preferring to donate to charities.

A recent report by Bain & Co. said that about two-thirds of Indian donors surveyed said that NGOs have room to improve the impact they are making in the lives of beneficiaries. It said that a quarter of donors are holding back on increased donations until they perceive evidence that their donations are having an effect.

"They give blankets to the homeless, sponsor poor children or support cow shelters," said Wilfred Dcosta, coordinator of INSAF. "They do not want to support causes where you question the state, demand environmental justice or fight for the land rights of tribal people pitted against mighty mining companies." :ranger:

INSAF, whose acronym means "justice" in Urdu, has seen its portion of foreign funding increase significantly during the past 15 years. Now it receives funds from many international groups, including the American Jewish World Service and Global Greengrants Fund in the United States, and groups in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

The top American donors to Indian NGOs include Colorado-based Compassion International, District-based Population Services International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"It is not a question about money, it is a fight for our right to dissent," said Chaudhary. :thumb: "I don't need dollars to block a road."

Activists bristle as India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs - Washington Post

Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body

Read more at: Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body | Firstpost

In what is perhaps the first international reaction to the Indian government's heightened scrutiny of NGOs receiving foreign funds, the United Nations Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya has in a report presented at the ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva expressed concern about the new regime introduced by Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010.

The more stringent FCRA, 2010, which replaced the FCRA of 1976, came into force on 1 May 2011.

In her report (presented on 5 March) on the situation of human rights defenders in India, Sekaggya has observed that some of the provisions of the new Act "may lead to abuse by the authorities when reviewing applications of organisations which were critical of authorities".

The statement by the Special Rapporteur gains significance, coming at a time when the Home Ministry has been turning up the heat on foreign-funded NGOs and the Prime Minister himself only a few weeks ago pointed fingers at US-based NGOs for fuelling the anti-nuclear protests at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu.

Incidentally, among those who spoke at the session after the Special Rapporteur presented her report, was Henri Tiphagne, executive director of People's Watch, a Madurai-based human rights organisation, which was sent a notice by the FCRA wing of the Home Ministry in early February.

In his oral statement at the UN, Tiphagne raised the issue of government action on NGOs in Tamil Nadu.

"In recent weeks, NGOs in Tamil Nadu have been targeted on allegations of opposing the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, presenting an example of abuse of this law with any due process adhered to." Read full statement here.

Tiphagne, just back from Geneva and on a short visit to Delhi, spoke to Firstpost about the significance of the UN Special Rapporteur's statement.

"The effort here is to see that procedures that are put in place for the scrutiny of NGOs are transparent and accountable. It is not to say that government should not use FCRA. After all, when we are asking for accountability from the government, from the corporates, accountability of NGOs is also welcome.

"But take the example of the recent notices from the Home Ministry to NGOs in Tamil Nadu. They make no mention of Kudankulam, of diverting funds, of fuelling protests. By simply citing 'prejudicially affecting public interest', you are stopping funding. This amounts to gagging. The government has to show cause that the NGO is diverting funds or that answers provided by the NGOs are not satisfactory."

Tiphagne, an advocate, says that the FCRA has in the past been an Act that has not been properly implemented.

"That is the government's own fault. Now, this legislation which is supposed to improve standards of accounting is being used to clamp down on NGOs that are expressing dissent. And the government is trying to link that dissent with organisations that are receiving foreign funds. You are doing complete injustice to the poor with this of justification. To thwart dissent by saying it is being fuelled by another country is the wrong approach."

The government in its response to the Special Rapporteur's report, while conceding that some of the provisions of the public security laws and the FCR Act "may be abused by authorities involved, in the execution of such laws", has given assurance that "we are conscious of the need to ensure accountability of the law enforcement officials and have taken due note of her concerns".

The Special Rapporteur visited India in January last year, during which she met over 350 human rights groups, top bureaucrats and police officers, members of the human rights commissions, judges from the Delhi High Court, members of the diplomatic community and members of the UN agencies in Delhi, Bhubaneshwar, Kolkata, Guwahati, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Jammu and Srinagar.

Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body | Firstpost

 

[hello_10]

further to the above topic, we have estimate of total Foreign Aid, Indian government has allocated this year for other countries, as part of Indian Annual Budget. its around INR 5,500, closed to $.10billion (around $950 million) as below: :thumb:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-receiver-donor-foreign-aid-3.html#post753474

CHENNAI: Even as the anti-Sri Lanka mood in Tamil Nadu is getting more belligerent, the Centre has increased its annual grant to the island nation in the Union Budget. The allocation has gone up to Rs 500 crore for 2013-2014 from Rs 290 crore last year. It was Rs 181.94 crore in 2011-2012. The Budget has allocated Rs 5,550 crore as aid for foreign governments and organizations.

India increases aid to Sri Lanka - Times Of India

 

[hello_10]

further to the above topic, we have estimate of total Foreign Aid, Indian government has allocated this year for other countries, as part of Indian Annual Budget. its around INR 5,500, closed to $.10billion (around $950 million) as below: :thumb:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-receiver-donor-foreign-aid-3.html#post753474

typing mistake, foreign aid by Indian government is closed to $1.0billion, as in aunnual budget 2012-13 :thumb:

 

[hello_10]

just to complete my last post, there was a certain relation between the attacks on the Indian Origins in US/UK/Australia/Canada during 2009-10, and the graph as below. here we may clearly see that 2008 Recession was the certain year since when Mexicans started going back to Mexico. and the same type of news we have about Indian Origins coming back to India since 2009 in the thread as below too.......... i mean to say, until the most competent/ most qualified Indians were moving to US/West, they were happy but when they started coming back to their home countries, they were on attack........
(its not about going to US/West or coming back, but since 2008, professionals live in a thinking that "you can't work for those Western Firms for longer which always require 'bail-outs' on time to time. and even if you earn rupees with an Indian firm, they will only grow in future." and also, there is no more big gap of technologies between Western and Asian firms, as we had during 90s.....)

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...061-india-china-gain-reverse-brain-drain.html

once i open mouth, i then get responsible to provide more information....... the above trend of Immigrants moving back from US/West, can also be understood by few basic information as below.

1st; only 63% "Working Age People" of US have any type of jobs, which excludes house wives, students, early retired people too, as below. hence its clearly understood that if you may secure a good job back home then its not worth living in US/West for nothing? as now we have every facilities available in developing countries too, the difference is lesser now :ranger:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...weaken-economy-hurt-americans.html#post743505

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

2nd; an overall picture of today's US's society is explained as below thumb:

=> More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare - Save America Foundation


3rd; basic facts of today's US is listed as below: here we find, less than 65% Working Age People there have any source of income while 53% employed work for less than $30,000 (18 lacs in US's prices)

40 'Frightening' Facts On The Fall Of The US Economy
05/27/2013

If you know someone that actually believes that the U.S. economy is in good shape, just show them the statistics in this article. When you step back and look at the long-term trends, it is undeniable what is happening to us. We are in the midst of a horrifying economic decline that is the result of decades of very bad decisions. 30 years ago, the U.S. national debt was about one trillion dollars. Today, it is almost 17 trillion dollars. 40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the United States was about 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is more than 56 trillion dollars. At the same time that we have been running up all of this debt, our economic infrastructure and our ability to produce wealth has been absolutely gutted. Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of good jobs have been shipped overseas. Our share of global GDP declined from 31.8 percent in 2001 to 21.6 percent in 2011. The percentage of Americans that are self-employed is at a record low, and the percentage of Americans that are dependent on the government is at a record high. The U.S. economy is a complete and total mess, and it is time that we faced the truth.

The following are 40 statistics about the fall of the U.S. economy that are almost too crazy to believe...

#1, Back in 1980, the U.S. national debt was less than one trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 17 trillion dollars...

#2, During Obama's first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

#3, The U.S. national debt is now more than 23 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president.

#4, If you started paying off just the new debt that the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.

#5, The federal government is stealing more than 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.

#6, Back in 1970, the total amount of debt in the United States (government debt + business debt + consumer debt, etc.) was less than 2 trillion dollars. Today it is over 56 trillion dollars.......

#7, According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001. That number dropped to 21.6 percent in 2011.

#8, The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#9, According to The Economist, the United States was the best place in the world to be born into back in 1988. Today, the United States is only tied for 16th place.

#10, Incredibly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been permanently shut down since 2001.

#11, There are less Americans working in manufacturing today than there was in 1950 even though the population of the country has more than doubled since then.

#12, According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit.

#13, When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars. By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.

#14, Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little "m") for the entire year. In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.

#15, Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.

#16, According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

#17, Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#18, At this point, an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

#19, Small business is rapidly dying in America. At this point, only about 7 percent of all non-farm workers in the United States are self-employed. That is an all-time record low.

#20, Back in 1983, the bottom 95 percent of all income earners in the United States had 62 cents of debt for every dollar that they earned. By 2007, that figure had soared to $1.48.

#21, In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

#22, According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

#23, The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have as much wealth as the bottom one-third of all Americans combined.

#24, According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either "poor" or "low income".

#25, According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#26, Overall, the federal government runs nearly 80 different "means-tested welfare programs", and at this point more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of them.

#27, Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#28, As I wrote recently, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

#29, At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.

#30, Right now, there are approximately 56 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.

#31, Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

#32, Today, the number of Americans on Social Security Disability now exceeds the entire population of Greece, and the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the entire population of Spain.

#33, According to a report recently issued by the Pew Research Center, on average Americans over the age of 65 have 47 times as much wealth as Americans under the age of 35.

#34, U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.

#35, As I mentioned recently, the homeownership rate in America is now at its lowest level in nearly 18 years.

#36, There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing. That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.

#37, 45 percent of all children are living in poverty in Miami, more than 50 percent of all children are living in poverty in Cleveland, and about 60 percent of all children are living in poverty in Detroit.

#38, Today, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.

#39, When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Now, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.

#40, According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of "Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming."

40 'Frightening' Facts On The Fall Of The US Economy | Zero Hedge

 

[hello_10]

further to the "Pig Talks" between India and Britain before any big deals like MRCA, as explained in my posts #19, #20, we have a thread to state the current economic state of whole Eurozone as below too: :thumb:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/europe-russia/43996-uk-eurozone-crisis-live-9.html


=> and who are those to involve India in different pig talks before any big businesses from India, one is the gentleman speaking in India in behalf of his voters as below: :thumb:

David Cameron delivers address at Infosys Bangalore: Full Text
July 28, 2010

The Tata Group is now the largest manufacturing employer in Britain. And more than 180 Indian companies have invested in our IT sector. :thumb:

Indian companies employ 90,000 people in the UK. Many more jobs in Britain exist thanks to the activities of British companies in India. :thumb: Now I want to see thousands more jobs created in Britain :thumb:, and of course in India through trade in the months and years ahead :ranger:. That is the core purpose of my visit.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/d...-address-at-infosys-bangalore-full-text-40412

and this gentleman is himself representative of the society as below, in fact

=> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ng-abroad-for-better-financial-prospects.html

 

[hello_10]

and who are these USA's/Western funded NGO's who are seeking "INSAF"/ "JUSTICE" for Indians in India? have a look on the current state of their own society as below. and this is what they finally want to do in India itself

India Could "STILL" maintain the most Admired Cultural Background of the World

India could 'still' keep the crime rates down, even after 66 years, while being in touch with rest of the world too


Crime Comparison between the two largest Democracies of the World

with considering the facts that Indians don't get social security/ free medical etc like USA too.


Comparison based on per 100,000 (lakh) people

=> India tops world murder count - Times Of India

1st,

The number of rape cases was maximum in the US which recorded 93,934 such assaults followed by South Africa 54,926 and India 18,359.

here, Rapes in Western Democracy of US = 93,934/ 3000 (100,000) = 31.31

Rapes in Eastern Democracy of India = 18,357/ 120,00 (100,000) = 1.53


2nd,

There were 32,719 incidents of murder recorded in India, whereas there were 16,692 in the US

Total Murders in Western Democracy of US = 16,692/ 3000 (100,000) = 5.56

Total Murders in Eastern Democracy of India = 32,719/ 12000 (100,000) = 2.73


3rd,

The US topped the crime list with 2,31,13,708 total crime related incidents, whereas India registered overall 50,26,337 criminal cases.

Total Crimes in Western Democracy of US, based on Welfare = 2,31,13,708/ 3000 (100,000) = 7704.6

Total Crimes in Eastern Democracy of India, (no Welfare people) = 50,26,337/ 12000 (100,000) = 418.8

=> India tops world murder count - Times Of India

Total Crime Ratio between the two largest democracies of the world = 18.4


And yes its also a fact that all these dramatic increase in Murders, crimes, mainly Rapes, started during last 7-8 years only, check the data's. we even find India to be dropped 25 points on the corruption ranking in just 5 years, out of hardly 180 countries, as below. the very first outcome of inviting the Western Culture and their all the good and bad.

and i have said before, if the Indian government doesn't take proper steps to control influence of Western Culture, then soon they will have to build more jails for those people who dont even have house, and living in slums..........

=> India 72 in corruption index in 2007

=> India ranked 94th in Corruption Perception Index ratings by 2012


=> Overall Picture of the two largest Eastern and Western Democracies of the World

While Americans represent about 5 percent of the world's population, nearly one-quarter of the entire world's inmates have been incarcerated in the United States in recent years.[clarify][3] Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hello_10]

The Key Findings of the Posts to Date is as below:

1st; first time in last 200 years of US's History, since 1850, Mexicans population suddenly fallen, a "rush" to leave is seen in this graph, following trend of other immigrants since 2008 Recession post#23. the different wars by US since 2008 is their last efforts before they find the highest tax people leaving US is masses

2nd; around 37% Working Age Population of US dont have any source of income, which excludes house wives, students early retired people. along with the highest number of people dependent on Food Stamp, to feed themselves. so, is there any reason why immigrants would leave, at least those who don't get even welfare???? post#27.

3rd; there is always a "Pig Talks" between India and US/UK for big businesses like MRCA, because they give aid to India while India gives much more aid to other countries...... post#20

4th; Britain is the country where 90% people would prefer to run from there, but they want to help Indians in India. those who can't help themselves, want to help others .

=> Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects - Telegraph

more than 20% of British employees are earning less than a living wage

Working for nothing – the truth about low pay in the UK | Society | The Observer

5th; India, having $1.0 billion foreign aid for different nations, post#25 & 26, is facing growing problems from those Foreign Funded NGOs, mainly funded from US, who want to fight for "INSAF"/ "JUSTICE", for Indians post#24. and the last post confirms 18.4 times high crime rates in US than India, a non-welfare society. hence, those who can't build their own society, want to fight for "JUSTICE"/ "INSAF" for Indians in India

6th; Professionals immigrants started coming back to India since 2009 as there is a common talk in different institutions, that "most of the saturation would occur by 2020. technological gap between western and Asian firms would reach its least by 2020, if we don't find any new technology by any country, US/West, which may change the world. and it may then sell that technology to others for high prices, which is very less likely."

7th; without offering 'equal' voting rights to Indian civilians in the general election of USA, they want to have every interference in India, posts# 6 & 9. which itself states about US/Western society based on 20 times higher crime rate than India. having luxurious life without proper educational background, has finally made them in the position to organize crimes/wars in rest of the world, and India is their prime target. and its very similar to my experience of watching Local Youths receiving Welfare attacking on the highest tax paying Indians, whose kids grow on the after tax money of Indian parents. post#22

War is the biggest business of world, if you may win it. and after losing almost all the wars, US is on their last efforts to get something done in this world. Black President by late 2008, followed the trend of of rush of Mexicans going back since that recession.

Being inferior is the biggest blame, and they are with every strength to fight with this growing condition imposed on them. they simply want to fight with those who may kill them, as discussed as below too

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ans-rank-top-education-income.html#post616984

 

[hello_10]

bit more to 4th point of the above post, this 20% British employees, working for less than living wage of $6.08 ponds per hour, excludes those 35% working age people who dont even have any job

(prices in US/UK is much higher as compare to India, always keep in mind. a coffee on the streets of sydney cost $3.2 while its arund Rupees 30 in India, and tea at INR10, hardly.)

New research indicates that more than 20% of British employees are earning less than a living wage.

Workers on the bottom rung of the earnings ladder received a leg up on Saturday, as the national minimum wage increased from £5.98 to £6.08.

Working for nothing – the truth about low pay in the UK | Society | The Observer

from here, see how this gentleman talks in India in behalf of his voters, post#28, and compare it with the "pig talks" before any big tender like MRCA of post#20 :ranger:

 

[hello_10]

i have wealth of experience of the things i have seen since 2007. and i may bet that half of the prisoners of US, post#29, are there because of Cocaine/ Drugs related offences, check.........

from here, along with activities of US's funded NGOs who are fighting for INSAF/ JUSTICE for Indians in India, we also have a thread as below to discuss "attitude" of Western War Champions on the side of Climate Change as below too

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ping-countries-climate-change.html#post615383

Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks

World Development Movement report accuses developed countries of threatening behaviour at climate change summits

Leading figures in western governments have been accused of using bullying tactics with developing countries during climate change summits.

The criticisms will cast a shadow over the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which begins tomorrow, in the latest attempt to stabilise greenhouse gas levels around the world.

A new report, published by the World Development Movement, contains previously unpublished testimonies from insiders at both the Copenhagen and Cancún climate summits in 2009 and 2010. Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

In one section the report criticises threats by richer countries to withdraw funds to help poorer nations cope with climate change if they failed to sign up to the accord. It says: "The US and the UK openly stated that climate finance would be limited to those that signed up to [it]. Ed Miliband, the UK minister, was blunt about linking the funding of developing countries with accepting the accord. The concerns he raised must be duly noted, he said, 'otherwise we won't operationalise the funds'."

The authors add: "The US said they would deny climate finance to Bolivia and Ecuador because they had objected to the Copenhagen accord proposal. The EU's Connie Hedegaard had also suggested that the small island-state countries "could be 'our best allies because they need finance'."

One diplomat from the tiny Polynesian island of Tuvalu said at the time: "Can I suggest that it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future? Mr President, our future is not for sale."

It is a standard tactic at UN climate meetings for rich countries to try to divide and rule developing countries' negotiating groups. Developing countries admit they are bamboozled by the tactics and are often unable to keep up with the negotiations.

One diplomat told the report's authors: "At one point in Copenhagen there were 26 meetings taking place simultaneously. How can a developing country delegation of two people possibly hope to cope? These numbers are life and death. There is no intention to agree a fair scenario, whether voluntary or by obligation. It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!"

Another diplomat said: "There is the small stuff, like travels, scholarships, jobs, but the favours are also small stuff, or so it seems, until the implications come in, especially for developing countries' interests in general. And then there is always the threat to cut off funding for a project, or something, if one gets too aggressive."

In Cancún last year the rich countries created a new system of meetings. "It created confusion, it was so hard to challenge this and to say procedurally this is wrong. Procedures were totally ignored. If this would happen in Fifa the whole world would be scandalised!" WDM was told.

Bolivia felt particularly aggrieved by UN tactics in Cancún, where its representatives lobbied for deeper cuts in emissions than richer countries were prepared to accept.

According to a Bolivian diplomat, their delegation agreed to participate in a side-meeting on condition that no plenary meeting took place at the same time.

The diplomat said: "Three minutes after they left the hall, an official plenary [to adopt the outcomes of the Kyoto protocol] started. It was a deliberate trick! We could only lodge reservations, and run to try and find our senior negotiators and get them back in to the room."

Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks | Environment | The Observer

 

[hello_10]

If India doesn't want our aid, stop it now, Cameron told after country labels £280m-a-year donations as 'peanuts'

British foreign aid: India tells Britain 'we don't need the peanuts you offer us' | Mail Online

in fact, its not about only supporting India all the times. but as i grew up in India so we know why Indian Politicians called it 'peanuts'? we do know their expectations, as in the latest scam as below, worth around $28billion, shared between last two governments..... totally corrupts from top to bottom........

=> 10 facts on Rs 1.86 lakh crore 'Coalgate' loss

 

[hello_10]

.
once you start getting wealth, you do need to to have enough security also. and here its worth stating the current economic state of common Indian Middle Class, which is growing at a fast rate too........

=>

Per Capita Income of India

British Left around 2% to 5% rich and rest poor in 1947, out of total 347 million population in 1947, while we now have around 350 million Middle Class of India whose Per Capita Income is well over $20,000+ on PPP now, similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc.


=> GDP per Capita of India on PPP by 2013

Considering the method which was in application till 2006, by both World Bank and IMF

We have new GDP Per Capita on PPP calculation for India considering the year 2013 also, as below:

now poverty of India is because of its over population. Most of the problems of India is because of its Over Population and India has to reduce its population only. otherwise India has around 350mil Upper Middle Class, more than total population in 1947, whose per capita income on PPP is similar to the Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc. one day I calculated as below:-

first, we find GDP on PPP of India was $4.8tn in 2012 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2007. as, till 2006, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include estimated undocumented part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 50% to 80% higher, and for the middle order countries like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% to 25% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3% by that "Old Method" which was in application till 2006. like as below:

"There are, however, practical difficulties in deriving GDP at PPP, and we now have two different estimates of the PPP conversion factor for 2005, India's GDP at PPP is estimated at $ 5.16 trillion or $ 3.19 trillion depending on whether the old or new conversion factor is used," it said.

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - Times Of India

means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2007, higher than Japan that year, making it the 3rd Largest Economy on PPP by 2007 itself this way.

again we have India's growth rate since 2007 as below:

India GDP Annual Growth Rate


here we find, "Average Growth Rate" of India from first quarter of 2008 till the December quarter 2012, stood at around 7.6%, on 'annual' basis. hence considering GDP on PPP of India at $5.16tn in 2007 by Old Method as above, with the estimated 5.0% growth by 2013, we may calculate its value by 2013, after 6 years since early 2008, as below:

GDP on PPP of India by end 2012 = 5.16*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.076*1.05= $7.81 trillion on PPP

but we would also get to know that PPP value consider value of goods and services in US$ term, means we would also include the factor of inflation of United States also. and if we consider average 2.0% inflation of US for these 6 year in between early 2008 to 2013, with considering an overall factor of just 1.12 this way, then GDP on PPP of India comes around = 7.81* 1.12= $8.75tn by 2013. and it still hasn't included 'Value Added' effects........

again, we know that share of agriculture would be around 17.0% in India's GDP in 2013. therefore, we find share of agriculture in indian economy, 0.17 * 8.75= $1.5 trillions (around), on which 50% population of india is dependent. means around 600mil people based on agriculture in india have per capita income around = $2,500 on PPP by 2013 this way, which is itself similar to the better side of Lower Order Countries like Bangladesh.....

this way, 8.75 - 1.50 = $7.25tn is left for rest of 600mil people based in industry and service in India, with per capita income of around $12,100 on PPP which is higher than Middle Order Countries like Brazil, South Africa etc..........

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook//rankorder/2004rank.html


again, we have news that 25% of the population of cities are either in slum or in bit better condition only. so we would consider per capita income of 300mil living in cities in low condition at hardly $3,000 which takes a share of $900 billion from its GDP. hence we are then left with around 7.25 - 0.9 = $6.35 trillions for the rest of 300 mil people living in cities, the so called Middle Class of India with per capita income around $21,166 on PPP this way.

but it is estimated that out of total 600mil people based in agriculture sector, it also has around 50mil Lower Middle Class with Per Capita Income around $15,000 on PPP. (as we know that agriculture has higher share of 'undocumented' part, with that, Agriculture also has higher share of non-taxable business of India.) Hence, we find total middle class of India around 350mil with per capita income around $20,000+ on PPP which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland etc, which is more than total population of India at the time of freedom in 1947

=>

Office rentals in Mumbai and Delhi continue to be among the highest in the world, beating the likes of New York, Washington or Shanghai despite a depreciating rupee. Renting office space in Mumbai and Delhi costs over $65 and nearly $73 per square meter a month, while the same costs $63 in New York $48 in Washington and $41 in Shanghai, property consultancy firm DTZ said in a report.

Mumbai, Delhi office rentals top Shanghai, New York - Economic Times

=>

Most Expansive Places to Live
15-10-2012

5th Moscow $17,566 per sq.m.

7th Singapore $16,350 per sq.m.

10th Mumbai $11,306 per sq.m.

12th Sydney $8,774 per sq.m.

20th Shanghai $6,932 per sq.m.

29th Istanbul $4,569 per sq.m.

47th Dubai $3,393 per sq.m.

54th Bangkok $2,996

68th Kuala Lumpur $2,182 per sq.m.

73rd Jakarta $,2099

World's most expensive cities

=> with the estimated 350million Indian Middle Class, whose Per Capita Income on PPP at around $20,000, which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Saudi Arabia, Poland, Argentina etc, we also have an estimate of Upper Class of India as below: :thumb:

in the report as below, mention around 115 Billionaires in India, as compare to hardly around 60 by Forbes. its because Forbes estimate only Share values, while the report as below includes, "shares in public and private companies, residential and investment properties, art collections, planes, cash and other assets, according to Wealth-X...". :ranger:
World's Billionaire Club Grows; Ultra Millionaires Lose Money - WORLD PROPERTY CHANNEL Global News Center

and here is the main report, as below :thumb:
Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report 2011-2012 | Wealth-X

also, we may have an overall look on the UHNW of the whole world by this report as below:

=> further to the above talks, BRIC economies as whole have their UHNWI estimate, with India's at around 8,200, is given in the article as below:

BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion

The future of wealth will be built with BRICs.

According to new data from Wealth-X, the wealth research and consulting firm, Brazil, Russia, India and China now have a combined 25,600 people with $30 million or more in net worth (which includes shares in publicly traded and closely held companies, residential and investment real estate, art, planes, cash and other investible assets).

That is about half the number of ultra-high-net individuals in the U.S., according to Wealth-X.

The BRIC ultrarich have a combined net worth of $4.125 trillion, compared to $6.4 trillion for the U.S.

What is most interesting about the BRIC data is the concentration of wealth at the very top of the wealth pyramid. In Russia, the nation's 80 billionaires account for 7% of the total population of people with a net worth of $30 million or more, but they own 84% of that group's $640 billion in wealth.

In Brazil, the nation's 50 billionaires account for less than 1% of the ultrarich population but a third of the group's $890 billion in wealth. India's 115 billionaires represent 1.4% of the total ultrarich population and 20% of the group's wealth of $945 billion. :ranger:

China's billionaires account for 1% of the ultrarich and about a third of their wealth of $1.65 trillion.

The U.S., of course, isn't exactly a model of equity when it comes to billionaires and the ultra-rich. Its 450 billionaires account for less than one percent of the ultra-rich population but control 25% of the group's $6.4 trillion wealth.

But the fastest global growth in billionaires and their lesser ultra-rich aspirants will likely be from the BRICS rather than the U.S. or Europe.

"In Russia, as in other emerging markets"¦.billionaires and near-billionaires, followed in aggregate by the mass of ultra-high-net-worth will dominate wealth," according to Wealth-X.

Which country would you want to live in if you had a net worth of $30 million or more?

BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[hello_10]

India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs
11 June 2013

Activists accuse government of stifling their right to dissent :ranger:

Food not thought "¦ the Indian government wants NGOs to use foreign funding for development work, not criticising national policy. :ranger:

Amid an intensifying crackdown on non-governmental groups that receive foreign funding, Indian activists are accusing the government of stifling their right to dissent in the world's largest democracy.

India has tightened the rules on non-governmental organisations over the past two years, following protests that delayed several important industrial projects. About a dozen NGOs that the government said engaged in activities that harm the public interest have seen their permission to receive foreign donations revoked, as have nearly 4,000 small NGOs for what officials said was inadequate compliance with reporting requirements.

The government stepped up its campaign recently, suspending the permission that Indian Social Action Forum (Insaf), a network of more than 700 NGOs across India, had to receive foreign funds. Groups in the network campaign for indigenous peoples' rights over their mineral-rich land and against nuclear energy, human rights violations and religious fundamentalism; nearly 90% of the network's funding comes from overseas. :ranger:

"The government's action is aimed at curbing our democratic right to dissent and disagree," said Anil Chaudhary, who heads an NGO that trains activists and is part of the Insaf network. "We dared to challenge the government's new foreign donation rules in the court. We opposed nuclear energy, we campaigned against genetically modified food. We have spoiled the sleep of our prime minister."

In its letter to Insaf, the home ministry said the group's bank accounts were frozen and foreign funding approval suspended because it was likely to "prejudicially affect the public interest". :ranger:

A government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the government is not against criticism. But when an NGO used foreign donations to criticise Indian policies, "things get complicated, and you never know what the plot is", the official said, adding that NGOs should use foreign donations to do development work instead.

The US is the top donor nation to Indian NGOs, followed by Britain and Germany, according to figures compiled by the Indian government, with Indian NGOs receiving funds from both the US government and private US institutions. In the year ending in March 2011, the most recent period for which data is available, about 22,000 NGOs received a total of more than $2bn from abroad, of which $650m came from the US.

Asked about the Indian government's moves against foreign-funded NGOs, a US state department spokesman said the department was not aware of any US government involvement in the cases. The spokesman said such civil society groups around the world "are among the essential building blocks of any healthy democracy".

The situation in India is not unlike the problems that similar groups face in Russia, where a law passed last year requires foreign-funded NGOs that engage in loosely defined political activities to register as "foreign agents".

Trouble for many non-profit activist groups in India began more than a year ago when prime minister Manmohan Singh blamed groups from the US for fomenting anti-nuclear protests that have stalled the commissioning of India's biggest reactor, a Russian-backed project in Koodankulam in power-starved Tamil Nadu state.

US officials, including Peter Burleigh, the American ambassador at the time, quickly moved to assure Indian officials that the US government supports India's civil nuclear power programme. And Victoria Nuland, then the state department spokeswoman, said the US does not provide support for non-profit groups to protest nuclear power plants. "Our NGO support goes for development, and it goes for democracy programmes," Nuland said.

Although Singh was widely criticised for his fears, the government froze the accounts of several NGOs in southern India within weeks.

"All our work has come to a stop," said Henri Tiphagne, head of a human rights group called People's Watch. "I had visited [the] Koodankulam protest site once. Is that a banned territory?"

But the government's action appears to have had its desired effect. "NGOs are too scared to visit Koodankulam or associate with us now," said anti-nuclear activist SP Udayakumar.

Meenakshi Ganguly, south Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said many NGOs were afraid to speak up about the suspension of their foreign funding approval, which is "being used to intimidate organisations and activists".

Analysts say the government's way of dealing with dissent is a throwback to an earlier era. But Indian authorities have been particularly squeamish about criticism of late. As citizens have protested corruption and sexual assaults on women and demanded greater accountability from public officials, authorities have often reacted clumsily – beating up peaceful protesters and cracking down on satirical cartoons, Facebook posts and Twitter accounts.

Officials say NGOs are free to use Indian money for their protests. But activists say Indian money is hard to find, with many Indians preferring to donate to charities.

A recent report by Bain & Co said that about two-thirds of Indian donors surveyed said that NGOs have room to improve the impact they are making in the lives of beneficiaries. It said that a quarter of donors are holding back on increased donations until they perceive evidence that their donations are having an effect.

"They give blankets to the homeless, sponsor poor children or support cow shelters," said Wilfred Dcosta, co-ordinator of Insaf. "They do not want to support causes where you question the state, demand environmental justice or fight for the land rights of tribal people pitted against mighty mining companies."

Insaf, whose acronym means "justice" in Urdu, has seen its portion of foreign funding increase significantly during the past 15 years. Now it receives funds from many international groups, including the American Jewish World Service and Global Greengrants Fund in the US, and groups in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

The top American donors to Indian NGOs include Colorado-based Compassion International, Washington DC-based Population Services International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"It is not a question about money, it is a fight for our right to dissent," said Chaudhary. "I don't need dollars to block a road."

This article appeared in Guardian Weekly, which incorporates material from the Washington Post

India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs | World news | Guardian Weekly

 

[hello_10]

Foreign funded NGOs: Who finances them and why

Non-governmental organisations are always a flashpoint for bitter debate. Where some see good samaritans working for change, others detect a foreign conspiracy to manipulate domestic politics.

A new investigative piece in Open magazine offers a balanced look at some of the leading NGOs, their foreign funders, and raises some key questions. [Read it in its entirety here]

As Firstpost senior editor Pramod Kumar pointed out previously, there is little difference between a "lobbyist" and "policy advocate," other than one promotes the interest of private companies while the other peddles influence on behalf of an NGO. And the sums of foreign money entering India in the name of "advocacy" are not small change:

However, there is no reliable estimate of the money flowing into the NGOs and what they do with it. According to an Indian Express report in 2010, India had about 3.3 million NGOs by the end of 2009, an NGO for every 400 people. The amount of money flowing into the NGO sector is anybody's guess. The Indian Express report said it was anywhere between Rs 40,000 and Rs 80,000 crore a year. Eighty thousand crore rupees is nearly half of West Bengal government's debt or half of Kerala's gross state domestic product (GSDP). By no means is this small. Reportedly, Delhi-based NGOs received Rs 5,800 crores, the highest in the country, followed by TN, which received Rs 4,800 crore.

The Open magazine report breaks down some of these big-picture numbers to offer specific information about big-league NGOs and their foreign funding. And in doing so it points to the "hypocrisy" of the UPA government decision to freeze the bank accounts of anti-Kudankulam groups -- on the grounds that they represent foreign interests -- while it continues to patronise other NGOs that are no less flush in outside funding.

One example is the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), "currently headed by Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Planning Commission Vice-chairperson Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia." The Council "has received over Rs 11.5 crore in foreign donations from a range of international institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Sasakawa Peace Foundation between 2007 and 2012." :ranger:

Another prominent and influential organisation is the Centre for Policy Research, headed by Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta which received Rs 40.8 crore from a range of foreign donors, including the Ford Foundation, Google Foundation, International Development Research Centre, Economic and Social Research Council, Hewlett Foundation and IKEA Social Initiative. (Read the article to get the scoop on many others, including Vandana Shiva's organization, Navdanya) :ranger:

Foreign funding becomes all the more critical in an environment where there is increasing pressure on NGOs to demonstrate policy impact, as Pramod Kumar explains: Gone are the days of those small poverty projects in your neighbourhood slums or coastal villages. The aim is now to get real big bang for the buck. Fund one activist and his/her NGO and get a bill passed in the parliament; fund a cleric and create an environment of religious disharmony and band of radical youth; or spend a few thousand dollars and get a $3 billion dollar national facility stalled.

Within this context, the lack of transparency becomes a cause for genuine concern. Open magazine's Prashant Reddy writes:

An amusing facet of this is that the Central Government and Corporate India are more transparent (even if forced to be) than these civil society institutions, thanks to the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the extensive disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 1956. Of companies in particular, information is accessible over the internet on the MCA21 website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This contrast is amusing because some of these thinktanks never tire of demanding transparency of the State and corporate sector.

This isn't to say that NGOs are no more than shells for that ubiquitous "foreign hands" or to deny that foreign foundations fund important social change intitiatives, or to claim that any attempt to shape policy -- say to promote environmental protection or public health -- is necessarily bad. And there is the unpleasant fact that Indian philanthropy remains at a dismal low -- and the Azim Premjis rare -- making it unlikely that we can expect our made-in-India donors to make up the gap if all foreign funding were to be unilaterally banned.

But if NGOs -- foreign funded or otherwise -- want to have a voice in shaping the national debate, then we the public have the right to know who they are speaking for.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/foreign-funded-ngos-who-finances-them-and-why-639813.html

 

[hello_10]

How Immigration Has Impoverished Britain?

75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Children "Live in Poverty"

Claims that immigration is economically beneficial for Britain have been destroyed by news that three-quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in the UK are being brought up in families that are living on poverty-level income. :ranger:

The report, issued by Millennium Cohort Study, which is tracking children born between 2000 and 2002, has found that 73 per cent of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi seven-year olds were in families estimated to be living on less than 60 per cent of the average national household income.

Just over half of the black children (51 percent) in the Millennium cohort were in such low-income families, compared with one in four white (26 percent) and Indian (25percent) children, said an official press release.

"Predictably, low income was strongly linked to joblessness among parents, say researchers at the Institute of Education, University of London, who collected information from almost 14,000 families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2008/9."

According to the report, among fathers, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the highest unemployment rate (15 percent) – well above the UK average of 6 per cent. Unemployment among black fathers was also high (11 percent) but Indians were less likely to be unemployed (4 percent) than whites (5.5 percent).

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of white and Indian mothers had jobs :thumb:, compared with half (52 percent) of black mothers and only 17 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers.

A much higher proportion of children in lone-parent families (63 percent) were living below the study's poverty line than those with married (16percent) or cohabiting (30 percent) parents.

"The incidence of income poverty for the Millennium cohort families has not changed appreciably over the first seven years of the children's lives," says Professor Heather Joshi, the study's director.

"Despite government efforts to eradicate child poverty almost three in 10 children are still in poor families at age 7. It's particularly disappointing that around one in five seven-year-olds is in severe poverty – on incomes below half the national average."

The findings appear in a report published today by the Institute of Education's Centre for Longitudinal Studies: Millennium Cohort Study, Fourth Survey: A User's Guide to Initial Findings. Copies of the report can be downloaded here.

British National Party

Who is Impoverishing Britain?

we have one more interesting data as below, which states who exactly send money to home countries, from the salaries they earn in US/UK. and the data below clearly states that low income group send more money to home, as compare to high Income Indians or other migrants.... the data below tells us that high income people are more secured in their profession/life, and less they are worried for the relatives based back home, as compare to low Income Pakistanis/Bangladeshis based in UK, who account for around half of the remittance outflow from UK, as below :ranger:

The UK is a receiver as well as a sender of remittances. World Bank data suggest that the UK is a major receiver as well as sender of remittances. Data suggest that in 2011 inflows of remittances to the UK were valued at £5,040 million and outflows were valued at £2,031 million.

The UK accounted for 7% of remittances to Bangladesh in the fiscal year 2012-2013 (GBP 626 million) and 14% of remittances to Pakistan during that fiscal year (GBP 1,228 million).

As shown in Figure 1, real remittance inflows (inflation adjusted) to the UK have increased by an annual average of 5% since 1989, reaching close to GBP 5,040 million in 2011. However, these inflows represent a small share of the UK GDP (about 0.3% in 2011). The UK occupies the fifteenth place in the world in value of remittances received and the fifth place among EU countries.

Bangladesh and Pakistan occupy the seventh and eleventh positions respectively in terms of the global inflow of remittances.

Migrant Remittances to and from the UK | The Migration Observatory

=> here, its interesting to see that out of total GBP 2,031 million remittance outflows from Britain, around GBP 1,854 million goes to just one country, Pakistan before 1972, (Pakistan + Bangladesh). while Britain itself is the 15th largest receiver of remittances from the world right now and Pakistan and Bangladesh on 7th and 11th place?

 

[hello_10]

.
with the above 2 news about Pakistan+Bangladesh, we have a news as below too . Pakistan+Bangladesh and UK's 'fit' relationship with each other

A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain. akistan:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...inate-against-muslims-eu-us-3.html#post768864

pakistan ke nazuk halat......