With the proposed amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act drawing criticism not only from India’s Opposition parties and civil society groups but also from US lawmakers, the government is working hard to dispel what it calls the “myths” surrounding the Bill.
On Monday, Indian Ambassador to the US Vinay Mohan Kwatra posted a series of messages on social media clarifying what he described as “misunderstandings” about the Bill, apparently in response to US lawmaker Riley Moore, who had said the proposed legislation could adversely affect US-India relations.
Dismissing criticism that India is framing a new law to cut off foreign aid to civil society organisations, Kwatra said regulating foreign financial flows into public and political spaces was a sovereign step driven by national security concerns.
“It is an accepted feature of modern governance in many democracies around the world,” he added.
Kwatra noted that India’s first FCRA was enacted in 1976 and replaced in 2010 with a more modern framework, which was subsequently strengthened through amendments in 2016, 2018 and 2020.
“The 2026 Bill and Rules are the next step in the same direction: more transparency, better governance, clearer rules,” he said.
Kwatra also reaffirmed that the law does not prohibit Indians from receiving foreign donations or seek to shut down law-abiding civil society organisations. Tens of thousands of associations are registered under the FCRA and routinely receive foreign funds for health, education, disaster relief, research and humanitarian work, he said.
Seeking to allay fears that the proposed amendments would further restrict their ability to operate in India, the ambassador said foreign money inflows into the country had been consistently rising over the last decade.
Foreign contributions to registered organisations increased from roughly $1.2 billion in 2010-11 to $2.67 billion in 2024-25, he said.
Noting that only 14,450 of the estimated three million NGOs in India hold FCRA registration, Kwatra said the overwhelming majority of civil society organisations remain outside the ambit of the Act.
“FCRA does not stop anyone from accepting foreign charity, research grants or humanitarian aid. It asks three things — register, receive the money through laid down process, report what you did with it,” he said.
The ambassador also addressed concerns that the proposed law could lead to the seizure of assets belonging to NGOs, including religious charities and places of worship that rely on foreign donations.
He said that when an organisation’s FCRA registration is cancelled or surrendered, foreign contributions and assets created from such funds vest in a state government authority. This, he said, has been the practice since 2010.
What the 2026 Bill adds, he said, is a designated authority to safeguard those assets, along with a mechanism for their return.
“If the organisation restores its registration, all assets and unused funds are returned in full,” Kwatra said.
The ambassador further clarified that places of worship would receive special protection under the proposed framework.
“Where a cancelled association has created property connected to a place of worship, that property goes to another FCRA-registered association of the same faith to ensure continuity of worship,” he said.
Addressing concerns that the FCRA specifically targets a particular religion or community, Kwatra said, “nothing could be farther from it”.
“The Act applies uniformly to all organisations regardless of religion, community or ideology. Faith-based welfare activities, including religious education, maintenance of places of worship, and charitable work by organisations of every faith, continue to be eligible for foreign funding,” he said.
Kwatra also sought to counter the argument that India would be an outlier in introducing tighter regulations on foreign contributions.
“The US has had FARA since 1938 and FATCA since 2010. Australia legislated in 2018, Canada in 2024. The UK's scheme came into force in July 2025. The EU is legislating now,” he said.
The government’s clarification came a week after US Congressman Riley Moore termed the bill "a clear attack against Christians" and warned that the proposed legislation could strain bilateral ties between New Delhi and Washington.
Moore, a Republican from West Virginia, said in a post on X that the proposed amendments would allow the Indian government to take over churches and religious charities.
