India’s Civil Society Organisations, International Relations, Shrinkage, and Soros: A Brief Overview

The United Nations Reporting Framework defines Civil Society Organisations (henceforth referred to as CSOs) as ‘Non-State, not-for-profit, voluntary entities formed by people in the social sphere that are separate from the State and the market.’ This definition will be used for this article.

Illustration by The Geostrata

Otherwise, the Asian Development Bank has also provided a similar definition of CSOs as non-state actors that do not seek to generate profit or seek to govern. Some types of CSOs are community-based organisations, non-governmental organisations, faith-based organisations, labour unions, and professional/research institutes.

This article will analyse the origins of global civil society organisations, the growth of CSOs in India, and then present the harms and benefits associated with the workings of these CSOs at differing levels. This article will also cover the decline of CSOs in India by studying the case of The Open Society Foundation.

ORIGINS AND GLOBALISATION

Coleman & Wayland (2006) propose that the rise of global civil society organisations has been primarily explained by two pathways. The first pathway consists of CSOs expanding their reach to the global arena as globalisation grew, with acceleration post-1945, spreading Western enlightenment ideas such as rationalisation, universalism, and individualism.

The second pathway proposes that they are a more recent phenomenon associated with the rise of market economics, global problems like climate change, and the protection of human rights since the 1970s.

Civil Societies in the modern sense have existed in India since the 1800s. Socio-religious reform movements like the Prarthana Samaj (1858), Satyasodhak Samaj (1873), and Arya Samaj (1875) energised different sections of society for improvement in the lives of their respective target groups.

Sahoo (2013) laid down three basic phases of CSO development in independent India with an elitist Nehruvian phase (1947-64), a mass-based civil society during the Indira Gandhi regime (1967-77), and finally Structural and Adjustment program phase with the market reforms (1991-97), Self-help groups are also on the rise with support of governmental programs. Today, over 1.5 million NGOs work in India with over 19 million paid or volunteer staff. 

HARM AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The prevailing belief is that globalisation allows the scope of civil society organisations providing greater transparency into the workings of global inter-state organisations. This may also mean increased transparency, legitimacy, and efficacy in the works of various governments.

CSOs also serve as a partner to governments for last-mile reach of their social services. CSOs facilitate active citizen involvement in government processes and often represent minority groups that otherwise would have remained out of the spotlight. CSOs can also work on localised programs that may be beyond the scope of government work in that aspect.

Governments are often reliant on NGOs to run their basic social services like shelter homes, and literacy campaigns via organisations like Pratham in India. However, CSOs are prone to governmental oppression and corruption. Increased surveillance and regulation from the government can lead to a decrease in the scope of activities of CSOs.

Some of the regulations may be justified due to fears of external intervention in the domestic affairs of the country. Political ideologues may also come to run CSOs often finding themselves at loggerheads with particular governments. Although, states will find many common grounds of work with CSOs - opportunities for conflict are also plenty.

CASE STUDY: THE OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION

George Soros’ The Open Society Foundation (OSF) has reached the status of a bogeyman in many countries. It focuses on Karl Popper’s idea of open and closed societies. Many BJP functionaries in India have accused it of systematically maligning India’s image abroad and supporting the opposition Congress party. It primarily funds human rights advocacy across the world with an increased focus now on the Global South.

It promotes organisations with a shared belief in human rights, free speech, and democratic values, and opposes authoritarian regimes. Soros’ criticism has reached a fever-high in India in recent years as a key that fits every hole of turning the world, and India specifically into a globalist liberal wasteland.

The Indian Government has placed the OSF on a watchlist so that it requires prior government approval before funding any entity in the country. It has done so because it believes that the OSF is carrying out a sustained ideological program to destabilise India by funding opposition parties like the Congress, and taking the alleged corruption with relation to Adani to the international level.

He has criticised the BJP-led Indian Government at various platforms. However, India continues to be one of the top funders of the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF). Nearly one in four recipients of the UNDEF fund is linked with the OSF. This shows that Soros is a convenient bogeyman in New Delhi, while there are no qualms about the same when contributing abroad.

However, he has also faced criticism from the left as there is only so much equitable dialogue and action a billionaire can fashion without being dogged down by the most basic contradiction of capitalism’s relationship with equity. 

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE DECLINE OF CSOs IN INDIA

When the right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP came to power in India, NGOs which have allegedly been historically closer with the opposition Congress faced considerable opposition from the government. As per a report by the Economist, over half of the CSOs that lost licensing from 2022-2024 were either Christian or Muslim-oriented; organisations associated with Sangh Parivar or similar outfits were rarely, if ever, attacked.

PM Modi’s preference for ‘hard work’ over ‘Harvard’ is shown in his government’s raids at Amnesty International’s India offices over their foreign donations. Some of the NGOs have been accused of stalling development and funding protests against the Adani Group, JSW, etc for their various projects across the country at the behest of external influences as evidenced by their near-total foreign funding.

The thorny issue of foreign donations has resurfaced in 2025 with The Union Home Ministry again warning penal action if CSOs receive foreign donations without registering under the Foreigners Contribution Regulation Act (2010), as amended in 2020. The Indian Government cancelled the FCRA licenses of more than 19,000 NGOs from 2014 to 2020. 

CSOs play an instrumental role in sculpting domestic and global governance, especially transparency, human rights, social equity, etc. Their operations are increasingly under the scanner, especially in states where some of them are perceived as adversarial actors rather than partners in the common pursuit of development.

The complex relationship between CSOs and the state has been elucidated in India’s increasing attacks on foreign funding of CSOs, and the rise of The Open Society Foundation as a bogeyman.

While concerns over foreign political bias in CSOs may find some validity; excessive regulation will stifle grassroots organisations and weaken democratic engagement. As global challenges increase, the role and scope of CSOs are dependent on their ability to affect change while addressing political landscapes. 

---

BY PRANAV KHATRI

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com