Amendments to FCRA aimed at safeguarding India’s sovereign rights: Italian-Canadian analyst

The amendment to India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act is aimed at safeguarding India’s sovereign rights on lines of democracies across the globe including European countries and the USA, argued an article in Formiche, a leading Italian geopolitical platform.

“As the Indian Parliament prepares once again to debate the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), a familiar narrative has resurfaced. Critics describe this legislation as an attack on civil society, an offensive against Christian organizations, and yet another indication of India’s alleged drift away from democratic principles. This narrative, however, overlooks a fundamental question: why should India be denied the sovereign right to regulate foreign influence when virtually all major democracies are moving in the same direction?,” wrote Carlo Lombardi in an article titled ‘India’s FCRA is no exception. It is the new frontier of democratic sovereignty’ published in Formiche last week.

Lombardi is an Italian-Canadian analyst and commentator on economics and geopolitics. A qualified CA and auditor in Italy, he extensively works in India assisting companies in planning strategy and expansion.


“The reality is that India’s FCRA and its proposed amendments do not represent an anomaly; rather, they are part of a broader international trend. The European Union is developing new tools to counter foreign interference and covert influence operations… Australia has the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The United States has enforced the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for decades. The United Kingdom has introduced the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme,” Lombardi pointed out.

“The underlying principle of all these regulations is the same: funds originating abroad should not be able to influence a nation’s political, social, or institutional landscape without adequate transparency and oversight mechanisms. The Indian government has explicitly maintained that the proposed amendments are modeled on international best practices and do not constitute an exceptional regime,” Lombardi noted.

The author mentioned that India is home to one of the world’s largest civil society sectors and that between 3.3 and 3.7 million non-governmental organizations operate in India—more than half of all NGOs across G20 nations.

“By comparison, Italy has approximately 360,000 "Third Sector" entities. India thus manages the planet’s largest NGO ecosystem. Regulating foreign funding in a context of this magnitude is not merely a bureaucratic exercise or a policy choice; it is a matter of national security,” Lombardi claimed.

“Opponents of the FCRA often argue that the legislation was specifically designed to target Christian charities and church organizations. Over the years, however, the scrutiny has extended to environmental groups, universities, research institutes, human rights organizations, educational bodies, religious organizations of various faiths—including Hindu groups—and numerous international advocacy organizations,” according to Lombardi.

One of the main criticisms leveled against the proposed amendments is that they would allow the Government to “confiscate Church assets.” But the amendments do not authorize the State to appropriate all assets belonging to the Church or other Christian institutions simply by virtue of their religious affiliation, Lombardi wrote, adding, “They apply exclusively in cases where an organization’s FCRA registration has legitimately ceased—whether through revocation, voluntary surrender, or failure to renew—and concern only assets created or acquired using foreign contributions that fall within the scope of the legislation.”

“Governments worldwide increasingly recognize that financial flows can become instruments of political influence. India has long maintained that certain foreign-funded organizations have sought to influence political discourse, major infrastructure projects, and social mobilization well beyond the scope of charitable activity…Financial transparency has become a fundamental tool in the fight against terrorism and organized crime. No responsible democracy can simply assume that every transfer of funds from abroad serves exclusively charitable purposes.”

“When elected representatives from another country publicly intervene to influence regulations governing foreign funding within India, they inadvertently reinforce New Delhi’s argument that external influence on national institutions is neither theoretical nor a thing of the past,” Lombardi wrote with reference to criticism levelled by some US Senators.

It is intellectually inconsistent to accept regulations regarding foreign influence transparency in Europe, Australia, the UK, and the US while simultaneously portraying India as an authoritarian state simply because it pursues similar objectives, according to Lombardi.