By Jag Jivan*
In a candid conversation that blended personal memoir with sharp critique, veteran civil society leader Ingrid Srinath painted a sobering picture of a sector adrift—caught between corporate metrics, regulatory chokeholds, and a fading sense of purpose. Speaking on the latest episode of the YouTube series Unmute, hosted by Gagan Sethi and Minar Pimple, Srinath—former Secretary General of global watchdog CIVICUS and founder of the Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy (CSIP) at Ashoka University—urged civil society to reclaim its soul before it's too late.
"We're in the process right now of the corporatization of civil society," she said. "We're importing that mindset of 'bring your head to work and leave the rest of the messy stuff at home.' The values that are prioritized now are productivity, efficiency, profitability, growth, scale—as opposed to justice, equity, empathy, inclusion."
The episode, titled "Civil Society: Evolution, Challenges, and the Way Forward," traced Srinath's improbable pivot from a high-flying corporate career to the trenches of activism, while dissecting global trends that have left civic spaces gasping for air. With over three decades in the field—from leading child rights advocacy at CRY to monitoring civic freedoms worldwide—Srinath's insights carried the weight of experience. Yet, her narrative was no hagiography; it was a call to arms, laced with humor and hard truths about a sector she once joined out of "boredom and megalomania."
From Boardrooms to Bedside: A Personal Reckoning
Srinath's entry into civil society wasn't born of idealism alone but a visceral rebellion against corporate ennui. An IIM Kolkata alumna, she spent 12 years in advertising and marketing, where "the sole outcome of all the work that we were doing was that a few shareholders were going to get richer." Boredom set in, compounded by a deeper malaise: the gnawing sense that her life lacked "significance," a value instilled by her father. "I blame my father for having raised me to believe that one should be significant, that one should have significance," she quipped.
A pivotal moment came courtesy of her husband, who prodded her to recall her last "major difference." It transported her to high school days volunteering with the Society for Child Development, where she spent four hours weekly with children facing disabilities. One girl, Monisha, eventually integrated into Srinath's school—a milestone that felt like "the accomplishment of my life," even if Srinath's role was peripheral. "When you experience or see vulnerability, something happens to us," she reflected. "For me, it's a visceral thing—I can feel it in my gut. There's an instant empathy."
This "heart, head, and hand" ethos, she argued, defined early civil society. But over the past 10-15 years, the balance has tilted perilously. In the corporate world, employees were told to "bring your brain to work and leave the rest of that messy stuff at home." Civil society, by contrast, demanded the "whole self"—decisions infused with soul and empathy. Now, that's eroding. "There's a wholesale invasion of civil society, almost a hostile takeover from the mindset upwards," Srinath warned, decrying the obsession with "ROI, cost-benefit analysis" that "completely blows my mind." Metrics like "cost per beneficiary" reduce complex human work to spreadsheets, sidelining justice for efficiency.
Philanthropy as Power Play: CSR's Double-Edged Sword
At the heart of this shift lies philanthropy—or more precisely, its entanglement with power. Srinath, who has navigated national and global funding landscapes, lambasted the "techno-managerial approach" dominating resources. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), mandatory since 2013, exemplifies the trap. Born not from altruism but as a "carrot" to evade deeper accountability—like quotas in private sectors or supply-chain human rights—CSR has funneled a third of civil society's funds into "short-term, easy-to-measure, photogenic" projects. "It's a win-win-win for state and market, and a complete loss of purpose to civil society," she said.
The DNA of corporates, Srinath explained, maximizes gains: employee motivation, branding, marketing. Yet, CSR's "legitimate activities" list excludes rights-based work, advocacy, or policy research—silencing the "noisy" voices that challenge power. "Business always controlled business. Business now controls government, media, and—thanks to CSR and high-net-worth individual philanthropy—civil society," she asserted. This concentration in "six or 10 individuals" is "entirely antithetical to democracy," undermining civil society's core role: guarding pluralism.
Mandatory CSR hasn't democratized giving; it's instrumentalized it. Organizations chase "flavor-of-the-year" causes—HIV one year, climate the next—for survival, drifting from missions. "Your organization mission will drift in the direction of where the money is coming from, rather than saying 'this is my mission; I now have to attract money to this mission,'" Srinath noted. Short-termism reigns: 12-month reporting cycles spawn donor-driven treadmills, eroding resilience. She recalled negotiating 18 months with a donor before accepting funds, only possible because CRY relied on public donations—200,000-400,000 small givers who doubled contributions during crises like floods.
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) amendments exacerbate this. Far from a mere funding glitch, they violate "civil society's right to receive resources from wherever it chooses," breaching constitutional and treaty obligations. "If we fail to defend that right, what's the next right that gets taken away? It's a slippery slope," Srinath cautioned. Beyond finances, FCRA's "chilling effect" demonizes recipients: banks shun accounts, landlords evict staff, loans denied—even for motorcycles. "Loss of FCRA paralyzes the organization 360°," she said. It silences not just targets like Greenpeace or Amnesty but the entire sector, as bureaucrats admit: "A message had to be sent. It has been sent."
Foreign funds, she argued, catalyze marginalized causes—like LGBTQ rights in the 1980s—building local institutions over time. They also intermediary-grant to grassroots groups lacking bandwidth. Without them, voices vanish, and suspicion festers.
Social Stock Exchange: Liberation or Lockdown?
Enter the Social Stock Exchange (SSE), which Srinath helped design. Launched to boost credibility and tap new capital pools—like the "mega millions" of stock market investors via apps like Zerodha—it repackages grants in "pinstriped suits." Only 0.03% of Indian companies are listed, yet stock exchanges legitimize business writ large. SSE could do the same for nonprofits, standardizing reporting and requiring third-party impact audits—certified by the Institute of Chartered Accountants—to satisfy multiple donors at once.
Yet pitfalls abound. Like CSR, SSE narrows definitions, barring human rights but allowing "accountability" workarounds. Only 18 organizations have raised funds in 1.5 years, hampered by SEBI's culture clash: rigid prospectuses, minimum quanta, mismatched reporting. "When you force-fit [SSE] into SEBI, you get a rough culture clash," Srinath observed. Worse, it risks entrenching market hegemony, with CSR funneled through SSE, blurring lines further.
Still, upsides gleam: instruments grant "strategic autonomy"—funders buy into goals, not micromanaging tea budgets. "You present a project proposal... all you have to do now is deliver those goals. It's a black box between check being written and outcomes being reported." For Srinath, SSE's trajectory hinges on entrepreneurial drive: linking NABARD's capacity funds, SEBI regulations, and nonprofits. Without a "link" person, it stalls.
Rebuilding Resilience: Solidarity, Stories, and Data
Srinath's prescription? Unplug from the "matrix." "As long as you are trying to navigate the matrix better, you're actually strengthening the matrix," she urged. Question every strategy: "Am I reinforcing which paradigm?" Collective pushback is key—solidarity against "technocratic philanthropy." No lone NGO withstands the tide; together, they could redefine CSR norms or lobby for equity.
Narrative-building is crucial. "If you stand for something, then donors who value social justice will be drawn to you," she said. CRY thrived on storytelling, attracting loyal publics over volatile big-ticket funders. Yet India's sector lacks cohesion: siloed networks, donor-driven, non-intersectional. Contrast the U.S., where the National Council of Nonprofits litigates weekly, campaigns tie nonprofits to daily life (e.g., animal shelters), and 700 foundations pledge against attacks—shifting payout norms beyond the 5% minimum.
India needs sector bodies for shared services: one-stop regulation hubs, policy templates, triangulated data from tax returns, FCRA, and CSR. "Imagine... who else is working with indigenous rights in Chhattisgarh... at one click," Srinath envisioned. Start bottom-up, state-level—like Karnataka's NGO networks or RTI/food rights campaigns that shunned philanthropy yet reshaped laws.
Academia offers bridges: neutral spaces for research fellowships, PhDs in philanthropy. CSIP's "How India Gives" study—sampling 81,000 households annually—shows what's possible, but scaling demands investment. "If you're no longer doing operating responsibilities... this would be a worthwhile cause," she told elders.
Her three non-negotiables for a healthy state-market-civil society triad, aligned with India's Constitution: sector solidarity across divides (faith-inspired, technocratic, grassroots); dialogue between philanthropists and nonprofits, hosted by academics; and data—lobbying for anonymized tax/FCRA aggregates, constitutional recognition as a "sector" for GDP tracking.
Calling In, Not Out: A Holistic Horizon
As the hour-long exchange wrapped, Srinath invoked activist Loretta Ross's "calling in": ditching call-outs for proven/problematic/potential allies, barring psychopaths. "We're so good at calling each other out... Now we're very good at calling each other in rather than out."
Global trends mirror India's—corporatization, constriction—but Srinath sees hope in holistic views: "We need to look at the sector much more holistically and not get in the divisive walls... and silos." For viewers tuning into Unmute, her message resonates: Civil society isn't NGOs; it's democracy's guardian. Reclaim the heart, or risk irrelevance.
---
*Freelance writer
Comments