|
IDRF’s
work reflects the organization’s interest in the interaction and
convergence of development and relief work, particularly in relation
to the needs and welfare of the poor.
As such, IDRF has a broad focus and does not restrict its
activities to any particular set of projects.
However, the projects with which IDRF is involved will always
reflect IDRF’s pledge to:
·
Create self help, rather than “welfare dependence”
·
Serve economically and socially disadvantaged people
irrespective of caste, sect, region or religion
·
Operate, manage and monitor project activities without
any overhead costs
Typically IDRF
projects range from building schools for needy children, orphanages
and rehabilitation centers for disaster victims, to urban slums and
tribal area development schemes.
The project areas may be quite diverse, but all address
relevant social and economic issues.
While the focus is on development activities,
IDRF has recognized the need to provide relief and rehabilitation
services to victims of natural calamities such as earthquakes and
cyclones. Of the $6.1
million disbursed by IDRF since 1996,
about $2.1 million has gone towards relief and rehabilitation, the
majority in alleviating the hardship to people who suffered from
three devastating events: the Orissa cyclone in 1999;
the Latur Earthquake in 1993; and the Gujarat Earthquake in 2001.
Relief and rehabilitation is mostly focused
around infrastructure (re-building schools and homes, etc).
Here are some examples of relief and rehabilitation work
funded by IDRF:
Orissa
Cyclone
·
Sookruthi (Bhubaneshwar, Orissa) – IDRF granted
about $117,000 to Sookruthi for rehabilitation work.
Sookruthi has utilized the funds for the following:
·
300 tube wells for drinking water
·
Self-employment through Sriphal
biplab (50,000 coconut saplings)
·
Gobardhan
project (milk-yielding cows for 111 families)
·
Gram Seva
medical van
·
Reconstruction of houses for six workers and also
deep-water rice cultivation
Gujarat
Earthquake
·
Sewa Bharathi (Gujarat) – the IDRF has funded
the reconstruction of two villages: Jivapar
in Morbi Taluka (188 houses) and Visnagar in Dasada Taluka (155
houses). The total
grant to Sewa Bharathi was $790,000.
In addition to these villages, Sewa Bharathi has used these
funds to reconstruct several schools that were destroyed by the
earthquake. Both IDRF
funded villages have been completed and occupied.
·
In
addition to Sewa Bharathi, the IDRF has funded 20 more NGOs
including Anoopam Mission, Art of Living Foundation, SATH and Manav
Kalyan Trust, who are providing rehabilitation services to the
earthquake victims. The
IDRF teams monitor the progress of every project.
IDRF has targeted its development efforts on
projects designed to impact the lives of women and children.
This focus springs from a belief that such efforts will
necessarily aid the entire family.
In addition, attention and money are also spent on fulfilling
healthcare and children’s education needs in rural and urban slum
areas. Since 1996, IDRF has contributed a total of $4 million
towards development work, using the following criteria:
·
Provide services to impoverished masses in IDRF focus
areas: education, children, women, healthcare, and tribal welfare.
·
Efficiently execute projects with minimal
overhead.
·
Possess successful track record of project
execution.
·
Demonstrate the trust of the local population that
they serve all needy Indians without discriminating against any
religion, caste, or creed.
All accusations made in the report published by
Sabrang/FOIL Communications are merely the authors’ opinions and
ideological hatred packaged into accusations and implications. The
“evidence” cited is based on secondary sources such as newspaper
reports, without any primary evidence either from appropriate
government authorities or other acceptable proof-points. The
report makes several serious accusations that question the integrity
of the IDRF, IDRF volunteers, IDRF supported NGOs, and IDRF
donors.
The IDRF rejects all these accusations and provides the facts
that speak otherwise. In this section we present a core
set of accusations made in the Sabrang/FOIL report and the IDRF’s
answers to the same.
Accusation # 1: IDRF has been “duping” donors including
corporations by not revealing NGO information to the donors.
Basis: Sabrang/FOIL Authors’ conclusions
Fact: The charge of “duping” donors (including
corporations) does not stand up to scrutiny as most of the relevant
information (except Sabrang/FOIL authors’ own opinions and their
pre-determined conclusions about IDRF and IDRF supported NGOs) is
easily accessible from IDRF’s web site (www.idrf.org) and other web sites maintained by IDRF
supported NGOs. The IDRF has been unequivocal in
its support of the NGOs in question, and its donors have been
informed of the NGOs and their activities through the IDRF web site
as well as with individual printed communication with relevant
project reports. Furthermore, at the time of
IDRF’s founding and since then, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
has been appropriately informed about all NGOs being supported by
the IDRF.
Hence, the accusation of “duping donors” is completely
false.
The report exemplifies the authors’ irrational bias or
pre-conceived notions against the IDRF and IDRF-supported NGOs.
It is remarkable that out of the “votes” and
associated comments exhibited by the Sabrang/FOIL’s “Stop Funding
Hate” Petition web site, there is not a single comment that claims
to be from any IDRF donor, former or present, complaining about
being “duped” or anything similar to that.
Accusation # 2: IDRF funds
“Hindu Supremacist” organizations that are connected to RSS, and
hence, funds “Hate.”
Basis: Sabrang/FOIL Authors’ conclusions
Fact: The labeling as “Hindu Supremacist” of those
IDRF-supported NGOs is based on the authors’ own criteria and
opinions.
This, in turn, is primarily based on their ideological and
political inclinations. Here are the facts about
IDRF-supported NGOs:
All the IDRF-supported NGOs that are accused of
being “Hindu Supremacist” organizations are legitimate NGOs
registered with appropriate Central or State government authorities
in India.
Most of these NGOs have been working for
several decades in their chosen fields, consistently monitored and
funded by several governments – Congress, BJP, and even Marxist
governments. For example, the NGOs in West
Bengal supported by the IDRF include, Manav Seva
Prathisthan, 14, Princep Street, Calcutta - 700 072; Poorvanchal
Kalyan Ashram, 161/1 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Calcutta - 700 007;
Vanabandhu Parishad, Calcutta (Friends of Tribal Society), 52,
Zakaria Street, Calcutta 700073; and the Vastuhara Sahayata Samiti,
Keshaw Bhawan, 9A Abhedananda Street, Calcutta - 700 006. None of these NGOs have been found guilty by
any government authorities, judicial commissions, and other
non-partisan bodies. These NGOs help the impoverished
masses, provide adults and children with appropriate education and
healthcare, and enable them to lead better lives.
Accusation # 3: IDRF did
not raise funds for Gujarat violence victims, when it raised funds
for Bangladeshi-Hindu victims.
Basis: Sabrang/FOIL Authors’ conclusions
Fact: As a matter of policy, IDRF does not raise
funds for victims of communal violence. IDRF
does not have the resources to assist in every situation. IDRF
did not raise funds for the victims of the “Godhra train carnage,”
in which 58 Hindus including women and children were burned alive,
either.
Hence, the IDRF did not discriminate against Muslims, when it
did not raise funds for post-Godhra violence. The
Gujarat government gave Rs. 200,000 (about $4179) to each family that lost a loved one in the
Godhra train massacre, and the following communal riots.
Regarding funds for Bangladeshi Hindu victims,
the effort to raise funds was a donor-designated project.
Donor-designated projects are a service the IDRF offers to
any donor to fund his/her project of choice. The
IDRF does not have any influence on how the donor-designated project
funds are spent.
Accusation # 4: IDRF raised
funds for 9/11 victims and Kargil War only because the perpetrators
were Muslims.
Basis: Sabrang/FOIL Authors’ conclusions
Fact: After the terrible tragedy of 9/11/2001, IDRF
rose to the occasion and contributed $10,000 to the New York Fire
Department. Anyone or everyone with an iota
of humanity offered to help the victims within their own means.
The IDRF raised funds for the Kargil War
victims.
The war started when Pakistan occupied the Kargil sector in
India’s Jammu and Kashmir state, and ended with India successfully
driving out Pakistan from its territory. The Sabrang/FOIL report claims
that “IDRF raised funds for…Kargil War only because
the perpetrators were Muslims.” It is interesting that Biju
Mathew focuses on the religion of those who attacked India and who
dismembered Indian soldiers and burnt them, and not the country that
was behind the attack – Pakistan. Would India have not responded
with force if “Chinese soldiers” had attacked India? Would
the IDRF not donated to the welfare of soldiers’ families if the
attackers happened to be of another religion? In
fact, among the soldiers helped by the IDRF are not only Hindus but
Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Muslim and Buddhists for the Indian Army
recruits people of all religions unlike the Pakistani Army which, we
believe, is almost entirely made up of Muslims.
As
an Indian-American organization with deep roots in India, the IDRF
has responsibility to help victims of the Kargil War.
The IDRF has disbursed the funds through a well-known
organization that works with Veterans of Indian Armed Forces.
Several Muslim soldiers in the Indian Army have been helped
through the IDRF funds. The
authors’ accusation that Kargil War victims were funded only
because Muslims were the perpetrators defies all reason and logic. It
is also absurd to suggest that Indian soldiers and
their families be deemed less deserving of aid because the
enemy happened to be Muslim! As an added irony, the
adversary in this case was a nation whose ideology is
defined by its fealty to the Organization of Islamic States, and as
such is hardly a model of minority tolerance.
The
disregard that the Sabrang/FOIL report authors show for India’s
war veterans, and American victims of Islamic terrorism, speaks
volumes about their double standards and hatred for all free,
democratic, multi-ethnic societies.
Accusation # 5: IDRF has been funding Sewa Bharati, Madhya
Pradesh whose license was revoked by the Congress Party government
in Madhya Pradesh in February 2002.
Basis: A news report -
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie20020228/nat6.html
Fact: Sewa Bharati, Madhya Pradesh was never stripped
of its license, as claimed in the Sabrang/FOIL report. Our
research shows that an organization called Sewa Bharati Shiksha
Samiti based in Indore had its license temporarily suspended by the
Registrar of Firms and Societies, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, citing
three reasons: (a) Involvement in activities other than mentioned in
its Bylaws (organizing Hindu Sangam, at Jhabua), (b) not submitting
audited accounts, and (c) purchasing properties without prior
information. An appeal against the order was
made before Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Madhya
Pradesh State Government on February 11, 2002. The
following arguments were presented in that appeal: (a) Order has not
substantiated the claim of indulgence in “other activities”, and
that Sewa Bharati Shiksha Samiti did not organize the Hindu Sangam;
(b) that there is a provision for late submission of audited
accounts by paying a fine. Many other organizations have
availed this provision; (c) there is a provision that an
organization can give information even after purchasing the
property; and (d) no opportunity to present the organization’s view
was provided. After hearing arguments, the
Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh
issued an order (order no. F 1-24/2002/11/B) on May 16, 2002
revoking the earlier suspension order (order no.
S-7083/2002 dated February 5, 2002) by citing discrepancy in
the procedure such as not mentioning which rules have been violated
by Sewa Bharati Shiksha Samiti. However, the above-cited
newspaper did not bother to carry out this news – which would have
illustrated that the real problem is political harassment and
singling out of Sewa Bharati by the Congress Party-ruled state
Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Accusation # 6: A vast majority (in excess of 80%) of the IDRF
designated funds were sent to organizations controlled by RSS, VHP,
while only 10% of the funds were earmarked for Sangh charities.
Basis: Analysis based on data available on IDRF’s web
site.
Fact: The Sabrang/FOIL authors and their
spokespersons have repeatedly asserted that their report is the
result of “meticulous research.” However, it is important to note
that when a researcher starts with a pre-determined conclusion and
simply puts together disparate information, the end result is
obviously misleading. Let us present an example: As per
the IDRF’s policies, it keeps 10 percent of the designated donation
for its development projects including tribal welfare projects
conducted by the Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram (VKA). This
fact is stated clearly in all donation forms and every donor is made
aware of it. This does not apply to the funds
raised for relief and rehabilitation of victims of natural
calamities and foreign invasions (Latur earthquake-1993, Orissa
cyclone-1999, Kargil-1999, Gujarat earthquake-2001). A major
portion of the IDRF’s funds (almost 50 percent) is designated for
purposes of relief and rehabilitation alone and not for the IDRF’s
choice of projects.
The accusation further discounts the fact that
majority of the designated donations were earmarked for so-called
Sangh organizations upon donors’ requests.
Accusation # 7: Nearly 70% of IDRF
funds go to “Hinduization” efforts.
Basis: Analysis based on data available on the IDRF’s
web site and authors’ scheme of rating organizations.
Fact:
The term “Hinduization,” though creatively
pejorative, is never given a clear conceptual definition by the
Sabrang/FOIL report. What constitutes “Hinduization?” We
attempted to pin down the logic that led to the coinage of this term
and its application to organizations funded by IDRF.
It quickly became apparent that the anti-IDRF report’s
authors were driven not by logic and fact-based investigation -- but
by sheer ideological bias.
If chanting Sanskrit slokas
is construed as “Hinduization,” then one is led to ask: would an
individual be considered “Christianized” if he or she participated
in a rendition of the hymn “Abide With Me,” known to be a favorite
with Mahatma Gandhi?
Thousands, if not millions
of Hindu schoolchildren graduated from English-medium missionary
schools in the decades following India’s Independence. Some of
the writers of this report remember being made to recite The
Lord’s Prayer every single day at school. Even
though there was no alternative offered, this daily ritual was
tolerated. It was taken as a reminder to
reset one’s moral compass each morning, nothing more.
Why then, should any
sinister intent or agenda be ascribed to Sanskrit verses such as the
following:
Sarve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu
niramayah,
Sarve bhadraani pashyantu
Ma kashchit duhkhabhag bhavet.
Om shantih, shantih, shantih.
“May everybody be happy. May all
be free from ailments. May they see what is
auspicious. May no one be subject to
misery.
May there be peace, peace, peace.”
Om asato ma sadgamaya,
Tamaso ma jyotirgamaya,
Mrityor ma amritam gamaya.
“OM. Lead us from the unreal to the
real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:3:28).
We
submit that only the narrowest of ideologues would impute religious
coercion to the group chanting of verses such as the above, rather
than see it as an attempt to transmit values.
This is one more instance of
the Sabrang/FOIL authors’ sweeping conclusions that reflect more
prejudiced conjecture than systematic research. There
is scant evidence of first-hand observation or interviews in their
catalogue of damning indictments of IDRF-funded NGOs. (Please
see Appendix K for a first-hand report about educational efforts
among tribal people).
The so-called “Hinduizing”
NGOs are in fact providing yeoman services in
the areas of education, healthcare, managing orphanages,
rehabilitation work, and other social service projects helping the
poor, the destitute, the neglected, and the impoverished. We provide
a few examples here to establish that the Sabrang/FOIL authors did
not do their homework before making wild assertions.
After the Gujarat earthquake of 2001 the IDRF
donated $760,000 to Sewa Bharati, Gujarat for rehabilitation of
victims.
In their zeal to associate this sizable grant with the
so-called “Hinduization” effort, the authors hide the fact that Sewa
Bharati used this grant for building houses and schools for earthquake
victims.
With the help of an IDRF grant, Sewa Bharati rebuilt
two villages: Jivapar in Morbi Taluka (188 houses) and Visnagar in
Dasada Taluka (155 houses). More information on the Gujarat
earthquake rehabilitation efforts can be found at www.idrf.org
and in (Appendix I) to this report.
The following organizations are accused of
aiding the so-called “Hinduization” effort, but the Sabrang/FOIL
authors fail to substantiate their claims. The
authors merely slap the label “Hindu” or “Hinduization” by
conflating any Hindi/Sanskrit name with “Hinduization.” Some of
the money received by these organizations went to donor-designated
projects.
Any serious investigator could have simply called the IDRF
and asked for information on these organizations or projects.
But that is not what the Sabrang/FOIL authors
did. In coming up with their
“classification,” scheme, the authors cynically, deliberately and
with utter disregard for any norms of academic honesty proceeded
with their own caricature. They did so knowing that most
members of the media and the many “South Asia experts” would not
bother to investigate deeper (See Appendix
I):
The “South Asia experts” have in particular,
despite being personally contacted and asked to check into the
facts, preferred to hide behind their professional titles in their
refusal to admit a rush to judgment.
A Case Study: One of the organizations that the IDRF has
supported is the Meghani Foundation. This charitable
foundation registered in India donates money to worthy and
registered institutions in India. The foundation does this after
conducting a detailed analysis of their projects, their office
bearers, and the budget for each proposed project. The
Meghani Foundation focuses on development in the tribal areas of
India, where some of the most impoverished and illiterate people of
India live. It was involved in relief work in
Gujarat, India after the tragic earthquake of 2001, and has ongoing
projects to promote literacy and education.
The founders of The
Meghani Foundation are Abul and Jyoti Meghani. Jyoti
Meghani is the Executive Director of The Meghani Foundation. They
visit
Foundation-supported projects twice a year to ensure that the
money allocated is being used appropriately and is benefiting the
intended people. They remain in touch through
phone, snail mail, and e-mail with people who are working at the
local level in India with the institutions supported by The Meghani
Foundation.
The foundation is named
after Zaverchand Meghani, whom Mahatma Gandhi called the “National
Poet.”
He is known throughout Gujarat for writing 50 books and plays
in his short life, and recording the folklore of that state. He
enjoys the same stature as Mark Twain or Charles Dickens in the
West.
The government of India recently issued a postage stamp in
his honor.
One project supported by
the IDRF through The Meghani Foundation is the Shri Sarvodaya
Saraswati Mandir (SSSM), an educational non-profit
organization. It operates 16 secondary schools,
4 higher secondary schools, and a Primary Teachers’ Training College
in remote villages. More than 400 students and 40
staff members reside in the campus of Babapur.
Another big project
supported by the IDRF through The Meghani Foundation is the Gram
Seva Sabha (GSS), in the Valsad district of south Gujarat - a very
poor and downtrodden region with a large tribal population. The GSS
is an institution to improve socio-economic conditions, to improve
health, and to spread education. Among their many educational
activities is a tribal girls’ hostel in the village of Bilpudi. This
facility serves an important need as the literacy rate and
educational level among tribal women is much lower than for men.
The Meghani Foundation
through IDRF also funded a power generator and air conditioner for
the Computer Training Center at Nandigram Ashram in Nandigram,
Gujarat.
The Meghani Foundation, IDRF, and the Nandigram Ashram
believe that training in computers and the Internet opens up a host
of educational and career opportunities for marginalized
communities. Giving individuals in these communities marketable
skills promotes their economic advancement, which in turn ultimately
benefits the entire community.
The Meghani Foundation
does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, political
view, sexual orientation, language, or color.
Here are some other IDRF
supported NGOs and the real activities that they are engaged in:
|
|
Organization/ NGO |
Facts
|
|
1
|
|
A government school in Andhra Pradesh |
|
2
|
Smt. Misri Bai Kedia Charitable
Trust |
|
|
3
|
Lokniketan
(Gujarat) |
A cursory look at its website http://www.lokniketan.org/
will show that it is inspired by Gandhian values of serving
humanity, and was started by those associated with Seva Dal (A
Congress Party affiliated voluntary organization).
|
|
4
|
Arpana Research & Charitable Trust
(Karnal, Haryana) |
Provides health and socio-economic
services to the poor. More information is
available at: http://t8web. lanl.
gov/people/rajan/AIDS-india/MYWORK/hivindia2001.html
http://www.arpana.org/support/support-service.htm |
|
|
Center for Development of Advanced
Computing |
A research organization. See http://www.cdacindia.com/
An individual donor-designated project in Karnataka. |
|
6
|
National Education Society
(Karnataka) |
A secular organization according to the
report writers, yet accused of being busy in “Hinduization”
effort. Dr. Narashimhaiah, a
Gandhian, a nuclear physicist, a former Vice Chancellor of
Bangalore University, well-known for setting up the committee
to investigate miracles and other verifiable superstitions, a
noted educationist, he is now the President of National
Education Society. |
|
7
|
Anuradha Engineering College
(Maharashtra) |
A government approved engineering
college. (http://www.educationinfoindia.com/engg/auanu.html) |
|
8
|
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya
Pratishthan (Maharashtra) |
A medical institute serving the poor
without discrimination based on religion, caste or
creed”. Vaidyakiya Pratishthan”
translates to “Medical Institute” and is NOT engaged in any
so-called “Hinduization” efforts. |
|
9
|
Educate the Children-India
(Mumbai) |
An NGO focusing on education.
This is a secular organization according to report
writers, yet accused of being busy in the “Hinduization”
effort. |
|
10
|
Jnana Prabodhini (Maharashtra) |
A well-reputed NGO, Jnana Prabodhini (http://www.jnanaprabodhini.org/)
has also received grants from organizations such as ASHA and
AID. |
|
11
|
|
Mainly working to raise the health,
hygiene, nutrition, economic, and living standards of tribal
people. The IDRF has funded its
mobile medical van project. |
|
12
|
Vatsalya Trust (Mumbai) |
Runs an orphanage home.
Another U.S. based charity, the Maharashtra Foundation
has also funded it in past. |
|
13
|
|
This is an educational institution
providing education based on Orissa State educational
standards. According to the report
authors, this is a “Hinduization” effort even though they
cannot pinpoint what “Hinduization” takes place in this
school. More information about this
school is available at
http://www.mycalnet.org/home/oriyasevaka.
asp |
|
14
|
Chaudhry Charan Singh Girl’s Hostel
(Rajasthan) |
This is a girls’ hostel.
Apparently, no information was available to the report
writers, but they still labeled it as a “Hinduization”
effort. There are many educational
institutions, including universities, named after Charan
Singh, one of India’s Prime Ministers. |
|
15
|
Government Secondary School (Nibipura,
Rajasthan) |
A government-run school, but according to
the report authors it is apparently involved in “Hinduization”
effort. |
|
16
|
Grameen Mahila Shikshan Sansthan (Sikar,
Rajasthan) |
(Translation: Village Women’s Education
Center). Apparently, no information
was available to the report authors, but they still labeled it
as “Hinduization” effort. |
|
17
|
Gramotthan Vidyapeeth Didwana
(Hanumangarh) |
(Translation: Village Empowerment
Education Center). Apparently, no information
was available to the report authors, but they still labeled it
as a “Hinduization” effort. |
|
18
|
Kisan Chhatrawas Nawalgarh
(Jhunjhunu) |
(Translation: Farmers Hostel).
Apparently, no information was available to the report
authors, but they still labeled it as “Hinduization”
effort. |
|
20
|
Naya Jyoti Charities Trust (Chennai,
Tamilnadu) |
This NGO runs a senior citizen home.
It is accused of participating in a “religious effort”
by the Sabrang/FOIL authors! |
|
21
|
Sevalaya (Chennai, Tamilnadu) |
Sevalaya runs a free school (recognized
by the State Government of Tamil Nadu) for the children at the
orphanage and surrounding villages; a free medical center; and
a free library. It has also received
funding from ASHA. |
|
22
|
|
An educational institution named after a
person. Apparently, no information
was available to the report authors, but they still labeled it
as “Hinduization” effort. |
|
23
|
Ramakrishna Mission Sevashram (Hardwar,
Uttar Pradesh) |
Runs a hospital catering to more than three lakh patients
annually, but report authors think that IDRF has
funded a “religious effort”.
Ramakrishna Mission received honorable
mention by the UNESCO Madanjeet Singh Prize for
Promotion of Tolerance and Non-violence for 2002. |
|
24
|
Sri Ram Gram Vikas Samiti Nagauri
(Meerut, Uttar Pradesh) |
(Translation of “Gram Vikas Samiti” –
Village Development Committee). Apparently, no information
was available to the report authors, but they still labeled it
as “Hinduization” effort. |
|
25
|
Sewa Bharati Gujarat
(Ahmedabad) |
IDRF funds have been utilized for
reconstructing two villages and several schools.
These villages have already been completed and are
already occupied. |
|
26
|
Shree Navtanpuri Dham (Jamnagar,
Gujarat) |
IDRF has funded this NGO to reconstruct
schools that are damaged in the earthquake. |
|
27
|
Miraj Medical Center |
It is a healthcare center and is affiliated with the Church of North
India. It is the only complete
healthcare entity in a 150-mile radius. |
Accusation # 8: Of the
total of $4,467,605 disbursements … a little over a quarter are
donor-designated funds. Donor designated funds are those
monies that are directed to a specific charity by the donor and thus
are funds that IDRF has no control over vis-à-vis its
disbursement. Therefore, only $3.26 million is
under the direct control of IDRF and is disbursed to charities
identified solely by it.
Basis: Analysis based on data available on IDRF’s web
site.
Fact: It is not clear how the report writers came to
the conclusion that only about 25 percent of the IDRF funds are
donor-designated. The IDRF’s annual reports
available on the web site mark some grants as (fully or partially)
donor designated. While other grants do not have
any such identification marked, the report writers conveniently
ignore the fact that majority of the IDRF funds are in fact
earmarked by the donors for projects run by the IDRF’s NGO partners
for over a decade (e.g., Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, Seva
Bharati, Swami Vivekananda Medical Mission, Vikas Bharati, and
Single Teacher Schools)
IDRF has been mentioning the list of NGOs,
which will receive its grants for any financial year, before it
sends its annual appeal. In most cases, the donors
designate one or more of these NGOs to be the recipients of their
donations. (These are not donor-designated
funds, yet the IDRF has to accord the wishes of its donors in this
case.)
| 