State vs NGOs: A state against dissent or delayed regulation?

Is the action taken by the Indian government against NGOs for their involvement in the anti-Kudankulam protests justified? Or are we just less tolerant of dissent if we believe it comes in the path of plans deemed part of our progress? The Union government has recommended a probe against four NGOs and deported a German national for their alleged involvement in the protests against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. This came soon after the Prime Minister said foreign NGOs may be funding protests against the plant. According to Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of the Centre for Policy Research, these steps are signs that the space for dissent in Indian society is rapidly receding due to a government that is technocratic and weak. In an editorial in The Indian Express, Mehta says that the PM’s statements against the NGOs protesting against the nuclear plant are steps taken merely to discredit the protestors since the Centre is unable to tackle popular movements. [caption id=“attachment_229006” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Has the Centre failed to allay the concerns of the protestors? AFP”]  [/caption] “The state has enough instruments to hold NGOs accountable. But it chooses not to do so in areas that are legitimate, like transparency. Instead, it uses its power selectively when its interests are crossed,” Mehta says in the article. Firstpost had written earlier about how NGOs with a myriad set of interests are quickly becoming obstructionists against the state policy, at times taking up causes despite having no solution to the problem. “They have been active partners with the government in several developmental projects. Ideally, that is what they should be focused on,” the article said. But should censorship and discrediting popular movements be the route taken? Mehta argues that any form of dissent is presently labeled as subversive or anti-national by the state. “The hallmark of technocracy is that it cannot countenance the possibility of radical disagreement. Since there is a technically right answer, disagreement can only be explained by attributing motives,” he says. An alternative to the Kudankulam issue might have been to bring the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa on board to handle the local politics but instead the Centre has been trying to solve the matter without her support. Instead the Chief Minister was was involved in a war of words with PMO minister V Narayanasamy about the sources for the funding of the NGOs. After months of impasse, the Chief Minister is today meeting with the protestors to discuss the safety of the plant. Whether it will be a success and what the future course of action will be remains to be seen. According to Mehta, the reason why the Centre often finds popular support against its projects is because it chooses to keep facts secret, does not engage with people affected by projects and does not produce trustworthy information of projects. He may have a point. Or is the government just doing something it should have done a long time ago with NGOs?