|
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.)
|