1

Non Government Organizations in Sri Lanka:

The Dynamics, the Impact, the Rhetoric and the Politics1

Sasanka Perera
Department of Sociology
University of Colombo

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to place in context the emergence, politics and rhetoric of what is
known as non government organizations in the popular discourse in the context of socio-
political transformations currently taking place in Sri Lanka. In the rhetoric and the politics
of contemporary civil society in Sri Lanka, the conceptual differences between long-
standing people’s organizations such as funeral aid societies, pensioners' associations on the
one hand, and what constitutes as non government organizations (as popularly defined) on
the other have been somewhat lost. Their meanings have dispersed, and often merged with
each other as well. For instance, Uyangoda in a recent essay defending the role of Sri
Lankan non government organizations (NGOs) define these organizations in the following
terms:

“NGOs are precisely what the long description of the acronym suggests:
non-government organizations. They are voluntary bodies formed by
groups of citizens for specific purposes of social service or social and
policy intervention. They can be neighbourhood associations, pensioner’s
clubs or temple development societies, with a limited scope of interest and
activity. They can also be human rights bodies or economic development
and environmental organizations or women’s associations with a concern
for national issues and therefore a wider scope of interest and activism.
Indeed, the range of NGO bodies is so wide that it is often difficult to stick
the label to one set of citizen’s groups in contradiction to another.”
(Uyangoda 1995: 62)

Technically speaking, Uyangoda’s definition is suitable to describe the kinds of

organizations he has identified within his definition itself. All such organizations are, after
all, non government organizations -- be they neighbourhood associations or national level
human rights or development groups. At the same time, this definition also clearly
manifests the kinds of conceptual confusions I have referred to earlier. For purposes of
analysis it is difficult to group together all groups that are not linked to the state set up by
private citizens irrespective of some obvious similarities. But a clarification of these
categories of organizations is essential given the strikingly different roles they play, the
differences in their emergence and historical evolution and the differences in organization
and funding. But at a fundamental level of perception it is clear that both types of
organizations have emerged or have been set up in response to certain needs in the socio-
political and cultural realms of Sri Lanka. They have been perceived by those who have
been instrumental in setting them up and those who benefit from them as mechanisms of
intervention. The word intervention is not used here in an idiom of aggression or ultra
powerful activism. Neither NGOs or people’s organizations need to be aggressive. As a
matter of fact, most such organizations in Sri Lanka are not. The term intervention here

1 Paper presented at the Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue, Colombo on 28 March 1998.
Published in A. Peries ed., Dialogue Vol. 25 1998 and 1999 (double issue). Colombo: Ecumenical
Institute for Study and Dialogue (1999)
 2

refers to a sense of agency, where meanings of change, action and transformation are
embedded. In other words, both types of organizations in general are service oriented, and
attempt to address specific problems or issues people face at the local or national level.
Beyond such common ground however, the modus operandi of the two types of
organization, their organizational structures, membership and recruitment and sources of
funding differ considerably.

For purposes of initiating this discussion I would define people's organizations as

organizations which local people have initiated, to undertake certain activities important to
them at local level. Taken in this sense, such organizations, have a long history in post-
independence Sri Lanka. These would include women’s organizations (known as mahila
samithi in Sinhala villages), informal credit associations, funeral aid societies, farmers’
organizations, school development associations, temple or church development societies,
youth organizations etc. There is a clear demarcation in terms of the service activities
undertaken by these groups, and are usually restricted in their activities to the immediate
vicinity in which the organizations are located. They are mostly village based
organizations. One could find such organizations in most parts of the country. Moreover,
they are strictly voluntary, and usually office bearers are not paid for their services and
those who are members are expected to pay a small membership fee.

Compared to the kinds of people’s organizations described above, what I call NGOs in this
analysis are of more recent origin. NGOs are not village level voluntary organizations in
the sense of people’s organizations, but mostly organizations set up by specific individuals
from the local area or by individuals from outside with access to local contacts. On the
other hand, some NGOs only operate at the national level such as those engaged in research
and publication and documentation of human rights abuses. Almost all NGOs currently
based in Sri Lanka operate with the aid of international capital channeled through various
funding agencies based in the national capital, and employ a paid staff and undertake
projects that are, in theory, beneficial to the area. They are not voluntary in the sense that
they employ paid workers to carry out their activities, and maintain offices. Samaraweera
in a recent essay, while emphasizing the difficulties in defining what is meant by an NGO
offers the following interim definition:

“We define the term (i.e. NGO) as any association or organization that is
non-profit and non-governmental, and engaged in relief and rehabilitation,
social justice, social welfare, environmental protection, gender equality,
development and human rights” (Samaraweera 1997: 6)

From this definition Samaraweera categorically excludes religious organizations, trade

unions, political parties, and non profit organizations devoted to commercial activities such
as chambers of commerce (Samaraweera 1997: 6). This exclusion also runs into some
immediate problems. It is clear why chambers of commerce, political parties or trade
unions should not be perceived as NGOs as defined here since such organizations can be
better subsumed and understood under different conceptual categories. But the exclusion of
religious organizations does lead to certain problems. As we would see later, the history of
NGOs in Sri Lanka began to a certain extent with organizations linked to religion.
Moreover, in contemporary Sri Lanka many NGOs are religious in orientation while many
others, which are ostensibly secular, have strong religious sympathies. On the other hand,
commentators such as Petras have gone to the extent of challenging the very notion that
NGOs are non-governmetal:
 3

“In reality non-governmental organizations are not non-governmental.

They receive funds from overseas governments or work as private
subcontractors of local governments. Frequently they openly collaborate
with governmental agencies at home or overseas” (Petras 1997: 3).

The point I am trying to make here that despite the wide-spread prevalence of NGOs in the
contemporary world and their relative visibility, there are fundamental disagreement even in
coming up with operational definitions. Nevertheless, there is adequate recognition shared
by many such as the markers I have identified above, which would help identify NGOs for
practical purposes.

Some commentators have argued that NGOs have been in operation in Sri Lanka since the
latter part of the last century. For instance, the emergence and the operation of the Maha
Bodhi Society and the Buddhist Theosophical Society have been framed within the NGO
paradigm by writers such as Kumari Jayawardena and Ranjit Perera (Jayawardena 1997: 27-
29, Perera 1997: 40-52). Both writers have convincingly argued and demonstrated that
such organizations attracted funding from foreign sources, particularly individuals in
Australia, America and parts of Europe (Jayawardena 1997: 27-29, Perera 1997: 40-52).
Taken in this sense, one of the better known NGO activists in the early part of this century
is the Buddhist revivalist Anagarika Dharmapala who received large sums of money from
Hawaii based American widow Mary Foster between 1913 and the late 1920s for many of
his activities, including activities undertaken by the Maha Bodhi Society (Perera 1997: 45-
46).

Samaraweera has claimed that NGOs have had a “long and a distinguished history in Sri
Lanka” (1997: 4). The early NGOs in Samaraweera's reckoning were “local counterparts of
organizations affiliated with Christian missionary efforts in the British overseas empire”
(1997: 4). What is even more important is that in the context of the religious revival of the
latter part of the 19th century local Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims also began to emulate
the organizational structures of their Christian competitors leading to the establishment of
Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim organizations with religious and social service agendas. The
emergence of Maha Bodhi Society and other Buddhist NGOs must also be understood in
this context. Moreover, by 1948 at the time the British handed over the responsibility of
governing Sri Lanka to the local elites, many NGOs were already involved in social service
and welfare activities as well as poverty alleviation activities (Samaraweera 1997: 5). In the
post 1948 period the number of such NGOs gradually began to increase, spreading out from
their original bases of operation in the heavily populated Southwest to other parts of the
country as well (Samaraweera 1997: 5).

However, what is clear from the recent socio-political history of Sri Lanka is that the rapid
proliferation and increasing socio-political significance of NGOs began in the 1970s which
further gathered momentum in the 1980s. This phenomenal growth of NGOs in the post
1970s period was not merely in terms of numbers but also in terms of their activities which
also showed a tendency of diversification.

Clearly, over the last two decades or so, along with the much desired as well as negative
trends in Sri Lanka's socio-economic developments there has been a quantitative expansion
of the local and national level non-governmental associations set up by Sri Lankan citizens
with or without the aid of international or foreign agencies. This has become one of the
most visible features of contemporary Sri Lankan civil society. The emergence of these
NGOs and the nature of their interests can only be understood by paying close attention to
 4

recent Sri Lankan social and political history as well as to certain dominant trends in the
international development field, and foreign aid regimes in recent times.

Non Government Organizations in Context

The term NGO or non government organization initially emerged from the language of the
United Nations to describe “non-state actors who needed accredited status in some of the
specialized agencies of the UN system” (Bastian 1997: 47). Whatever the exact nature and
dynamics of its epistemological origins, the growth and expansion of NGOs as a
phenomena in recent times have been part of a global chain of events and processes. As far
as the international scenario is concerned, it has to be understood in the context of
transformed political outlook on the part of governments in the North and a change in
attitude to development activities as well. On the other hand, the NGO phenomena also
have to be understood in the context of specific socio-cultural and political changes in
specific societies both in donor countries and societies such as Sri Lanka where such funds
eventually end up. The expansion of the NGO sector on an international scale can be
comprehended to a certain degree by assessing the increase in funds allocated to such
organizations. For instance, the proportion of aid originating from OECD countries which
were channeled through NGOs increased from 0.7% in 1975 to 3.6% in 1985. This further
increased to about 5% in 1992-94, which in absolute terms translates into a staggering US $
2.3 billion (Bastian 1997: 43). These figures however do not take into account multilateral
agency funding to NGOs which would further expand these figures. Bastian, in a recent
essay points to significant variations in donors and recipients in terms of fund allocation and
absorption. For instance, in 1995 Japan channelled only 1% of bilateral aid to NGOs while
Sweden channeled 30% (Bastian 1997: 43).

Much of the funds allocated are also initially absorbed by NGOs from developed countries,
particularly those situated in the industrialized north. The number of development NGOs
alone registered in northern countries increased from 1600 in 1980 to 2970 in 1993. During
the same period of time the total spending of these NGOs have risen from US $ 2.8 billion
to US $ 5.7 billion calculated on the basis of rates valid in 1994-1995 (quoted in Bastian
1997: 43). But some of these funds accumulated in developed countries also find their way
to the developing world through NGOs in those countries. This in 1994, northern NGOs as
a collectivity transferred over US $ 7 billion to the developing countries which made them
the fourth largest donor in the world (Bastian 1997: 43). Clearly then, in terms of activism,
visibility and attraction of funding NGOs the world over have become a significant
purveyor of influence and intervention. It is in the context of this increase sphere of
influence that some writers have characterized NGOs as an international civil society
(Bastian 1997: 44).

This increase in funding to NGOs is linked to certain shifts in ideological positions in

development approaches as well. In Sri Lanka and elsewhere, most NGOs are concerned
with development activities. Stirrat and Henkel have suggested that the emerging
importance of NGOs in general have to be located in the context of a “new orthodoxy” in
development activities at an international level (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1). According
to them this new orthodoxy in development can be identified on the basis of a series of
related themes which include a stress on participation and empowerment, ‘bottom up’ as
opposed to ‘top down’ approaches to development, a stress on ‘process’ rather than ‘blue
print’ projects, and an emphasis on indigenous rather than ‘expert’ knowledge (Stirrat and
Henkel, no date: 1). To this list of themes one can also add a stress on the marginal and a
distrust of the state which extends to embrace the notion that NGOs are more efficient than
state bodies, and that such NGOs embody the virtues of participatory development which
 5

also empower the people (Henkel and Stirrat 1996: 2-3) Moreover, such themes and
emphases in this new orthodoxy are politically presented in a populist idiom as an attempt
“to overthrow the remnants of colonialism or the forms of neo-colonialism which have
developed since the second world war” (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1).

On the other hand, as outlined by Henkel and Stirrat, supporters of the new orthodoxy argue
that the older approaches to development which they are attempting to replace function “in
the context of grand narratives of progress which sees development in terms of
modernization theory and Marxist theories of socialist liberation” (Henkel and Stirrat 1996:
2). Taken in this sense, the process of development within the older approaches invariably
involves the under developed world as sites of development interventions (i.e, the Third
World), which have to become ‘modern’ (generally perceived as becoming more like the
West or the North). As opposed to such thinking, according to its supporters the new
orthodoxy “stresses the cultural diversity of societies and points out that the ‘western way
of life’ is not universally desirable nor inevitable (Henkel and Stirrat 1996: 2-3).

The point to all this is that in terms of this new orthodoxy, NGOs are perceived as the
primary agents in its vision of development (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1). As Stirrat and
Henkel argue, “the enormous rise in importance of development NGOs is a useful signifier
of the emergence of the new orthodoxy” (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1). Over the last two
decades or so NGOs which were previously situated on the periphery of the development
community have now acquired a central importance in the discourse and practice of
development (Stirrat & Henkel, no date: 1). It has been estimated that there are about 30,
000 ‘international’ NGOs in addition to thousands of local NGOs, most of which are
concerned with issues of development (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1). International NGOs
are of course organizations such as OXFAM, Christian Aid, and Helvitas which operate
across national borers and geographic regions.

Petras, in a recent essay quite critical of NGOs presents their emergence the world over as a
strategy of neoliberal ruling classes, which he has formulated in the following fashion:

“By the early 1980s the more perceptive sectors of the neoliberal ruling
classes realized that their policies were polarizing society and provoking
large scale social discontent. Neoliberal politicians began to finance and
promote a parallel strategy “from below,” the promotion of “grassroots”
organization with an “anti-statist” ideology to intervene among potentially
conflictory classes, to create a “social cushion.” These organizations are
financially dependent on neoliberal sources and were directly involved in
competing with socio-political movements for the allegiance of local
leaders and activist communities. By the 1990s these organizations,
described as “nongovernmental,” numbered in the thousands and were
receiving close to four billion dollars world-wide” (Petras 1997: 10).

For Petras NGOs were merely the extension of an international neoliberal conspiracy. He
argues that NGOs are “‘community face’ of neoliberalism, intimately related to those at the
top and complementing their destructive work with local projects” (Petras 1997: 11).
Specifically focusing on the situation in Latin America Petras has further suggested that
NGOs have depoliticized sectors of the population, and undermined their commitment to
public employees (1997: 13). Petras also criticizes NGOs for emphasizing projects as
opposed to movements (1997: 14). Beyond the rhetoric some of Petras’ observations make
sense and are also applicable to the Sri Lankan situation. For instance, as he observes the
problem of financial dependency is a great concern as we would discuss later. Similarly,
 6

the generally anti-statist ideology of NGOs have paved ways for the Sri Lankan state to
interpret their activities in a negative idiom and attack NGOs on numerous occasions,
particularly on pretexts such as that NGOs undermine national security, disrupt inter-ethnic
harmony and support terrorism.

However, the emerging significance of NGOs have not occurred merely on the basis of
development NGOs. Other NGOs concerned with disaster mitigation, particularly in
situations of armed conflict, have also contributed to the enhanced international stature and
influence capability of NGOs. Other than development, intervention in areas of armed
conflict has also attracted much funding. For instance, overseas development aid
specifically earmarked by OECD countries for emergency responses in conflict situations
increased from US $ 500 million in 1980 to US $ 3500 million in 1993 (quoted in Bastian
1997: 44). Thus many NGOs in zones of political conflict have formed working alliances
with multilateral agencies such as UNHCR, UNICEF and ICRC (all of which also operate
in Sri Lanka) to implement relief operations with donor aid. Such activity include, housing
for refugees, medical care for displaced persons, helping in resettlement, counselling,
provision of food and education and other essential services. It is important to note that the
diversion of funding towards NGOs responding to situations of conflict has also arise in
conditions broadly similar to the conditions identified for the development NGOs. That is,
in an international situation of increased conflict in the Third World and Eastern Europe,
many state and multilateral agencies came to the conclusion that local and international
NGOs are more flexible and efficient than state players in implementing relief programs in
conflict areas.

The Local Conditions for the Emergence of NGOs in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka both international and national NGOs operate. International NGOs are
overseas based organizations which operate in many countries. These would include ICRC,
OXFAM etc. Locally based NGOs constitute of organizations that operate on a national
level as well as those that operate on a regional level. Thus in theory, most human rights
NGOs based in Colombo such as the Civil Rights Movement operate at a national level in
the sense that they are interested in human rights issues throughout the country. But there
are also many regional NGOs that operate at district level or at a much more restricted local
level. Thus the Wehilihini Development Centre operates in only the Monaragala District.
But whether they are national or regional NGOs most such organizations in Sri Lanka have
an international dimension in that they are heavily dependent on international funding.

According to Stirrat and Henkel there are approximately 20, 000 NGOs and grass roots
organizations in Sri Lanka (Stirrat and Henkel, no date: 1). The NGO Commission Report
(Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry in Respect of Non-Governmental
Organizations Functioning in Sri Lanka, 1993) estimated that in 1993 there were 3000
NGOs in the country. Quoting from different sources Samaraweera had produced the figure
of 3, 856 local NGOs and 47 Foreign NGOs between the 1980s and 1995 (Samaraweera
1997: 6). Quoting other sources he further identifies 76 NGOs in the social welfare sector,
81 in the participatory development sector, 24 active in research, 26 involved in
environment related issues and 32 working on human rights issues (quoted in Samaraweera
1997: 9). Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies has estimated that there are approximately
67 NGOs working in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka alone who have registered with the
Consortium (1998). But since Sri Lanka does not have a mechanism such as in Bnagladesh
where all NGOs are registered, it is impossible to offer reliable overall figures.
 7

According to other observers, some of these NGOs operating in Sri Lanka employ over
5000 employees (Bastian 1997: 43). On the other hand, as a specific sector within the
overall political economy of Sri Lanka, NGOs are not merely important political actors, but
also a significant mechanism of employment generation. Thus their importance cannot be
underestimated. Some NGOs have attempted to organize into consortia or similar
mechanisms. Thus numerous NGOs with generally similar interests have voluntarily
registered with the Central Council of Social Services and Consortium of Humanitarian
Agencies. In assessing the emergence and impact of NGOs one also needs to take specific
socio-cultural and political conditions of particular localities in addition to the kinds of
overall conditions applicable in a global scale discussed earlier. Bastian correctly identifies
the importance of local conditions for the emergence of NGOs in the following words:

“--- NGOs are a product of historical developments of various societies.

They have very different histories, varying social bases, represent various
ideologies and interests and are linked to various other actors in society,
including the state. They represent a variety of socio-political forces in
society. Their historical role is determined by what they do and do not in the
context of various developments in society” (Bastian 1997: 48)

Upon closer scrutiny one would see that the kinds of developments at an international level
outlined earlier played a crucial role in the emergence of NGOs in Sri Lanka. At the same
time, there were specific socio-political conditions and dynamics prevailing in Sri Lanka
which were conducive to the emergence and proliferation of NGOs. In fact, these two
processes operated parallel to each other simultaneously. At this point I would attempt to
outline some of the key local conditions which paved the way for NGOs to establish
themselves in Sri Lanka and expand their activities.

Since 1977, fundamental changes have occurred in Sri Lankan society due to a number of
reasons. On the one hand, since that time, in keeping with the open economic policies of
the UNP government which ruled for 17 years since 1977, attempts were made to dismantle
many components of the post-independence welfare society which in financial terms were
becoming unaffordable to maintain. This meant that certain kinds of activities such as small
scale development initiatives, informal educational activities, distribution of food rations no
longer became the prerogative of the state.

Moreover, in keeping with the open economic policy adopted by the UNP government in
1977, the government moved away from a long period of controlled food process to a
reliance on market forces for the allocation of food supplies and prices (Tambiah 1986: 36).
For instance the the UNP replaced the subsidized rice price policy and introduced a food
stamp system which in 1983 covered about 56% of the population. But the Harvard
Institute of International Development which actively advised the UNP regime of J.R.
Jayawardena pointed out that inflation reduced the real resource cost of the program which
in turn diminished its benefits (quoted in Tambiah 1986: 36). According to the analysis of
the HIID the “real income of for those receiving food stamps had declined by early four
percent in 1979-80, and by a further 11 percent in 1980-81, despite increases in
employment and economic growth” (quoted in Tambiah 1986: 36). Thus through inflation
as well as government policy serious economic and social dislocations occurred in the
country which affected large segments of the population irrespective of the fact that in
certain sectors of the economy there was in fact substantial advances (Tambiah 1986: 35-37,
56).
 8

It is important to note that such space created by the state’s withdrawal or relative
withdrawal from significant spheres of socio-economic and welfare activity attracted many
NGOs into those spheres. In fact, many of the NGOs in Sri Lanka which are interested in
issues of development, are currently located within the boundaries of spheres of activity in
which the state plays a less dynamic role or has completely vacated.

On the other hand, since 1977 Sri Lankan society has also been steadily militarized and
brutalized in the context of armed confrontations between the state security forces and
Tamil militant youth representing numerous guerrilla groups and the confrontation between
the Sinhala youth organization the Janata Vimukti Peramuna (JVP) and agents of the state.
In addition, the post 1977 period also marked the steady institutionalization of political
violence by the state (Obeyesekere 1984, Tambiah 1986, Uyangoda 1996, Perera 1997).
First, the on-going armed confrontation between Sri Lankan security forces dominated by
the Sinhala majority and Tamil separatists in the northern and eastern provinces has killed
and displaced thousands of civilians and combatants in the north-east as well as elsewhere
in the country due to sporadic and indiscriminate bomb explosions. Second, in the late
1980s the JVP launched a short-lived but extremely violent and unsuccessful insurrection in
southern parts of the country which was matched in brutality by the counter-insurgency
campaign of the state. Both conflicts have caused serious damage to both the democratic
system of government of Sri Lanka as well as the mental and physical health of large
sections of its population. Despite the obviously serious mental health problems (eg., war
related trauma such as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) caused by the twin conflicts, there
is no clear state mental health policy addressing such issues.

Thus, the context in which NGOs emerged and proliferated in the 1970s and 1980s, a
process which still continues, have to be understood in the socio-political contexts outlined
above. In general, among the issues that many NGOs currently operating in Sri Lanka are
interested in, one could include the following:

1. Sustainable development
2. Environment, ecology, and the introduction of alternate and eco-friendly technologies
4. Lobbying for human rights, documenting violations of human rights and issues of peace
5. Coping with war-related trauma and rehabilitation
6. Rural development
7. Development of slum communities
8. Development of social infrastructure
9. Building and sustaining community level leadership
10. Cultural politics and rights including the organization of alternate initiatives for
recognizing excellence in literature, drama and poetry
11. Research and publication
12. Evangelization
13. Women’s issues

What this means in real terms is that many sectors which a few years ago was the exclusive
monopoly of the state, now -- in theory -- also have direct people's participation through
NGO activities. On certain occasions, the agendas of the state and local government bodies
have come into conflict with the agendas of the NGOs. The following are among the goals
of many NGOs:

1) Imparting skills training to targeted groups by way of offering the target

communities or groups opportunities to familiarize themselves with new techniques
and technologies that can be used in the production processes -- among other
 9

things. One could argue that a fair index of the success of these endeavors will be
the level of self-employment generated at grass-roots level.

2) Imbibing leadership qualities among backward, repressed and stagnant social

strata.

3) Bringing about greater awareness of individual and communitarian potential of

target groups, and awakening them to such ennobling public-interest concepts such
as human rights, environmental protection and self-help.

The Outline of a Critique: The Politics of Sri Lankan NGOs

While there is clearly no question about the quantitative development of the NGO sector
and its much desirable contributions to Sri Lankan society, a number of questions have
arisen in recent times regarding the long-term qualitative contributions of some of these
NGOs. The main reason for such a situation to arise is not due to the illegitimacy of the
reasons for specific NGOs to exist, but due to problems of training and knowledge of the
personnel in these organizations and issues of utility and the politics involved in some of
the projects these organizations have undertaken. Moreover, there is also no serious and
relatively independent long term mechanism to evaluate the work of these NGOs.

The state has attempted on a number of occasions over the last few years to keep tabs on
NGOs such as through the recently passed NGO bill, the recommendations of the
Presidential Commission of Inquiry in Respect of Non-Governmental Organizations
Functioning in Sri Lanka (1993), and the provisions of the Voluntary Social Services
Organizations (Registration and Supervision) (Amendment) Bill of 1995. But the interest
of the state as manifest in these instrument has not been to evaluate the utility of NGO
activities and projects but to monitor them, which can then also be controlled through state
intervention. On the other hand, any evaluation of the dynamics and politics of NGOs at
the present moment in time have to be undertaken in a context marked by an almost total
absence of empirical investigations into NGO activities as a whole. On the other hand, the
anthropology or sociology of Sri Lanka also does not offer any serious studies of the
activities and impact of specific NGOs. The exception perhaps is the existence of a number
of highly naive and romanticized descriptions of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement
which are devoid of serious scholarly or analytical rigor.2 Thus any study into the activities
and the dynamics of NGOs must assess the nature of their contributions and if they offer the
kind of services specific local areas need, or if they operate according to an agenda drafted
elsewhere in the context of which there is very little responsibility to local people.

Many of the criticisms leveled against NGOs in Sri Lanka in recent times have to be
understood both in the context of the service and political agendas of NGOs themselves and
the nature of evolving politics in Sri Lanka. One could see that many of these criticisms in
the final analysis are based on the perceived foreign or non-national nature of NGOs. The
reason for this perception mostly stems from the fact that NGOs are heavily dependent on
foreign sources for funding and that their activities are based and to a certain extent decided
upon their ability to attract such external funding. From this perception, a number of related
polemical strands manifest themselves. Uyangoda in a recent essay has identified some of

2 For example see, Sarvodaya: The Other Development (Delhi: Vikas, 1980) by Detlef Kantowsky,
In Search of Development (Moratuwa: Sarvodaya Press, 1981) by A.T. Ariyaratna and Dharma and
development: Religion as a Resource in the Sarvodaya Self-Help Movement in Sri Lanka
(Mimeograph, 1981) by Joanna Macy.
 10

these polemical criticisms which emerge both as questions and accusations: are NGOs
foreign agents, are their activities detrimental to Sri Lankan national interests, do their
activities engender Sri Lankan national security, are NGOs front organizations for the
LTTE?, are NGOs too influential to the extent of forming a network akin to a parallel
government, should they not be banned or their activities monitored and controlled?
(Uyangoda 1995: 62). All of these questions have been raised in recent times, with regards
to NGOs as a collective as well as on an individual basis. The questions have been raised
and answered in an accusative manner most consistently in the Sinhala and English press.

There are some clear reasons why the kinds of accusations outlined above have been
directed against local NGOs. For one, in the context of rather parochial limits of certain
extreme manifestations of Sinhala nationalism, critiques of Sinhala (and Buddhist)
hegemony in politics and society and the support of certain political positions such as
devolution of power to the regions would be seen as anti-Sinhala, detrimental to the Sri
Lankan national interests and indicative of foreign influences. Some NGOs, particularly
those involved in human rights issues, research, publication and dissemination of
knowledge have both questioned notions of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony in national politics
while supporting ideas such as devolution, multiculturalism and so on. Thus NGOs such as
Social Scientists Association, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Vibhavi Centre for
Alternate Culture have attempted to stress the multi-religious and multi-cultural character of
Sri Lankan society through seminars, films, books and other modes of intervention. In
addition, abuses of human rights have been documented and disseminated around the world
by NGOs such as Civil Rights Movement, INFORM and so on. Issues of peace have been
championed by groups such as National Peace Council and Women for Peace at the
national level and by numerous lesser known NGOs at local and regional levels.

At one point or another all of these groups have been targeted for virulent criticisms for
critiquing long held conventions on the nature of Sri Lankan politics and society or for
documenting human rights abuses by security forces which allegedly helps the LTTE. In
addition, some of these groups have been branded as fronts for the LTTE itself. Thus, a
meeting of NGO donors in 1995 was disrupted twice by mobs led by noted Sinhala
nationalists such as Nalin de Silva (The Island, 95-11-17) which was encouraged by
newspapers such as Divayina and Island which created the atmosphere needed for such an
outcome. Uyangoda makes the following observations with reference to these
developments:

“The pro-LTTE label is the cruelest allegation made against the NGOs in
the south, because it has already generated an atmosphere of hatred and
violent hostility against some prominent human rights NGO activists. This
is where the theme of hate politics figures in our discussion. As recently
demonstrated, this propaganda can easily provoke lumpen elements against
NGOs and turn them into storm troopers readily manipulated by patriotic
gentlemen” (Uyangoda 1995: 69).

As early as in 1988, NGOs active in research and publication (particularly on issues of

ethnicity and political violence) were threatened in a letter signed “A.K. 007” (Uyangoda
1995: 65). The main criticism levelled against the NGOs which received the letter was that
they engaged in anti-national activities. Thus, “doing research into the ethnic problem in
Sri Lanka, thereby putting in danger the security of the entire nation” was presented as one
such anti-national activity. Another such allegation was selling information and research
data to foreigners (Uyangoda 1995: 65). The letter also warned recipients to “either make a
public confession to your unpatriotic crimes within one week of receiving this letter or face
 11

capital punishment” (Uyangoda 1995: 65). Much of these politics and criticisms directed
against NGOs have to be understood in the context of a society in a situation of serious
socio-political upheaval which has further led to the disruption of the intellectual climate of
the country. These developments together have created a situation where conspiracy
theories and xenophobia thrive. This situation did, in the short run make it difficult for
NGOs to operate in the south. But it did not completely stall their activities.

The danger from these nationalist outbursts acquire much more greater proportions when
one considers the fact that these accusations have also captured the imagination of the
average public given the politically unstable times of the present, and the emotional appeal
of such nationalist outbursts. More importantly, in many ways these accusations have also
received the tacit support of the state and some of its bureaucratic structures. One reason
for this kind of support for the anti-NGO forces must be understood in the context of the
important role NGOs play in certain key areas of society such as development activities.
Such areas once used to be the exclusive monopoly of the state. Moreover, given the rapid
growth of the NGO sector and the diversification of their activities and the expansion of
their influence on one level seem to create a structure that in the eyes of many parallel an
alternative state structure attracting foreign funds, power and influence. To many state
actors this was an ominous and threatening development. To a great extent, this explains
the numerous bureaucratic hurdles placed in the path of NGOs. The clearest of these were
the recommendations of the NGO Commission, and the provisions of the VSSO Bill should
be seen as the state’s response to the perceived threat from NGOs.

But if one were to move beyond these polemical strands, one could identify certain serious
problems in the way NGOs operate in Sri Lanka both collectively and individually. These
are the issues one has to focus on in assessing the performance and impact of NGOs. Some
of these problems may be located in the varied emphases in the new orthodoxy on
development which has become the general context in which most NGOs operate. Thus,
the emphasis on the notion of participation has drawn much criticism both in the context of
NGO activities as well as in the context of development activities in general. These
criticisms come from two main sources:

(1) The more conservative critics who are also supportive of the approaches the
new orthodoxy is striving to replace make the following kind of criticisms about
participation: participatory approaches tend to be naive because they have the
propensity to overstate the value of ‘local knowledge’ and potential to self
determination. These critics also argue that in general the experts and the ‘state’ in
the end do know better than local sources (Henkel and Stirrat 1996: 3).

(2) The second main stream of criticism come from relatively more progressive
elements who claim that participatory policies do not really lead to participation
and empowerment. Instead, they argue what really takes place is the reproduction
of dominant power structures in local communities and beyond. This occurs
mostly due to the relative naivete of participatory policies in the way they perceive
political issues (Henkel and Stirrat 1996: 3). Moreover, it has also been pointed out
that participatory approaches are often utilized in an instrumental sense “as a tool
for development agencies to more efficiently implement their projects rather than
seeking real participation from the affected community” (Henkel and Stirrat 1996:
3).

Both of these criticisms can be framed within Sri Lanka to place in context some of the
activities of local NGOs and to assess the impact of their work. For instance, the NGOs
 12

working on issues of rehabilitation and displacement as well as counseling of people

affected by trauma of violence and displacement cannot merely depend on local knowledge.
Counseling is a specialized profession, which need trained personnel often from the cities.
Similarly, research into issues of displacement cannot be properly undertaken without
trained personnel collecting information, without possibly undermining the quality of the
information collected. Thus, there are many areas of NGO activities where a stress on local
knowledge may not be useful, and in fact such a stress could lead to serious consequences.

On the other hand, the correlation between participation and empowerment often gets
confused in practice. One has to ask the question who gets empowered in the long run. For
instance, between 1996 and 1997, while conducting fieldwork in a number of areas
including Hambantota and Monaragala it appeared to me that the people’s perceptions of
the successes of NGOs, and the NGOs' own self perception of their activities often vary
considerably. The mere running of a certain program in the manner planned does not mean
that the people have been empowered in any real sense except perhaps within the project
reports sent to donor agencies. Thus in many places, rural credit societies and the
introduction of eco-friendly fertilizers and sustainable agricultural techniques have failed
because there were not enough support services, particularly after a specific project came to
an end. But they are successes in terms of reports compiled by NGOs which implemented
them and those who funded them.

Another major problem with NGOs is their heavy dependence on external funding. To that
extent, their projects have to be determined at least to a certain extent on the needs and
agendas of those external funders. In fact, this is one of the key issues which has also
fueled the parochial nationalist imagination opposed to NGOs in general. Here a very real
question emerges as to whom the NGOs and their projects would ultimately be responsible -
- to the local people or the foreign donors. It is in this context that Petras has argued that
“their programs are not accountable to the local people but to overseas donors” (Petras
1997: 13). In this context he goes to the extent of arguing “NGOs undermine democracy by
taking social programs out of the hands of local people and their elected officials to create
dependence on non-elected, overseas officials and their locally anointed officials” (Petras
1997: 13). Of course Petras’ arguments goes completely contrary to the widely held belief
that NGOs strengthen civil society through democratic practices.

The argument that NGOs do not take local conditions into account and do not consult local
leaders are also concerns that have been voiced by many individuals in Hambantota and
Monaragala among other areas. One reason for this is the intention of some NGOs
operating in these areas to overlook certain kinds of traditional leaders and prop up others.
Moreover, Petras' argument that NGOs really do not empower local people but instead
create dependency on overseas officials and their local counterparts also has some
credibility. While in the Sri Lankan context, such dependence on foreign officials is not
always an issue, the fact that a new breed of NGO elites have emerged both at national and
regional levels is quite clear. In this situation their power and influence at local and
regional levels have been considerably enhanced as opposed to the empowerment of local
people. Similarly, there have been instances where a number of Colombo based national
NGOs interested in research and publication nearly had to halt important publishing
programs simply because funders thought that publishing did not have any “visibility” and
that they should engage in “action programs.” In any case, it is clear that the financial
dependability of NGOs on external sources have imposed severe restrictions on their long
term operational capabilities and legitimacy.
 13

In the end however, where NGOs are likely to go in the future is a matter that NGOs
themselves must decide. It is not something that the groups opposed to them can indicate.
But there is much that can be learnt from some of that opposition when one selectively
discard the irrational and extreme forms of opposition. For one thing, the extreme financial
dependence of NGOs on overseas funding must be seriously looked at, and means should be
adopted to minimize that dependence in the long run. In the same manner the defensive
attitude adopted by many NGOs in the context of opposition to them must change. While
NGOs are clearly needed in societies such as ours, it makes little sense to depict them as
agencies that can do no wrong. In other words, NGOs are no longer merely service
associations trying to help the disadvantaged. They are also means by which individuals
make money. Internationally a certain class of literature (eg., NGOs: Performance and
Accountability by Edwards, and Hulme, 1995 and The Alms Bazzar by Ian Simillie, 1995)
has emerged that has critically looked at the performance of NGOs. Some of these studies
have shown that the performance of some of these NGOs are nowhere near what has been
claimed and have also raised questions about the levels of accountability of these
organizations (Bastian 1997: 4748).

It is time that NGOs seriously interested in the future of Sri Lanka as well as their own
work should take stock of their own failures and successes and chart their course into the
future. It has to come from within the collectivity of NGOs as an exercise of serious soul
searching which has not hitherto come from Sri Lankan NGOs. Moreover, such an exercise
should not be left to state mechanisms such as commissions of inquiry, because such
structures have a good chance of becoming mechanisms of a witch hunt when
institutionalized and utilized under conditions of political and social instability.

Bibliography

Bastian, Sunil
1997. “Development NGOs and Ethnic Conflicts: Conceptual Challenges.” In,
Nethra, Vol. 1, No. 3, April/June 1997. Colombo: International Centre for Ethnic
Studies.
Brow, James
1996. Demons and Development: The Struggle for Community in a Sri Lankan
Village. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies
1998. Compendium of Agencies Working in the East. Colombo: Consortium of
Humanitarian Agencies.
Ferguson, James
1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and
Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Henkel, Heiko and R.L. Stirrat
1996. Participation as Spiritual Duty: The Religious Roots of the New
Development Orthodoxy. Paper presented at the ‘Boundaries and Identities’
Conference in Edinburgh, 24-26 October 1996.
Jayawardena, Kumari
1997. “NGO Billa.” In, NGO Billa. Colombo: Social Scientists’ Association.
Obeyesekere, G.
1984. “Political Violence and the Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka.” In, Sri
Lanka, the Ethnic Conflict: Myths, Realities and Perspectives. Colombo:
Committee for Rational Development.
 14

Perera, Sasanka
1997. "Political Violence, Structural Amnesia, and the Lack of Remorse." In, J.
Uyangoda and J. Biyanwila eds., Matters of Violence: Reflections on Social and
Political Violence in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Social Scientists' Association.
Perera, Ranjit
1997. “Gunadasa, Dharmapala, Mary saha Mahabodhi.” In, NGO Billa. Colombo:
Social Scientists’ Association.
Petras, James
1997. “Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America.” In, Monthly Review, December
1997.
Presidential Commission of Inquiry.
1993. Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry in Respect of Non-
Governmental Organizations Functioning in Sri Lanka. Colombo: The
Government of Sri Lanka
Samaraweera, Vijaya
1997. Politics, National Security and the Vibrancy of NGOs. Colombo: Law and
Society Trust.
Stirrat, R.L & Heiko Henkel
No date. The Development Gift: The Problem of Reciprocity in the NGO World.
Unpublished paper, University of Sussex.
Stirrat, R.L.
1996. “The New Orthodoxy and Old Truths: Participation, Empowerment and
Other Buzz Words.” In, S. Bastian and N. Bastian eds., Assessing Participation: A
Debate From South Asia. Delhi: Konark Publishers.
Tambiah, S. J.
1986. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Uyangoda, Jayadeva
1995. “NGOs, Politics and Questions of Democracy.” In, Thatched Patio, Vol. 8,
No. 1-6, January/ December 1995. Colombo: International Centre for Ethnic
Stiudies.

1996. "Militarization, Violent State, and Violent Society: Sri Lanka." In, Kumar
Rupasinghe and Khawar Mumtaz eds., Internal Conflicts in South Asia. Oslo:
International Peace Research Institute.