Story so far: Why is FCRA back in the news?
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to further amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010—the principal law governing foreign donations received by NGOs, charitable organisations, religious bodies and other eligible entities in India.
The issue has become important because foreign contributions constitute a significant source of funding for India’s civil-society sector. The government’s Statement of Objects and Reasons notes that around 16,000 associations were registered under FCRA and received roughly ₹22,000 crore annually. It argues that experience with the law has exposed operational and legal gaps, particularly concerning what happens to foreign-funded money and assets when an organisation loses its FCRA registration.
The 2026 Bill therefore attempts to move FCRA regulation beyond merely asking “Where did the foreign money come from and how was it spent?” to a further question:
“What happens to the assets created from foreign money when the organisation can no longer legally receive foreign contributions?”
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 March 2026 and has subsequently been referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
What is FCRA and what is its objective?
FCRA = Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.
In simple terms, FCRA is India’s system for regulating foreign money entering Indian civil society and other eligible organisations.
The 2010 Act describes its purpose as regulating the acceptance and utilization of foreign contributions and foreign hospitality and preventing their use for activities detrimental to the national interest.
Why does India regulate foreign donations?
Foreign money is not automatically illegal or undesirable. Foreign funding supports:
- education,
- healthcare,
- disaster relief,
- environmental work,
- research,
- poverty alleviation,
- humanitarian activities and
- religious and charitable activities.
But the State has a legitimate concern that foreign financial resources should not be used to:
- undermine national security,
- influence political processes,
- disturb public order,
- finance prohibited activities, or
- circumvent India’s laws.
Therefore, the basic FCRA philosophy can be expressed as:
Foreign contribution → permitted recipient → permitted purpose → transparent utilisation → accountability
The law tries to balance two competing objectives:
Freedom of association and legitimate civil-society activity VS National security, transparency and accountability.
That tension lies at the heart of today’s FCRA debate.
History of FCRA:
1. Why was FCRA created in the first place?
The story begins in the 1970s.
India enacted its first Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act in 1976. The concern was not simply charitable donations. The broader concern was that foreign money could potentially influence India’s political and public life.
The original law therefore sought to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions and foreign hospitality.
The underlying principle was straightforward:
A sovereign country should know when foreign financial resources are entering its political, social and institutional space and how those resources are being used.
The concern became particularly significant in the context of the Cold War, when foreign governments, political organisations and ideological groups could use financial assistance as a means of influence.
Thus, FCRA was born primarily as a foreign-influence vis-a-vis national-interest regulation, rather than merely as an NGO accounting law.
2. Historical amendments: How did FCRA evolve?
The law has been tightened and modernised several times.
1976 — Original FCRA
The first FCRA was enacted.
Core objective:
Regulate foreign contributions + prevent undesirable foreign influence.
1984 — Strengthening the regulatory framework
The 1984 amendment expanded the regulatory framework.
Among other things, it:
- made registration with the Home Ministry mandatory for NGOs receiving foreign funds;
- brought judges within the Act;
- broadened the definitions of foreign contribution and political party;
- strengthened audit-related powers.
The direction was clear:
More categories + greater disclosure + stronger government oversight.
2010: The major reset
By the 2000s, the 1976 law had become increasingly outdated. India’s economy had opened up, international philanthropy had expanded and foreign financial flows had become much more complex. Parliament therefore enacted the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, replacing the 1976 Act.
The new Act came into force on 1 May 2011.
What changed?
The 2010 Act introduced a more comprehensive compliance architecture.
Among its important features were:
- FCRA registration valid for five years
- mandatory renewal;
- stricter eligibility conditions;
- provisions for suspension and cancellation;
- provisions relating to vesting of assets;
- compounding of certain offences;
- clearer regulatory procedures.
A crucial point for understanding the 2026 Bill
The idea of vesting assets created from foreign contribution after cancellation of registration was NOT invented in 2026. It was already present in Section 15 of the FCRA, 2010.
The 2026 Bill attempts to create a much more elaborate mechanism for supervising, managing and eventually disposing of those assets. The government itself acknowledges that the concept of vesting was already part of the 2010 Act.
2016 and 2018: Further adjustments
The framework continued to be amended in 2016 and 2018, making technical and procedural changes to the operation of FCRA.
The broader trajectory remained the same:
greater transparency + tighter compliance + stronger monitoring of foreign contributions.
The government describes the evolution of FCRA over the last five decades as a progressive strengthening of disclosure, accountability and governance, rather than as a prohibition on foreign funding itself.
2020: The most significant recent tightening
The FCRA Amendment Act, 2020 substantially strengthened government oversight.
Some of its most important changes were:
1. SBI account
Foreign contributions had to be received through a designated State Bank of India account at the New Delhi Main Branch.
2. Administrative expenses
The permissible ceiling for administrative expenses was reduced from:
50% → 20%
of foreign contribution received.
3. No transfer of foreign contribution
Organisations receiving foreign contributions were restricted from transferring those funds to another association.
4. Identification requirements
Aadhaar/passport-related identification requirements were introduced for key functionaries.
5. Stronger renewal scrutiny
Renewal of registration became subject to greater government scrutiny.
The 2020 amendment therefore marked a shift towards much tighter financial traceability and control.
2022–25: Some relaxation alongside tighter monitoring
The subsequent period is important because the evolution of FCRA has not been a one-way tightening.
For example, in 2022, the limit on foreign contributions that an individual could receive from relatives abroad without triggering the relevant reporting requirement was increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh per year.
There were also changes concerning compounding of offences and certain compliance requirements.
Thus, the overall picture is better described as: Tighten where national-interest/accountability concerns arise + simplify where compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
2026: What is the new Amendment Bill trying to change?
The 2026 Bill addresses what the government describes as “operational and legal gaps”, particularly surrounding organisations whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or otherwise ceases.
The most important proposal is the creation of a Designated Authority.
The problem
Imagine:
NGO receives foreign contribution
↓
Uses it to construct:
School / hospital / office / place of worship
↓
Its FCRA registration is cancelled or expires.
Now what happens to the building and remaining foreign contribution?
The existing law contained a vesting provision, but the government argues that there was no comprehensive framework dealing with:
- possession,
- supervision,
- management,
- preservation and
- disposal
of such assets.
The government says this created administrative uncertainty and potential scope for misuse.
The proposed solution
The 2026 Bill proposes a system broadly along these lines:
FCRA registration ceases
↓
Foreign contribution + foreign-funded assets provisionally vest in Designated Authority
↓
Authority supervises/manages the assets
↓
If registration is restored within the prescribed period:
Assets + unused foreign contribution returned
↓
If registration is not restored:
Permanent vesting can follow under the proposed framework.
The Bill also provides mechanisms for revision and judicial appeal against orders of the Designated Authority.
Other important changes proposed in 2026
The Bill goes beyond assets.
1. Clearer “cessation” of FCRA registration
Registration may cease when:
- it is cancelled;
- the organisation surrenders it;
- renewal is not sought; or
- renewal is refused.
This creates a clearer legal status for organisations that are no longer eligible to operate under FCRA.
2. Regulation of assets during suspension
The Bill proposes restrictions concerning assets created from foreign contributions while an organisation’s FCRA registration is suspended.
3. Time limits for prior permission
Where an organisation receives foreign contribution through prior permission, the Bill seeks clearer provisions regarding the period within which the contribution must be received and utilised.
4. Coordinated investigations
State agencies would require Central Government approval before initiating an investigation under FCRA. The government’s justification is that FCRA concerns foreign contributions, foreign relations and national security, and that multiple agencies conducting parallel investigations could result in contradictory proceedings.
5. Rationalisation of penalties
Interestingly, the Bill does not simply increase punishment. It proposes reducing the maximum imprisonment for relevant FCRA violations from: 5 years → 1 year.
Thus, the Bill combines stronger administrative control with some reduction in criminal punishment.
FCRA Rules, 2026:
On 22 June 2026, the government notified the FCRA (Amendment) Rules, 2026. These are already notified rules, whereas the Amendment Bill is still under parliamentary consideration.
The 2026 Rules introduce, among other things:
- specification of the exact purposes for which an organisation is registered;
- specification of the States/UTs in which it is permitted to operate;
- enhanced reporting requirements;
- project/activity-wise and donor-related disclosures;
- a requirement for organisations renewing registration to demonstrate utilisation of at least ₹10 lakh of foreign contribution over the preceding two years.
The Current Debate: Accountability vs Autonomy
The controversy over the 2026 Bill is ultimately about how much control the government should have over organisations receiving foreign money.
Government’s argument
The government’s position can be summarised as: Foreign contribution creates public-interest obligations.
If foreign money is used to create an asset in India, that asset should not simply become an unregulated private resource after the organisation loses its FCRA status.
The government therefore argues that the Bill:
- closes legal loopholes;
- prevents misuse;
- provides administrative certainty;
- protects foreign-funded assets;
- coordinates investigations;
- increases transparency; and
- creates a clearer framework for organisations whose FCRA status ends.
The government also stresses that the proposed vesting is initially provisional and that restoration mechanisms and judicial remedies exist.
Critics’ argument
Critics, including Opposition parties and sections of civil society and religious organisations, are concerned about the extent of executive power.
Their principal concern is:
Could regulation of foreign contributions become indirect government control over the property and functioning of civil-society organisations?
The most contentious provision is therefore the Designated Authority.
For example, an organisation could have an asset funded through a combination of:
60% foreign contribution + 40% domestic funds.
Critics worry that the State could initially take control of the entire asset, even though only part of it was created using foreign money.
The Bill does provide a mechanism concerning the return of the identifiable portion attributable to other sources, but the debate remains over whether such executive control is proportionate.
Conclusion:
The history of FCRA reveals a gradual evolution.
1976
Concern: Foreign influence
↓
1984
Concern: Greater registration, disclosure and oversight
↓
2010
Concern: Modernise and strengthen the entire regulatory architecture
↓
2020
Concern: Tight financial traceability, accountability and restrictions on misuse
↓
2026
Concern: What happens to foreign-funded money and assets when FCRA status ends?
This is the central significance of the 2026 Bill.
The debate, therefore, is not simply about foreign donations. It is about the larger relationship between foreign funding, national security, civil society, religious institutions, property rights and executive power.
A balanced FCRA regime must achieve two objectives simultaneously:
Foreign money should not become a channel for illegitimate foreign influence.
But equally:
Regulation of foreign funding should not become a mechanism for unnecessarily weakening legitimate civil society.
In short:
The FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 represents a shift from merely regulating the inflow and utilisation of foreign money to also regulating the legal fate of the assets created from that money.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.
On March 31, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its annual Gender Gap Report 2021. The Global Gender Gap report is an annual report released by the WEF. The gender gap is the difference between women and men as reflected in social, political, intellectual, cultural, or economic attainments or attitudes. The gap between men and women across health, education, politics, and economics widened for the first time since records began in 2006.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]No need to remember all the data, only pick out few important ones to use in your answers.
The Global gender gap index aims to measure this gap in four key areas : health, education, economics, and politics. It surveys economies to measure gender disparity by collating and analyzing data that fall under four indices : economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index benchmarks 156 countries on their progress towards gender parity. The index aims to serve as a compass to track progress on relative gaps between women and men in health, education, economy, and politics.
Although no country has achieved full gender parity, the top two countries (Iceland and Finland) have closed at least 85% of their gap, and the remaining seven countries (Lithuania, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Rwanda, and Ireland) have closed at least 80% of their gap. Geographically, the global top 10 continues to be dominated by Nordic countries, with —Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden—in the top five.
The top 10 is completed by one country from Asia Pacific (New Zealand 4th), two Sub-Saharan countries (Namibia, 6th and Rwanda, 7th, one country from Eastern Europe (the new entrant to the top 10, Lithuania, 8th), and another two Western European countries (Ireland, 9th, and Switzerland, 10th, another country in the top-10 for the first time).There is a relatively equitable distribution of available income, resources, and opportunities for men and women in these countries. The tremendous gender gaps are identified primarily in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Here, we can discuss the overall global gender gap scores across the index’s four main components : Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.
The indicators of the four main components are
(1) Economic Participation and Opportunity:
o Labour force participation rate,
o wage equality for similar work,
o estimated earned income,
o Legislators, senior officials, and managers,
o Professional and technical workers.
(2) Educational Attainment:
o Literacy rate (%)
o Enrollment in primary education (%)
o Enrollment in secondary education (%)
o Enrollment in tertiary education (%).
(3) Health and Survival:
o Sex ratio at birth (%)
o Healthy life expectancy (years).
(4) Political Empowerment:
o Women in Parliament (%)
o Women in Ministerial positions (%)
o Years with a female head of State (last 50 years)
o The share of tenure years.
The objective is to shed light on which factors are driving the overall average decline in the global gender gap score. The analysis results show that this year’s decline is mainly caused by a reversal in performance on the Political Empowerment gap.
Global Trends and Outcomes:
– Globally, this year, i.e., 2021, the average distance completed to gender parity gap is 68% (This means that the remaining gender gap to close stands at 32%) a step back compared to 2020 (-0.6 percentage points). These figures are mainly driven by a decline in the performance of large countries. On its current trajectory, it will now take 135.6 years to close the gender gap worldwide.
– The gender gap in Political Empowerment remains the largest of the four gaps tracked, with only 22% closed to date, having further widened since the 2020 edition of the report by 2.4 percentage points. Across the 156 countries covered by the index, women represent only 26.1% of some 35,500 Parliament seats and 22.6% of over 3,400 Ministers worldwide. In 81 countries, there has never been a woman head of State as of January 15, 2021. At the current rate of progress, the World Economic Forum estimates that it will take 145.5 years to attain gender parity in politics.
– The gender gap in Economic Participation and Opportunity remains the second-largest of the four key gaps tracked by the index. According to this year’s index results, 58% of this gap has been closed so far. The gap has seen marginal improvement since the 2020 edition of the report, and as a result, we estimate that it will take another 267.6 years to close.
– Gender gaps in Educational Attainment and Health and Survival are nearly closed. In Educational Attainment, 95% of this gender gap has been closed globally, with 37 countries already attaining gender parity. However, the ‘last mile’ of progress is proceeding slowly. The index estimates that it will take another 14.2 years to close this gap on its current trajectory completely.
In Health and Survival, 96% of this gender gap has been closed, registering a marginal decline since last year (not due to COVID-19), and the time to close this gap remains undefined. For both education and health, while progress is higher than economy and politics in the global data, there are important future implications of disruptions due to the pandemic and continued variations in quality across income, geography, race, and ethnicity.
India-Specific Findings:
India had slipped 28 spots to rank 140 out of the 156 countries covered. The pandemic causing a disproportionate impact on women jeopardizes rolling back the little progress made in the last decades-forcing more women to drop off the workforce and leaving them vulnerable to domestic violence.
India’s poor performance on the Global Gender Gap report card hints at a serious wake-up call and learning lessons from the Nordic region for the Government and policy makers.
Within the 156 countries covered, women hold only 26 percent of Parliamentary seats and 22 percent of Ministerial positions. India, in some ways, reflects this widening gap, where the number of Ministers declined from 23.1 percent in 2019 to 9.1 percent in 2021. The number of women in Parliament stands low at 14.4 percent. In India, the gender gap has widened to 62.5 %, down from 66.8% the previous year.
It is mainly due to women’s inadequate representation in politics, technical and leadership roles, a decrease in women’s labor force participation rate, poor healthcare, lagging female to male literacy ratio, and income inequality.
The gap is the widest on the political empowerment dimension, with economic participation and opportunity being next in line. However, the gap on educational attainment and health and survival has been practically bridged.
India is the third-worst performer among South Asian countries, with Pakistan and Afghanistan trailing and Bangladesh being at the top. The report states that the country fared the worst in political empowerment, regressing from 23.9% to 9.1%.
Its ranking on the health and survival dimension is among the five worst performers. The economic participation and opportunity gap saw a decline of 3% compared to 2020, while India’s educational attainment front is in the 114th position.
India has deteriorated to 51st place from 18th place in 2020 on political empowerment. Still, it has slipped to 155th position from 150th position in 2020 on health and survival, 151st place in economic participation and opportunity from 149th place, and 114th place for educational attainment from 112th.
In 2020 reports, among the 153 countries studied, India is the only country where the economic gender gap of 64.6% is larger than the political gender gap of 58.9%. In 2021 report, among the 156 countries, the economic gender gap of India is 67.4%, 3.8% gender gap in education, 6.3% gap in health and survival, and 72.4% gender gap in political empowerment. In health and survival, the gender gap of the sex ratio at birth is above 9.1%, and healthy life expectancy is almost the same.
Discrimination against women has also been reflected in Health and Survival subindex statistics. With 93.7% of this gap closed to date, India ranks among the bottom five countries in this subindex. The wide sex ratio at birth gaps is due to the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices. Besides, more than one in four women has faced intimate violence in her lifetime.The gender gap in the literacy rate is above 20.1%.
Yet, gender gaps persist in literacy : one-third of women are illiterate (34.2%) than 17.6% of men. In political empowerment, globally, women in Parliament is at 128th position and gender gap of 83.2%, and 90% gap in a Ministerial position. The gap in wages equality for similar work is above 51.8%. On health and survival, four large countries Pakistan, India, Vietnam, and China, fare poorly, with millions of women there not getting the same access to health as men.
The pandemic has only slowed down in its tracks the progress India was making towards achieving gender parity. The country urgently needs to focus on “health and survival,” which points towards a skewed sex ratio because of the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices and women’s economic participation. Women’s labour force participation rate and the share of women in technical roles declined in 2020, reducing the estimated earned income of women, one-fifth of men.
Learning from the Nordic region, noteworthy participation of women in politics, institutions, and public life is the catalyst for transformational change. Women need to be equal participants in the labour force to pioneer the societal changes the world needs in this integral period of transition.
Every effort must be directed towards achieving gender parallelism by facilitating women in leadership and decision-making positions. Social protection programmes should be gender-responsive and account for the differential needs of women and girls. Research and scientific literature also provide unequivocal evidence that countries led by women are dealing with the pandemic more effectively than many others.
Gendered inequality, thereby, is a global concern. India should focus on targeted policies and earmarked public and private investments in care and equalized access. Women are not ready to wait for another century for equality. It’s time India accelerates its efforts and fight for an inclusive, equal, global recovery.
India will not fully develop unless both women and men are equally supported to reach their full potential. There are risks, violations, and vulnerabilities women face just because they are women. Most of these risks are directly linked to women’s economic, political, social, and cultural disadvantages in their daily lives. It becomes acute during crises and disasters.
With the prevalence of gender discrimination, and social norms and practices, women become exposed to the possibility of child marriage, teenage pregnancy, child domestic work, poor education and health, sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Many of these manifestations will not change unless women are valued more.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.