Why India Wants No Foreign Influence in FCRA

August 10, 2026

US Republican Congressman Riley Moore’s criticism of the proposed amendments to India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), arguing that they could allow the Indian government more control over churches and Christian organisations and negatively affect India-US relations, amounts to little more than propaganda.

His intervention, ironically, lends weight to the very rationale behind the FCRA. When lawmakers from another country publicly interfere in laws governing foreign funding within India, it only reinforces New Delhi’s argument that external influence over domestic institutions is “neither hypothetical nor obsolete.”

As the Indian Parliament prepares once again to debate the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), a familiar narrative has re-emerged. Critics portray the legislation as an attack on civil society, an assault on Christian organisations and yet another sign of India’s supposed departure from democratic norms. This narrative, however, ignores a fundamental question: why should India be denied the sovereign right to regulate foreign influence when virtually every major democracy is moving in the same direction?

India’s FCRA and its proposed amendments are not unique, but reflect a wider global trend. The European Union is developing new instruments to counter foreign interference and covert influence operations, particularly those attributed to Russia, China and other foreign actors. Australia has its Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The United States has enforced the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for decades. The United Kingdom has introduced its own Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.

The core principle behind these frameworks remains the same: foreign funding should not be permitted to influence a country’s political, social or institutional landscape without sufficient transparency and oversight.