The NGOs’  phenomenon is not new in the Indian sub-continent .It emerged during the colonial period as a response to the colonial state when the religious, linguistic, and ethnic  communities found themselves threatened by the hostile state to suppress their  religious, cultural, and social identity. Therefore, the main focus of the emerging organizations was on religious, social and cultural assertion. They renounced politics as it was distasteful and threatening to the colonial authorities. To control these associations, the authorities introduced the system of registration under the act of cooperative societies. Each society was required to have its constitution and by laws. They were also required to maintain their account properly.

The major agenda of these organizations was to preserve the cultural , religious, and ethnic identity. Therefore, they concentrated their attention on those fields which were left unattended by the state. They opened educational institutions, helped the poor and destitutes, and improved the condition of women. The main characteristic of these old NGOs  was that  financially they depended on their own communities .The chanda (contribution or donation) was taken from all members of the community: rich and affluent members contributed more than the others. But this contribution involved all members of the community in the activities of the organization. There was no state patronization or any financial grant. Each organization had to rely on the resources of their community. There was also a system of election, though limited and generally kept the monopoly of the founding members, at least there was some semblance of democratic structure.

Such welfare, charitable, and educational organizations produced a breed of social workers who devoted their lives for social work. They were sincere, and genuinely concerned with the welfare of their community. These community based organizations also created a sense of competition among each other which resulted in positive development. The great contribution of the old NGOs  was that they preserved religious, social, and cultural values and in resistance to the colonial state started movements which led to the political struggle in the end.

The working and the activities of the old NGOs  weakened as a result of the emergence of post colonial state. Now, it was assumed that after the independence, the state would take care of  all social , religious, and cultural issues. There was no need to work separately and independently as the state became the symbol of  new nationhood and embodiment of the inspirations of people. Though the old NGOs remained  in existence, they lost public support. The communities expected that all their needs would be fulfilled by the  state.

However, in Pakistan, after 1947,the state failed to respond to the challenges .The political turmoil up to 1958, the martial law of Ayub Khan, the separation of East Pakistan, unbridled  government of ZAB, and the military dictatorship of Zia completely eroded the state and its organs. No longer it remained an institution to deliver goods, to maintain law and order, or to contribute to the overall development of society .Under these circumstances, in the late 70s a new phenomenon of NGOs emerged which was quite different from the old one. The only thing which is common  in the old and new NGOs is that both came into being in response to the state; in the first phase, it was in response to the colonial state, which was regarded as foreign and hostile to different communities. In the second phase, it is the failure of the post colonial state which created a vacuum  and which  subsequently is filled by the new NGOs.

The procedure of setting an NGO is that an individual or a group of like minded people invest some amount  of money  in an issue oriented  organisation  and look for some donor agency to fund their project. Sometimes an NGO is set up in response to the  offer of donor agency to finance a particular project .Generally, the structure of an NGO is that there  are managing directors, executive directors, and  directors regarding specific departments. The founding members  occupy all important posts. They are permanent and highly paid. Sometimes the whole family is employed and their own houses are rented as offices. As these NGOs are issue oriented, they have experts or specialists to carry on the project. Therefore, there is no concept of social work or for that matter of social workers. These NGOs  generally have no constitution and  no system of election , therefore also no accountability. Structurally they are like corporations who  sell their  products on the basis of foreign funding; their potential buyers are the ordinary social workers who  are persuaded  and lured into to participate in seminars, workshops, or brainstorming sessions.

The question is that what type of education these participants are getting. The First and important aspect of the education and training is that it is not political oriented. NGOs’ claim that there only task is to create social awareness and nothing more, because it is not in the interest of the NGOs nor in the interest of the donor agencies to come into conflict with the authoritarian, dictatorial or soft democratic governments. Therefore, their whole agenda remains social san politics. As in the case of  old NGOs which were charitable and welfare oriented, people accustomed to their working always expected some financial help or some welfare work which affected their daily lives.

When people feel that the NGOs are not helping them concretely, they loose  interest .Mere social awareness is of no use to them. However, some of the clever participants turn this opportunity in their own favour by manipulating  different NGOs to get some fund in the name of social work. They know that the projects are foreign funded and there is no commitment or sincerity behind it. To spend a week or 2  or 3 days in a decent hotel in a big city of a poor country like ,Pakistan, is a great privilege, therefore, these professional participants miss no chance of attending a seminar or workshop. In case of trade union members they get paid long leave to attend a seminar which give them a chance to get away from their tedious job. Abdus Samad in his article “ ‘NGO’s’ for the elite” (Governance, Economic Policy and Reform in Pakistan: 1993) writes ‘The decade of the NGOs is here. Expensive conferences are arranged all over the world on NGOs. Young men and women who look good and talk good are now seen in five star hotel lobbies talking participation with donors. Lengthy consulting reports at highly inflated rates are prepared on NGOs by NGOs. The upper class has shown its alacrity yet again. They are taking full advantages of the new and generous opportunity being offered by the NGO. Like before, the bill for this high living by means of the NGOs will be paid for the people of Pakistan when the loans of the donors which are financing these organisations are called.”  

Thus, the question is whether there is any impact of NGOs in creating social awareness which could bring change in the society or they are producing only paracites , a group of so-called social workers who have no commitment. We can say that after working for more than two decades, the NGOs have failed to change the society. Although, they claim that their only task is  to create social awareness, awareness is also not apparent neither in daily life nor in any other aspect of the society.

Another characteristic of the NGOs is that they require experts to teach the participants. The attitude of those experts, resource persons, and illuminators is  patronizing towards the participants, who are herded in halls and rooms where they are duty bound to hear the long lectures on those topics in which sometimes they don’t have any interest. These experts also have limited knowledge and instead of discussion or debate, they just narrate the topic. As these experts are professionals and specialists, they offer no political commitment but their expertise. Therefore, there is no relationship between these experts and the participants. The NGOs culture produces a number of such experts but not as in Edwar Said’s words  “dissident Intellectuals”. Thus, these NGOs  have created a culture of talking and conversion. Those who are part of this culture, they can talk and ad naseum without any substance. They developed their own language which is difficult for others to understand. Claiming that activism is more important than theory, there is anti-reading attitude among the NGOs circles.

Once the executives of these NGOs are addicted to privileges and high standard of life, they create hierarchy and bureaucracy in their own organisations. Their employees are treated badly. They don’t have any security of their service. They can be hired and fired on the whims of their bosses. Lack of democracy in the organisational structure and the violation of human rights is evident in the working of the most NGOs.

There is a strong criticism on the phenomenon of the NGOs in Pakistan: first and foremost is the foreign funding which in the opinion of critics has completely eroded self reliance. The donor agency sets it own agenda and asks NGO to carry on according to their  own concept. There is also a time limit. Whether anything is achieved or not the project has to be wound up after a specific time. The foreign funding creates suspicion in the mind of public because they fail to understand  why western countries are giving funds for social work, there must be some agenda behind it. The colonial experience and exploitation by the West has taught them a lesson to never trust the imperialist powers .This makes the NGOs foreign agents  who are working for the imperialist masters and not for us. They are regarded as collaborators who are providing all types of information to their foreign donors who use these information for their own benefit. There are also charges of misuse of funds. The use of pejaros and land cruisers, holding seminars in five star hotels ,and high salaries of the executives, foreign trips of the NGOs lords are sufficient grounds to discredit them. The donor agencies also know about the corruption and misuse of funds but  employment and privileges of their bureaucrats depend on the existence of these NGOs so, they themselves tell them how to manipulate and deceive the donors.

The emergence of NGOs has also changed the political culture of the society. As a result  of this phenomenon all those political workers and activists who were active during 60s and 70s , finding no space during the dictatorial period absorbed themselves in the NGOs. This creates a vacuum. There was  nobody to take their place; the result is that devoted and dedicated genre of political workers came to an end. With the end of political acitvities, the process of depoliticisation began which became deep rooted not only in NGOs but also in educational institutions .Instead of commitment there is a price for each activity.

Therefore, these NGOs have failed to create any movement in the society.

There is also a question of sustainability  of the NGOs. It appears that these NGOs can survive as long as they are getting foreign funding , as they don’t have their own social base within the society , after the withdrawal of foreign funding, there are no chances of survival.

The culture and atmosphere which is created by the NGOs has finished political activism There are no such organisations or individuals who challenge the existing system. There is talk to repair the system or to create some alternatives rather than to create. Being nonpolitical orgnisations government tolerates these NGOs and finding no threat sometimes makes a compromise with them. Thus, in the present trio of state, NGOs, and people who is the looser, is to be assessed, analysed and exposed.