₹705-crore ICWF funds unutilised for Indians abroad: Kodikunnil Suresh

The Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF) is a crucial lifeline for millions of Indians living abroad, particularly those in distress. Established by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (now merged with the Ministry of External Affairs - MEA) in 2009, the ICWF aims to provide 'on-site' welfare services on a means-tested basis in various emergency situations. These services range from providing food, shelter, and basic medical aid to distressed Overseas Indian citizens, extending airfare for repatriation, legal assistance in cases of exploitation or abuse, and even assistance in cases of death of an Indian national abroad, including transportation of mortal remains. It is administered by Indian Missions and Posts abroad.

The recent revelation by Kodikunnil Suresh, a Member of Parliament, that a staggering ₹705 crore from the ICWF remains unutilised is a matter of serious concern. This underutilisation is further underscored by the drastic drop in spending: from ₹128.98 crore in 2020 to a mere ₹23.27 crore in 2021. This significant dip, especially during a period marked by the global COVID-19 pandemic which saw countless migrant workers and Indian citizens facing unprecedented challenges abroad, raises critical questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of the fund's deployment. Many Indians faced job losses, visa issues, health crises, and difficulty returning home during the pandemic, making the availability and accessibility of such funds more vital than ever.

Several key stakeholders are involved in this issue. The primary custodian is the **Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)**, which administers the ICWF and oversees its implementation through its **Indian Missions and Posts abroad**. These missions are the frontline responders, responsible for identifying distressed individuals and disbursing aid. The **Indian Diaspora** itself, particularly vulnerable sections like migrant labourers, domestic workers, and students facing hardships, are the direct beneficiaries. **Parliamentarians**, like Kodikunnil Suresh, play a vital role in legislative oversight, ensuring accountability and raising public awareness about such critical issues. The **Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)**, under **Articles 148-151** of the Constitution, is empowered to audit government expenditures, including funds like the ICWF, ensuring financial propriety and efficiency. Civil society organizations and NGOs working with the diaspora also act as informal stakeholders, often highlighting distress cases.

This issue holds immense significance for India. Firstly, it directly impacts India's **soft power** and international image. A nation that effectively cares for its citizens abroad projects strength and responsibility. Conversely, the perception of neglect can tarnish this image. Secondly, the Indian diaspora, numbering over 32 million people, is a significant contributor to the Indian economy through **remittances**, which stood at over $125 billion in 2023, making India the world's largest recipient. Their well-being is intrinsically linked to their ability to contribute. Thirdly, it raises questions about **governance and accountability** in public fund management. Unutilised funds, especially those earmarked for welfare, point to potential bureaucratic hurdles, lack of awareness among beneficiaries, or insufficient proactive outreach by missions abroad. Historically, India has increasingly focused on diaspora engagement, even establishing the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs in 2004 (later merged with MEA in 2016) to streamline efforts. Initiatives like Pravasi Bharatiya Divas underscore this commitment.

Looking ahead, the future implications are critical. This parliamentary intervention could lead to increased scrutiny from parliamentary standing committees, potentially prompting the MEA to review the ICWF guidelines, streamline disbursement processes, and enhance public awareness campaigns among the diaspora. There might be a push for greater decentralisation of decision-making powers to missions or a re-evaluation of the criteria for assistance. The government may need to explain the reasons for underutilisation – whether it's due to stringent eligibility criteria, lack of applications, or administrative bottlenecks. Proactive measures, such as digital outreach platforms (like the MADAD portal, which helps Indians abroad register grievances), might be further strengthened to ensure that those in need are aware of and can access these funds. This incident highlights the ongoing challenge of translating policy intent into effective on-ground implementation, especially for a geographically dispersed beneficiary group.

While there isn't a direct constitutional article for the ICWF, the broader principles of a welfare state, enshrined in the **Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution), particularly Articles 38 and 39**, which promote the welfare of the people and secure a social order, provide a foundational ethos. Furthermore, the **Emigration Act, 1983**, though primarily regulatory, has provisions for safeguarding the interests of emigrants. The proper utilisation of such funds falls under the purview of parliamentary control over public finance, a cornerstone of democratic governance, where the executive is accountable to the legislature for all expenditures.