NB -The author has omitted mention of the vast funds going to Hindutva and 'Islamic' NGOs. I have added some observations below the article - DS
NB -'National interest' is a term heavily loaded with ideological presumption. At times the word 'nation' acquires God-like overtones, which can be used to stifle debate. The simplest answer is that state officials, government as well as civil society have the responsibility of defining and preserving national interest. There is a difference between the state and government. The latter changes, whereas the state embodies the stable element in society. Bureaucrats are servants of the constitution, not of the government of the day - thus, they may not be ordered to perform illegal acts or acts that violate the letter and spirit of the constitution. Interests may be debated, but if there are conflicts over what they mean, there is no way out except dialogue amongst all three segments in the polity. Moreover, the solutions have to be found within the framework of the constitution - thus it is violative of the law to attempt to frame and implement economic policies that sideline fundamental rights, directive principles or Schedule 5 or PESA. Legal loopholes and sophistry by which 'public interest' is re-interpreted as the interest of private corporations are examples of how formal authority may be deployed to undermine the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Maja Daruwala - How India treats its NGOs