Were there donor or funding changes to the Missionaries of Charity after Hitchens's book and articles?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There is documented evidence that the Missionaries of Charity (MoC) lost formal access to foreign donations in India when the Ministry of Home Affairs declined to renew its FCRA registration on December 25, 2021 — a decision the government said followed “adverse inputs” and audit concerns [1] [2]. Available sources in this packet do not report a direct, contemporaneous causal link tying that 2021 funding action to Christopher Hitchens’s book or articles; Hitchens’s critiques are well documented but sources do not say his work led to donor or regulatory changes [3] [4].
1. What changed: India’s 2021 block on foreign funding
Indian government records and reporting show that the Ministry of Home Affairs refused to renew MoC’s registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act in late December 2021, a procedural move that cuts off the charity’s legal route to receive foreign donations in India and followed “some adverse inputs” and alleged audit irregularities [2] [5]. Reuters described the decision as the government “refused” to renew a permission that is vital to secure foreign funds, and noted banks froze accounts at the charity’s request amid the situation [1].
2. What Hitchens said — and what his reporting did not reportedly cause
Christopher Hitchens published The Missionary Position and related essays sharply criticizing Mother Teresa and her order for accepting funds from unsavoury sources and for how donations were used; his book argues donors’ intent and the charity’s spending merited scrutiny [3] [4]. Reviewers and summaries repeatedly note Hitchens accused the order of accepting money from dictators and controversial figures and questioned whether donations were actually deployed to improve care [4] [6]. None of the provided reporting links Hitchens’s writings as the proximate cause of the Indian government’s FCRA decision in 2021; available sources do not mention Hitchens as a factor in that administrative outcome [1] [2].
3. Documented financial facts cited by Indian authorities
The Hindu and The Hindu’s “Explained” piece reported that MoC’s 2020–21 returns showed the order received over ₹75 crore from 347 foreign individuals and 59 institutional donors, and that the MHA cited eligibility failures and “adverse inputs” in declining renewal — framing the action as regulatory, not literary or activist in origin [2] [5]. Government statements and mainstream reportage focus on compliance, audit and eligibility grounds rather than on public criticism by journalists.
4. Donor patterns, reputational critique, and competing narratives
Hitchens and others argued for decades that MoC’s global fundraising and acceptance of donations from controversial patrons merited scrutiny; critics say that publicity and fundraising practices raised ethical questions [3] [4]. Supporters and the order’s own websites emphasise continuing service to the poor and do not, in the provided sources, acknowledge a donor exodus tied to Hitchens’s work; the official Missionaries of Charity site focuses on mission and presence, not on funding fluctuations [7]. Thus two competing narratives exist in the record: Hitchens’s long-running moral critique of how donations were used [3] versus the order’s institutional framing of its charitable mission [7].
5. Timeline and causation: why the record matters
The record here separates Hitchens’s persistent public critique (dating to the 1990s and collected in his book) from the 2021 regulatory action by the Indian government; sources attribute the 2021 funding cut to FCRA non-renewal after “adverse inputs” and audit concerns, not to Hitchens’s writings [1] [2]. Journalistic standards require distinguishing correlation from causation: Hitchens shaped public debate, but available reporting does not document him as the cause of governmental or donor decisions in 2021 [4] [2].
6. Limitations and what’s not in the sources
Available sources in this packet do not include internal donor ledgers, statements from major institutional donors announcing withdrawals because of Hitchens, or Indian government documents explicitly citing Hitchens as an influence; therefore it is not possible on these materials to assert any direct causal link between his work and later funding changes (not found in current reporting). Broader public perception effects of Hitchens’s critique are documented, but concrete donor movement or timing tied to his publications is not shown here [3] [6].
7. What to watch and verify next
To establish causation you would need donor statements, charity financial audits across relevant years, or government paperwork tying “adverse inputs” to media or advocacy. The files here provide strong evidence of both Hitchens’s longstanding criticisms and of a separate, regulatory cut-off of foreign funding in India in 2021; connecting the two requires sources not provided in this packet [3] [2].