Your clarifications make a lot of sense.

This is a thought-provoking excerpt. I do believe that there are huge problems, several of them highlighted in this article, with the structure and sources of NGOs' funding. However, the option that seems to be suggested here--that the alternative to institutional financial support is grassroots financial support--seems ultimately untenable. I would view an NGO that expects the constituents it's supposed to help to support it financially as rather parasitic.

There's an implicit accusation in the article that NGOs are somehow not fulfilling a promise they've made. On the contrary, I think they simply don't make promises as radical as the ones these activists would like them to make. Human rights work is about promoting a certain legal relationship between a state and its citizens, and tactics like litigation make perfect sense within this framework.

It also seems like an exaggeration to claim that NGOs "control social justice movements". They simply don't seem that powerful to me. If there really is a huge, grass-roots organizing void that NGOs are ignoring, then it is up to grassroots organizers to fill it. After all, since NGOs apparently ignore their constituents, there shouldn't be so much competition for that very grassroots support.