In a fresh political controversy, economist Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, has taken a strong stance against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). His remarks follow the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) announcement to cut a $21 million funding program aimed at increasing “voter turnout” in India. Sanyal has called USAID the “biggest scam in human history,” triggering a fierce debate over foreign involvement in India’s electoral process.
DOGE’s Announcement: A Major Budget Overhaul
The US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an entity established under the Trump administration to streamline government expenditures, revealed on Sunday that it had slashed $723 million in foreign aid. This included the $21 million earmarked for voter turnout efforts in India, a $29 million initiative for strengthening Bangladesh’s political landscape, and a $29 million project to improve “fiscal federalism” in Nepal.
USAID, which has an annual budget exceeding $40 billion, has long been a cornerstone of US foreign assistance. However, with Donald Trump returning to office, there is renewed scrutiny over its operations, with Musk signaling that DOGE may even push for the agency’s shutdown.
Denials and Rebuttals: No External Funding for Indian Elections?
The controversy took another turn when former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi outrightly rejected claims that any US funding was used to boost voter turnout in India. Refuting media reports, Quraishi stated:
“The report in a section of media about an MoU by the ECI in 2012, when I was CEC, for funding of certain million dollars by a US agency for raising voter turnout in India does not have an iota of fact.”
He clarified that while the Election Commission of India (ECI) had an MoU with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in 2012 for training and knowledge sharing, no financial transactions or funding were involved.
BJP’s Stand: “External Interference” in India’s Democracy?
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has also weighed in, questioning the motive behind the US funding. BJP IT Cell chief Amit Malviya posted on X:
“$486M to the “Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening,” including $22M for ‘inclusive and participatory political process’ in Moldova and $21M for voter turnout in India. $21M for voter turnout? This definitely is external interference in India’s electoral process. Who gains from this? Not the ruling party for sure.”
Senior BJP leader Nalin Kohli echoed similar sentiments, asserting that such funding raises concerns about foreign influence in India’s democratic institutions.
“Why would any US agency wish to give $21 million for election-related work in India? Would that not amount to interference in India’s electoral process? We are the world’s largest democracy with robust electoral mechanisms, including the Election Commission of India.”
BJP MP Mahesh Jethmalani took an even stronger stance, suggesting that Indian agencies should investigate where the funds were directed.
“It’s up to our agencies vested with the power to protect the integrity and sovereignty of India to seize USAID’s accounts in India and follow the disbursal trail of the $21 million earmarked for the voter turnout project and unearth the stooges of the Democratic Deep State. They should then be visited with the full force of the law dealing with subverting the Indian State – in common parlance, TREASON.”
The Bigger Picture: US-India Relations and Foreign Influence
This controversy comes at a time when US-India relations remain strategically significant. The issue of foreign-funded electoral programs raises pertinent questions about sovereignty, transparency, and the role of international agencies in domestic governance.
While the BJP and Sanjeev Sanyal have framed the debate around foreign interference, opposition parties have remained relatively quiet on the matter. However, the unfolding discourse is likely to fuel further debates on foreign funding in India’s democratic institutions and whether regulatory frameworks should be tightened.
For now, DOGE’s announcement and the sharp response from Indian political and economic circles suggest that questions surrounding USAID’s role in global political processes are far from settled. Whether the agency faces further cuts or even shutdown under the Trump administration remains to be seen.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: issues of electoral integrity and foreign influence will remain hot topics in the ever-evolving dynamics of international politics.
