The recent revelation of USAID allocating $21 million to boost “voter turnout” in India has made the ears and eyes open of every citizen of India. US President Donald Trump a few days back himself tore into the Joe Biden administration, questioning why American taxpayer money was being funneled into a foreign country’s elections. Donald Trump didn’t mince words and made it clear that these funds were intended to influence India’s electoral outcome and “get somebody else elected.” In response to the expose of Donald Trump, The Indian Express published a report trying to refute Trump’s claim, stating that the $21 million was actually meant for democratic initiatives in Bangladesh, not India. The article argued that Trump’s assertion was based on misleading information and insisted that no such funding was directed toward India’s electoral system.
However, the Indian Express article fails to address the larger concern. Just because $21 million was allocated to Bangladesh does not mean that similar or even greater funding was not directed toward India. USAID has a history of distributing funds for “democratic strengthening” initiatives across multiple nations simultaneously. Its partnerships with organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are well-documented, and these organizations have been involved in shaping electoral processes worldwide. The report conveniently ignores the possibility that electoral influence operations could have been funded through different programs, grants, or indirect means.
Additionally, The Indian Express completely sidesteps the long-standing connections between USAID-backed organizations and India’s electoral institutions. The 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and IFES, signed under the leadership of S.Y. Quraishi, allowed foreign advisory bodies to work closely with Indian electoral processes. While the MoU itself may not have involved direct funding, IFES, which receives financial support from USAID and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, has played a role in shaping electoral discourse in India. Furthermore, details of electoral funding directed toward India through the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) were once accessible but are now unavailable since CEPPS’ website was taken down an omission the Indian Express fails to address.
Another crucial aspect missing from The Indian Express’s response is the ideological influence exerted by foreign-funded organizations. IFES, for instance, published a white paper on Dalit representation in Indian elections, using language that closely mirrors the rhetoric of Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders. This suggests a deeper alignment between foreign-funded NGOs and certain political narratives within India. While the Indian Express focuses only on refuting Trump’s specific $21 million claim, it neglects to explore the broader question: Is foreign funding influencing India’s political discourse in a manner that benefits particular ideological factions?
In conclusion, the Indian Express article is misleading in its attempt to shut down concerns over foreign electoral influence. It falsely assumes that because $21 million was sent to Bangladesh, no similar funding was directed toward India. By ignoring USAID’s broader involvement in democratic initiatives, the long-standing IFES-ECI relationship, and the ideological influence of foreign-funded NGOs, the report fails to provide a comprehensive picture.
