USAID: Can Rs 182 Cr Sway Indian Election?

Aakhir Tak – In Shorts

Trump accuses USAID of interfering in Indian elections.
USAID allocated Rs 182 crore to boost voter turnout in India.
India spends more than US on elections, yet lower voter turnout.
Question: Who received USAID money and how was it used?
Can Rs 182 crore influence elections in India?

Aakhir Tak – In Depth

- Advertisement -

USAID’s Voter Turnout Efforts: Can Rs 182 Cr Sway Indian Election?

US President Donald Trump suggested that USAID, an independent US aid agency that handles $42 billion of funds, interfered in India’s electoral process. The USAID dedicated Rs 182 crore to boost voter turnout in India when the country spends Rs 16 lakh crore in general elections. Can this drop in the ocean influence poll outcomes? This question has sparked a debate about the role of foreign funding in democratic processes.

- Advertisement -

The idea of $21 million of US taxpayer money being spent on boosting voter participation in Indian elections should itself raise eyebrows. And US President Donald Trump has rightly questioned that. $21 million (Rs 182 crore) is loose change when it comes to money spent on elections in the world’s largest democracy, but there are bigger questions here. Why did USAID try to use money in Indian elections, and who received the funding? And more importantly, can Rs 182 crore turn an Indian election? Trump on Wednesday suggested that the American deep state might have been at work to interfere in India’s elections and get “someone else elected”. The context of this statement is crucial.

“Why do we need to spend $21 million on voter turnout in India? I guess they (the Biden administration) were trying to get somebody else elected. We have got to tell the Indian government. This is a total breakthrough,” Trump said at a summit in Miami, US. Trump’s latest remarks came after he defended the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) decision to cancel a $21-million fund designated for “voter turnout” in India. The $21 million is part of the $723 million in foreign aid funding that DOGE is planning to cut as part of its broader budget overhaul. The scale of the potential cuts is significant.

- Advertisement -

Earlier, Trump said: “Why are we giving $21 million to India? They have a lot more money”. Trump is right. He highlights a key issue: the economic disparity between the US and India.

India Spends More on Election Than US, Sees Better Voter Turnout

India spent nearly Rs 1.35 lakh crore in the 2024 general election. At $16.2 billion, that was more than $15.9 billion spent on the 2024 US Presidential election, including the congressional contests. This holds true for previous elections in India and the US as well. These figures demonstrate the scale of Indian elections.

While the Indian government, including the Election Commission, spends money mostly on organising the election, training and mobilising poll officials and security personnel, funds are spent on voter awareness and to boost participation in polls too. Money spent by the political parties on campaigning is mostly directed to wooing votes and voters. Several organisations work towards getting voters to the voting booth. The cost of a single vote in India reached Rs 1,400 in the Lok Sabha election of 2024, according to the data by the Centre for Media Studies.

India saw an overall 65.79% voter turnout in the 2024 general election, according to the Election Commission of India. The US, which was apparently spending to boost voter participation in India, on the contrary, saw a voter turnout of 63.9% in the 2024 election, lower than India’s. This raises questions about the effectiveness of voter turnout initiatives.

The Big Questions: How Fund Was Channelised, Who Got the Money?

It was from USAID, an American agency set up in 1961. It managed almost 70% of US external funding, and the money reached India. The $21 million for India was part of $486 million granted to the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), which is a collective of non-profit organisations or NGOs.

The CEPPS website is currently unavailable. This lack of transparency is concerning. The CEPPS, established in 1995, is formed of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

How exactly the money was channelled is one big question, because the USAID website remains inaccessible. The NDI website shows it has no programme running in India while it has been engaged in several neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The IRI website, too, doesn’t show that it is engaged in any programme in India, though it is active in several Asian countries, including Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. IFES was founded in 1987 and has worked in over 145 countries to “advance good governance and democratic rights”.

For India, it says, “IFES is not currently engaged in programming in this country” and lists previous work done by it. The IFES work in India includes a photography contest, Garima project that supports women’s participation in political and social processes, and interactions with former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi. A memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between CEPPS and the Election Commission when Quraishi was the poll body’s chief.

However, Quraishi has rejected allegations that the Election Commission has had any monetary dealing with the CEPPS or that USAID funds were used to boost voter participation in India. “The report in a section of the media about an MoU by ECI in 2012 when I was CEC, for funding of a certain million dollars by a US agency for raising voter turnout in India does not have an iota of fact,” Quraishi said in a post on X. This denial adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

This brings us to the next big question. Who exactly received the money?

So, Who Got the Funds in India From USAIDS?

“Would love to find out who received the US$21mn spent to improve ‘voter turnout in India’… USAID is the biggest scam in human history,” posted writer-economist Sanjeev Sanyal, who is also a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. This strong statement highlights the suspicion surrounding the funding.

That is the question that people in India are asking. According to information being shared, USAID had in 2013 pledged half a million dollars for boosting voter participation in India. The funds from the US State Department were to be routed through CEPPS.

The disbursal of funds took place monthly in 2014, the year of the general election. After the polls, the monthly funding ended. However, the CEEPS did fund projects, spending around $320,000 annually.

The BJP called it a foreign interference in India’s election process and said it was definitely not it that had gained. BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya wrote, “…$21M for voter turnout? This definitely is external interference in India’s electoral process. Who gains from this? Not the ruling party for sure!” This reinforces the BJP’s position.

Going by what Trump said, “they were trying to get someone elected”, it seems to be a reference to forces working against the current dispensation. This hints at a political motive behind the funding.

Can Rs 182 Crore Sway an Election in India?

This brings us to whether $21 million (Rs 182 crore) is an amount big enough to influence an election in India.

Just imagine Rs 182 crore as a blue drop of ink. Put it in a swimming pool, and it will get lost. But put that blue drop in a spoonful of water from the swimming pool, and it will change the colour of the water. Though Rs 182 crore might seem insignificant, it might play a crucial role in pockets during elections. This analogy effectively illustrates the potential impact of the funding.

In the day and age of social media, where things get amplified in no time, the money could be used to swing voters and convert fence-sitters. Then there are organisations that project to be working on social issues, but might end up influencing a segment of voters they have worked with. This could be critical in the case of tight races. The power of social media and targeted campaigns should not be underestimated.

Though $21 million might look like small change when it comes to the entire election process in India, it could have been used to influence voters. It is for the central agencies to conduct a transparent probe to find out who received the funds and how they were used. A thorough and transparent investigation is essential to address these concerns.

Aakhir Tak – Key Takeaways to Remember