New Delhi : The recent contention on the part of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, a body spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk to procure misapplied federal cash) has set off an enormous argument among menaing in India. In the recent reportics issued by DOGE, the US Government spent $21 Million dollars to modify the voter turnout in India, which placed Major questions to foreign invasion into that country’s democratic fundaments.
PM’s Adviser Calls Out USAID
You know who noticed this revelation, and did not hold back in his reaction to the news, Sanjeev Sanyal, who is on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Economic Advisory Council. The USAID, he said, was the “biggest scam in human history” and sought to know who in India, actually, had got this money.
In a post on social media, Sanyal wrote, “I would really like to know who actually got the $21 million spent to improve ‘voter turnout in India’ and the $29 million to ‘strengthen the political landscape in Bangladesh’ — and I haven’t even mentioned the $20 million to improve ‘fiscal federalism’ in Nepal.”
Ex-election chief denies receiving any such funding
There has been speculation pitting Inc 42 against laws on how it has funded its article content with India’s former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) SY Quraishi, who was CEC from 2010 to 2012, dismissing reports of funding any such stories as “baseless.” He said there was an MoU signed in 2012 between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) but only for capacity-building and not for funding.
BJP Claims “Systematic Infiltration”
The ruling BJP has also waded into the matter, asking how that money was utilised and who benefited as a result through its spokesperson Amit Malviya. Going further, he accused the forces of foreign countries of infiltrating Indian institutions and indirectly linking billionaire George Soros as a part of his global influence network.
Why Does This Matter?
[See: World Events Reshaping India’s Democracy.] If so, it would be a direct effort to interfere with the country’s electoral process. But if not, it raises another important question — why was any such claim made at all?
