‘$21 million for voter turnout in India’: What’s the row over the grant that Doge has cancelled?

The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) has been tasked with cutting down on funds given by earlier US administrations and shutting down USAID programmes. In the latest move,
Doge has claimed that it has cancelled a $21-million (Rs 182 crore) grant to the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) for “voter turnout in India”.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is now targeting the opposition Congress over what they call “external interference” in India’s electoral process.

What’s the row all about? We take a look.

In an official post on X, Doge put out a list of
cancelled initiatives funded by the American taxpayer. Among the countries mentioned in the post, one was India.

“US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled..,” the Doge post said. “…$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”

The $21 million grant for India was reportedly part of a broader initiative by the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) to enhance electoral processes across the world. However, the post did not mention an Indian agency or entity that was to receive the aid.

Grants have also been discontinued to Mozambique, Cambodia, Serbia, Nepal, Liberia, Mali, and “democracies in Southern Africa”, among others.

The CEPPS comprises nonprofit, nonpartisan and nongovernmental organisations funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump wants to shut down. The CEPPS and USAID are among the thousands of US government-linked websites which have been taken down since early February after the Trump administration’s controversial move to shrink the government.

According to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, a partner of CEPPS, “CEPPS is a nonprofit organisation that pools the expertise of three premier international organisations – the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems – to support elections and political transitions across the globe. Our mission is to work together with local, regional and global partners to build resilient, inclusive and accountable democracies.”

IFES website says that the CEPPS was established in 1995 and was funded by the Global Elections and Political Transitions Programme of USAID. “Operating as a consortium, CEPPS provides USAID and other donors with the capacity to deliver complex democracy, rights and governance (DRG) programming at scale across the world,” it says.

On May 17, 2012, the IFES signed a memorandum of understanding with the Election Commission of India to make “available the knowledge and experience of ECI to election managers and practitioners around the world through the Commission’s India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management,” an ECI press note had stated, reported The Indian Express.

BJP leaders Amit Malviya and Rajeev Chandrasekhar have slammed the Congress over the Doge claim.

“$21M for voter turnout? This definitely is external interference in India’s electoral process. Who gains from this? Not the ruling party for sure!” said BJP national spokesperson Malviya in a statement.

“Once again, it is
George Soros, a known associate of the Congress party and the Gandhis, whose shadow looms over our electoral process. In 2012, under the leadership of S.Y. Quraishi, the Election Commission signed an MoU with The International Foundation for Electoral Systems—an organization linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, which is primarily funded by USAID,” he said in a post on X.

“Ironically, those questioning the transparent and inclusive process of appointing India’s Election Commissioner—a first in our democracy, where previously the Prime Minister alone made the decision—had no hesitation in handing over the entire Election Commission of India to foreign operators. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Congress-led UPA systematically enabled the infiltration of India’s institutions by forces opposed to the nation’s interests—those who seek to weaken India at every opportunity,” Malviya added.

Former Union Minister Chandrasekar slammed USAID over its funding allocations in South Asia, including $21 million to India. Called it a “smoking gun of interference and undermining of democracies”, he wrote on X, “Shocking that on one hand there is discussion on democratic values and other hand there is brazen undermining of democratic nations.???”

“$486 Mln for “Consortium of Elections and Political strengthening” – wth does that mean? and why?… – $21M (200crs) for “voter turnout in India” – whose voters for whom ? who recd this money? ?” asked the former minister. “It reinforces the belief that almost all these “protests” had external funding/forces and puppetmasters behind it. I hope we investigate the money trail in India fully and who did what with the “USAID” money.”

Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Economic Advisory Council to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, questioned Doge’s claim. The EAC is an independent body that advises the government.

In a post on X on Sunday, Sanjeev Sanyal said, “Would love to find out who received the US$21mn spent to improve “voter turnout in India” and the US$29mn to “strengthening political landscape in Bangladesh”; not to mention the US$29mn spend to improve “fiscal federalism” in Nepal. USAID is the biggest scam in human history.”

Qaraishi rejected the report that US funding was used to raise voter turnout in India when he was heading the poll body.

“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,” the former poll body chief said in a statement.

He clarified that there was, in fact, an MOU with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in 2012, when he was the CEC, like the ones the EC had with many other agencies and Election Management Bodies to facilitate training for desirous countries at ECI’s training and resource centre India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management (IIIDEM).

“There was no financing or even promise of finance involved in MoU, forget X or Y amount,” he said.