A 21 million dollar question

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has thrown Indian politics into chaos with his shocking claim that the Biden administration allocated $21 million through USAID for “voter turnout” in India. Since February 16, the controversy has snowballed, with the ruling BJP and opposition Congress engaging in a fierce war of words. Trump intensified the issue on February 21, stating, “USD 21 million going to my friend Prime Minister Modi in India for voter turnout… What about us?” He repeated the claim on February 22, again naming Modi as the beneficiary. Yet, neither the Prime Minister nor the BJP has responded, raising questions about the ruling party’s silence. This stands in stark contrast to the BJP’s initial reaction on February 16, when it aggressively targeted Congress over the alleged funding. BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari even demanded an investigation to determine whether Rahul Gandhi and his party benefited from what he called a “kickback scheme.” The party also alleged the funds were used to sustain “deep state assets” in India.The alleged USAID funding scandal, initially weaponized by the BJP to target Congress using its now-familiar “deep state” narrative, has taken an unexpected turn. When former U.S. President Donald Trump directly named Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the beneficiary of the $21 million in USAID funds for “voter turnout,” the controversy exploded, placing the Modi government under scrutiny.The situation has escalated further with India’s well-known litigant, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, announcing his intent to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) naming Modi and other government ministries as respondents to uncover the truth. Many were taken aback by Trump’s decision to implicate Modi, suggesting that their once-friendly relations may have soured. Swamy has speculated that Trump felt slighted when Modi, during his visit to the U.S. for the Quad Leaders’ Summit, prioritized a meeting with President Joe Biden but did not visit Trump. This perceived snub may have contributed to Trump’s recent revelations. Signs of friction between the two leaders had emerged earlier. Trump notably did not invite Modi to his swearing-in, and when the Indian Prime Minister later met him, the warmth of their past engagements was absent. Further tensions arose when Trump publicly insisted on reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods, a move that put economic pressure on India. Another major embarrassment came with Trump’s executive order on deporting illegal immigrants, which included over 15,000 Indians. The manner of their deportation-handcuffed and flown in military planes-added to the humiliation. These actions suggest that Trump does not easily forget perceived slights and has a history of retaliating in ways that leave lasting diplomatic impacts. However, Trump remains a businessman at heart. If he sees an opportunity that benefits him or his close circle of capitalist allies, he may soften his stance. One such example is the case of an Indian corporate magnate facing potential imprisonment in the U.S. Speculation suggests that Trump may have intervened to prevent embarrassment, a move that could be seen as a trade-off in diplomatic give-and-take. With the Modi government yet to respond to the USAID controversy, the silence is only fueling more speculation. The situation demands transparency, as allegations of foreign funding in India’s democratic process raise serious concerns. A thorough investigation is necessary—not just for political credibility but for the integrity of India’s electoral system.