World news
AMI, AMIT MALVIYA, ASIA, BJP, CE, DONALD TRUMP, EL, ELON MUSK, EUROPE, GOVERNANCE, INDIA, INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE, MOLDOVA, MUSK, NATIONAL SECURITY, OVAL OFFICE, POLITICS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, RAJ, RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR
Fatima Khan
0 Comments
BJP Questions External Interference Following DOGE’s Cancellation of Indian Grant
The DOGE, led by Elon Musk, cancelled a $21 million grant for voter turnout in India, inciting the BJP’s critique of external interference in elections. Leaders Amit Malviya and Rajeev Chandrasekhar expressed concerns over foreign funding, while former ECI Chief SY Quraishi clarified misunderstandings about previous agreements with CEPPS. This event reflects broader debates on the implications of foreign involvement in India’s democratic processes.
On Sunday, the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the leadership of Elon Musk, announced the cancellation of a $21 million grant intended for the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) to support voter turnout in India. This decision prompted significant reactions from BJP leaders, including Amit Malviya and Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who criticized the Opposition Congress for perceived external interference in India’s electoral processes.
Musk’s DOGE stated on platform X that taxpayer money had been allocated to various initiatives, including a cancellation of $486 million in grants overall, with the $21 million for voter turnout in India being particularly spotlighted. However, details about the intended Indian partner for these funds were not disclosed, and the websites of both CEPPS and the USAID were currently inaccessible.
The cancellation of a significant grant by DOGE has raised concerns about foreign influence in India’s electoral integrity, according to BJP officials. They assert that the grant was indicative of external interference in domestic politics. Notably, former Election Commission Chief SY Quraishi refuted claims of financial obligations tied to prior agreements, emphasizing the MoU’s terms of non-funding. These developments highlight ongoing tensions regarding funding and support for political processes in India, as domestic and foreign entities navigate the complexities of democracy and governance.
Original Source: indianexpress.com
Post Comment