​Foreign influence: On the USAID and India controversy Politics & News

The controversy over USAID’s presence in India reflects an increasingly unhinged public discourse, undermining the nation’s confidence and global standing. The BJP and the Congress have been engaged in a political tug-of-war, attempting to corner each other over USAID-funded projects and foreign connections. However, much of this cacophony that passes for debate is fuelled by misinformation and misinterpretation, often drawing from insinuations made by the Trump administration which views international aid as a waste of American resources. While the U.S. may have its reasons to reassess its aid priorities, it is regrettable that India’s major political parties are echoing these arguments without a nuanced understanding. USAID has long supported projects in India, including those in partnership with the government. In the absence of verifiable data on the extent and impact of these initiatives, discussions are bound to be ill-informed and prejudiced. In a globalised world, where countries compete for capital, technology, and talent from across borders, branding political opponents as foreign agents may be an easy propaganda tactic, but poisons the domestic political environment and weakens India’s aspirations to emerge as a global power.

It is true that foreign aid can be a tool of soft power, often used by stronger nations to exert influence over domestic affairs of other countries. However, recognising this reality requires a responsible and measured approach, and not an overreaction that borders on self-sabotage. India itself has evolved into an aid provider, a role it seeks to expand. According to an ORF analysis, since 2000, the Ministry of External Affairs has overseen financial assistance exceeding $48 billion to over 65 countries, through grants, lines of credit, and capacity-building programmes. This growing role, as a donor nation, has coincided with stricter regulations on foreign contributions within India. However, these regulations have been heavily politicised — entities aligned with the ruling establishment often face fewer hurdles, while others, even those engaged in purely apolitical activities, encounter significant restrictions. The American debate over USAID’s role in India does raise concerns about foreign influence, but any response must be rooted in clear-headed policy rather than reactionary rhetoric. If the government genuinely suspects that foreign funding is shaping India’s political landscape in undesirable ways, it must approach the issue with transparency and a well-defined plan for investigation. Managing national security in an era of increasing global interconnectedness and transnational challenges is a complex task, one that requires a mature, strategic outlook rather than a chaotic, polarised public discourse.