Politics
The Invisible Levers: Why Does USAID Fund J-PAL's Indian Voter Behaviour Studies?
- Foreign-funded academics may be building tools that could be potentially used for manipulating voters, deepening societal divides, and engineering political outcomes to prime India for external control.
The Invisible Levers in Indian Elections: USAID and J-PAL
In a startling revelation, a global consortium of leading research institutions, with significant backing from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has been conducting extensive studies on voter behavior in India.
While ostensibly aimed at poverty alleviation and improving governance, these research projects—particularly those funded under the umbrella of J-PAL (Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab)—appear to be designed to exploit societal fault lines, manipulate voter preferences, and influence electoral outcomes.
The timing of these interventions raises serious concerns.
On February 23, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticised USAID for approving an $18 million grant aimed at increasing voter turnout in Indian elections. This follows a December 2, 2024, announcement of a $75 million partnership that includes J-PAL’s involvement in research under the guise of economic growth and poverty reduction.
However, a closer look at J-PAL’s body of work suggests that its research serves other purposes as well: identifying vulnerabilities in Indian democracy, leveraging them for political influence and potentially manipulating voter behaviour to change the outcomes of Indian elections.
Foreign Funded Research on Indian Elections
Several research papers funded by USAID and conducted under J-PAL’s aegis provide insights into how voter behavior in India is being studied, often with clear indications that the findings can be used to manipulate electoral outcomes.
The study “Can Voters be Primed to Choose Better Legislators?” by Abhijit Banerjee, Donald Green, Jennifer Green and Rohini Pande involved field experiments in rural India to assess how voter preferences could be altered through ‘priming.’
It tested how ethnicity and politician quality influence voter decisions. The study found that voter preferences, particularly those based on ethnic identity, are malleable when exposed to specific information about politician quality.
This research establishes that strategic voter priming can be used to influence election results. By selectively presenting or withholding information, research like this can be used to engineer electoral outcomes that benefit foreign interests, effectively reducing the vote share of specific political leaders deemed unfavorable to external powers.
Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Clement Imbert and Rohini Pande also conducted another experiment where they examined how awareness of government social programs affects electoral competition.
It showed that when voters become more informed about social programs, incumbents are less likely to run for re-election, particularly those with poor performance records and found that lower-caste individuals and women—typically beneficiaries of social programs—were more likely to contest elections in subsequent cycles.
While increasing political participation seems beneficial on the surface, such targeted interventions can be weaponized to disrupt established political structures. The research findings could be used to orchestrate campaigns that erode voter confidence in incumbent leaders by amplifying dissatisfaction, even if the incumbents have generally positive governance records.
Another paper titled “Are Poor Voters Indifferent to Whether Elected Leaders are Criminal or Corrupt?” by Abhijit Banerjee, Donald Green, Jeffrey McManus and Rohini Pande tested whether poor voters in India are more likely to elect criminal or corrupt leaders.
Conducted in Uttar Pradesh, it used experimental data to show that voters were less likely to prefer candidates accused of criminal activities when given specific information and challenged the belief that voters inherently support criminal politicians due to patronage networks.
This research provides a framework for election strategists to craft targeted media campaigns aimed at damaging the reputation of specific political figures. The findings could be exploited to selectively discredit candidates based on externally determined political objectives, rather than organic public sentiment. This is a strategy used en masse by India’s opposition party against supposedly strong-man candidates such as Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Authored by Abhijit Banerjee, A. Gethin and Thomas Piketty, a study combined survey data, election results, and social spending figures to analyze the evolution of political divisions in India over five decades and found a growing fragmentation of the Indian electorate, marked by rising religious divisions and persistent caste-based cleavages.
The study concluded that Indian political conflicts are now increasingly identity-based rather than centered on economic issues. By extensively documenting and analyzing societal divisions, this research potentially arms external actors with the knowledge needed to exacerbate political polarization. These insights can be used to fuel discord and drive targeted campaigns that deepen sectarian and caste-based divisions, weakening national unity.
Thomas Piketty has also been notorious for his argument that in the history of colonial India and post-Independence history, wealth inequality has never been so wide under all previous colonial and post-colonial governments in India’s history as it currently is under Prime Minister Modi. This, however, fails to paint a clear picture of income inequality in India and instead paints a picture that the current government is especially corrupt.
Sabyasachi Das' notorious paper, Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy, caused a massive controversy by alleging electoral manipulation in India’s 2019 general elections.
The study, which examines whether irregular voting patterns were a result of strategic campaigning or outright manipulation, argues that there is strong evidence to support the latter. The paper identifies statistically unusual voting trends in closely contested constituencies, particularly favoring the ruling party (Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP).
It argued that these patterns are more indicative of electoral manipulation rather than the precise control hypothesis, which suggests that the ruling party was merely efficient at mobilizing voters and predicting outcomes and claimed that targeted electoral discrimination against India’s largest minority group—Muslims—played a significant role in this manipulation. The findings are framed as a significant threat to democratic processes in India, painting a picture of increasing authoritarian control.
The paper gained widespread media attention, triggering accusations that it was politically motivated rather than an objective academic analysis. What is noteworthy is that Sabyasachi Das has links to individuals openly critical of Prime Minister Modi, particularly his Yale University connection to Mushfiq Mobarak, an academic associated with J-PAL who has been running a continuous agenda-driven campaign against Indian interests in Bangladesh.
Mobarak, a supporter of the colour revolution in Bangladesh, came out in defense of Das when the paper was released, raising concerns about ideological bias. Mobarak in the past has also made remarks against the Indian Prime Minister on social media platforms.
On 29 March 2021, he had tweeted, “Modi manages to communalise politics and society on both sides of the Bangladesh-West Bengal border on one visit. Ek Dhila dui pakhi (Killing two birds with one stone). Why are we behaving like clueless pawns in the destructive game of divisive politics between Hindus and Muslims?” The Yale Professor suggested that a supposedly polarising figure like PM Modi was responsible for communal violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.
Other research initiatives of Das include a study that claims to provide empirical evidence against the current NDA government’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ plan.
Co-authored with Vimal Balasubramaniam and Apurav Yash Bhatiya, Das argues that synchronized elections increase party loyalty, leading to a 21% higher probability of the same party winning across multiple levels of government.
The study’s findings could be used to advocate for or against simultaneous elections based on external political interests. Balasubramaniam works at Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), whose funders include Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Other evaluations done by the Poverty Action Lab include:
It was a radio campaign during the 2014 Indian general election aimed to reduce the impact of vote-buying by informing voters about its consequences. The study found that in areas exposed to the campaign, the vote share of parties known for vote-buying decreased by 3.5 to 7.1 percentage points.
This research demonstrates that voter behavior can be altered through targeted media interventions. The methodology could be repurposed to selectively target political parties under the guise of combating electoral malpractice.
This study tested two information campaigns during the 2007 Uttar Pradesh elections—one discouraging caste-based voting and another urging voters to reject corrupt candidates. The caste campaign led to lower support for caste-based parties, higher voter turnout, and a reduced vote share for candidates with serious criminal charges.
The findings reveal how specific voter messaging can weaken identity-based political parties. Such interventions can be used to sway elections by strategically influencing voter sentiment against particular groups.
In this study, in the run-up to elections, slum residents received newspaper report cards on politicians' performance and qualifications. This led to increased voter turnout, reduced vote-buying, and greater support for more qualified and better-performing incumbents.
While increasing transparency seems beneficial, selective information dissemination can be weaponized to favor certain candidates. By controlling which politicians are scrutinized, external entities can subtly shape electoral outcomes.
This study informed a group of Delhi municipal councilors that a newspaper would report on their performance before the next election. In response, those representing high-slum areas increased pro-poor spending. The research highlights how the threat of media exposure alters political behavior. If selectively applied, such strategies can be used to pressure specific political actors while shielding others.
This study evaluated a voter information campaign and leveraged the random assignment of women’s reservations in village councils to assess their impact on elections. Both interventions increased the number of candidates and eliminated the worst performers from the race. However, the voter information campaign resulted in short-term declines in officials' post-election performance.
This research highlights how strategic information dissemination can influence voter decisions. The findings could be used to engineer electoral conditions that favor specific political or ideological outcomes.
This paper examined how religiously diverse neighbors influence inter-religious attitudes and preferences for mixed-community living. A natural experiment in a public housing complex found that greater exposure to Muslims improved Hindus’ explicit attitudes towards them, increased their willingness to live together, and significantly reduced implicit bias in Hindu children. However, no significant effects were observed for Muslims.
The study’s findings could be used to advocate for specific housing policies to alter social demographics and voting patterns. Such interventions could be leveraged to engineer shifts in voter sentiment in targeted constituencies.
This study examined different methods of disseminating policy information during the 2016 Indian demonetisation. Researchers compared the effectiveness of broadcasting information widely versus informing a select group of individuals who would then spread the message to find that seeding information within small groups, combined with common knowledge of who was informed, led to more effective communication and decision-making than broad dissemination.
The findings suggest that policymakers can strategically control information flow to shape public perception. Such research could be used to refine messaging tactics to achieve specific electoral or political objectives.
This study analyzed more than 40 Gram Sabha proceedings in West Bengal, examining how villagers use media-sourced information to challenge local governments. In 27 meetings where villagers spoke up, media was cited in nine as a source of entitlement claims. However, the lack of detailed information in media reports allowed local officials to dismiss legitimate claims easily.
The study argues that the media's indifference to deliberative democracy weakens the ability of the poor to hold local governments accountable. J-PAC affiliate Raghabendra Chattopadhyay highlights how media control or selective reporting can shape voter engagement and perceptions of governance. If certain narratives are emphasized while others are suppressed, it can be used to manipulate democratic participation and expectations.
Governance Initiative
J-PAL also runs a Governance Initiative which supports research on “strengthening democracy and governance.” Co-founded by Iqbal Dhaliwal, Ben Olken and Rohini Pande, this initiative funds randomized evaluations of interventions designed to improve participation in the political and policy process, reduce corruption and leakages, and strengthen state capacity.
According to the website, GI aims to offer guidance for implementing organizations, governments, and donors, so that policies can be guided by scientific evidence to improve development outcomes. It is funded by the UK Department for International Development.
Few of the Governance Initiative’s funded projects conducted in India include:
This project looked at how interactions between government officials and voters on election day influence electoral outcomes. It leveraged Bihar’s policy of randomly assigning state employees to manage polling stations, analyzing whether the identity of election officers affects vote shares.
This study evaluated whether political information, exposure to institutions, and integration in social networks can mobilize women voters. A randomized control trial, conducted with NGO Pradan, provides women with training on their political rights and system, aiming to lower informational barriers and activate social networks to boost engagement. Funders of Pradan include Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bank of America and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others.
This project conducted an SMS-based voter awareness campaign ahead of the 2015 Bihar state elections. Conducted in collaboration with a local NGO, the study tests various messaging strategies, including simple reminders, information on candidate characteristics, and messages designed to encourage coordination on newly acquired information.
The messages urged the voters to focus on qualifications over other factors such as party. The goal is to understand whether providing targeted information influences voter behavior and candidate selection.
Foreign-funded projects that experiment with Indian elections pose significant risks to the country's democratic integrity. By analyzing voter behavior, testing information dissemination strategies, and influencing electoral participation, these projects create opportunities for external entities to shape political outcomes in ways that go against India's national interests and undermine the nation's democratic will.
The use of randomized control trials and targeted messaging interventions under the guise of academic research also allows foreign organizations to collect extensive data on voter psychology and electoral trends.
This information can be exploited to engineer voting patterns, influence policy decisions, and alter the course of democratic processes. Given that many of these initiatives are backed by international agencies with geopolitical stakes in India's governance, their underlying objectives must be scrutinized.
While research and development are essential for policy improvements, allowing foreign entities to run large-scale social experiments on India's electorate without adequate oversight could lead to strategic manipulation of the democratic framework.
The Spectre of "Academic Freedom"
A predictable counter-argument to this exposé would be the claim that academics have the right to conduct research and that academic freedom must be protected. Indeed, academic freedom is a fundamental principle. However, when research is funded and directed by foreign entities with a track record of political interference and regime change, it ceases to be an exercise in intellectual inquiry and instead becomes a tool for external manipulation.
Many of these studies are carried out under high-minded pretexts, such as "improving governance" or "ensuring better and more qualified candidates are elected." But this framing itself raises critical questions:
First, who decides what makes a candidate ‘better’ or ‘more qualified’?
Is it the armchair academic sitting in a foreign-funded think tank, or is it the common Indian voter who lives the consequences of electoral decisions?
The very notion that an external, foreign-backed research institution should have the power to define or influence electoral outcomes is not just condescending—it is a direct affront to democratic principles. Democracy is about the will of the people, not the preferences of detached researchers serving the interests of international financiers.
Second, why are foreign academics who are not Indian citizens, institutions and funders involved in studying and influencing Indian elections?
Non-Indian entities have no legal or moral standing to interfere in India's electoral process. Such interference is not only unethical but also illegal under Indian law.
The fact that USAID—an agency with a well-documented history of funding regime change operations across the world—is bankrolling these studies should set off alarm bells. If an election in any sovereign nation is to be free and fair, it must be free from the machinations of foreign powers, regardless of how these interventions are disguised.
While academic freedom is a right, so is national sovereignty. There is undeniable evidence that J-PAL has conducted extensive studies on voter behavior in Bangladesh and is now actively engaged in similar research in India.
This research has direct and obvious applications for those seeking to interfere in India's electoral process. Recent revelations about USAID’s deep involvement in regime change operations worldwide, including in Bangladesh, should leave no doubt about the true nature of such projects.
The fundamental question is this:
If USAID and its affiliates have repeatedly facilitated political upheavals in other nations, is it not reasonable—indeed, necessary—to scrutinize USAID-funded research that explicitly seeks to "guide" Indian voters toward so-called "better" electoral outcomes?
If academic freedom is to be respected, so too must a nation’s right to defend itself from external manipulation. India’s democracy belongs to its people, not to foreign-funded institutions masquerading as neutral observers while actively working to subvert the country’s electoral sovereignty.
J-PAL presents itself as an academic research institution, but its deep entanglement with USAID’s foreign-funded initiatives deserve scrutiny.
Framed as governance research and poverty alleviation, its work can potentially have a far more strategic dimension in willing hands—one that involves studying voter behavior, analyzing electoral trends, and potentially shaping political outcomes.
What is more concerning is that J-PAL has established extensive collaborations with the Government of India, multiple state governments, and a range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across various domains, including health, education, gender and entrepreneurship.
The role of foreign-backed institutions in electoral studies is not new, nor is the concern that such research could be used to influence rather than merely observe democratic processes.
Bangladesh serves as an example where J-PAL conducted extensive studies on governance and voter behavior, ostensibly for developmental purposes. However, not long after, the country witnessed significant political instability, culminating in the ousting of its democratically elected government.
While correlation does not imply causation, the pattern is difficult to ignore. J-PAL, in collaboration with MIT, even has a Muhammad Yunus Challenge, further tying it to political and economic influences beyond academic inquiry.
Could similar tactics be at play in India? The timing of USAID’s recent $18 million grant for “increasing voter turnout in India” raises serious concerns, especially when coupled with research focused on how voters process information and change their political preferences.
When foreign entities fund and direct studies on electoral behavior, it becomes essential to question whether these efforts are purely academic or whether they serve a larger agenda—one that involves guiding voter choices rather than merely understanding them.
When such research is heavily funded by external actors with a documented history of political intervention, scrutiny is not just warranted—it is necessary. The intersection of J-PAL’s electoral research and USAID’s broader geopolitical interests leaves open the possibility that these initiatives are not just about studying democracy but about subtly influencing its outcomes.
As India heads into crucial electoral cycles, the role of foreign-funded research in shaping its political landscape cannot be overlooked. While academic freedom is a principle worth defending, so too is national sovereignty.
The question remains: At what point does research stop being an exercise in knowledge and start becoming a tool for external influence? And who ultimately benefits from the findings of these studies—the Indian voter or those seeking to shape the country’s political future from afar?
More importantly, we should ask: Is India being primed for an orchestrated political upheaval? And if so, what steps will be taken to safeguard the nation’s democratic integrity from foreign manipulation?
