Unveiling the Truth: Dr. Swamy demands Modi to come clean on USAID funding through disclosure in Parliament or Press

The recent controversy surrounding alleged U.S. funding in India’s electoral processes, sparked by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims and amplified by Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s pointed post on X on February 22, 2025, has thrust Modi into the global spotlight. Dr. Swamy, a seasoned Indian politician, economist, and vocal critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has demanded greater transparency regarding the alleged $21 million provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to influence India’s general elections. In his post, Dr. Swamy insisted that if U.S. President Trump’s assertions—that the funds were handed to Modi for electoral purposes—are accurate, Modi must either disclose their use honestly or face scrutiny through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in court, potentially leading to his resignation as Prime Minister. This demand, rooted in Dr. Swamy’s history of legal activism is not merely a political maneuver but a call for accountability that warrants a robust, public response from the Indian government. A press conference or parliamentary statement is essential to address this legitimate concern, restore public trust, and uphold India’s democratic principles.

Dr. Swamy’s Demand for Transparency

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s post on X, responding to a report from The Times of India about the MEA’s investigation into Trump’s claims, represents a pivotal moment in India’s ongoing political discourse. Dr. Swamy, known for his Hindu nationalist views, legal acumen, and history of challenging governmental opacity, argued that if Trump’s statement—that USAID provided $21 million to Modi for use in the 2024 general elections—is true, the Prime Minister must provide a full and honest disclosure of how these funds were utilized.

Dr. Swamy’s call for transparency is grounded in his long-standing role as a public advocate for accountability. As a former professor of Mathematical Economics at IIT Delhi, a member of the Planning Commission, and a Cabinet Minister under the Chandra Shekhar government, Dr. Swamy has a track record of using legal tools like PILs to challenge corruption and governance failures. His demand for Modi to disclose the funds or face a PIL is consistent with this history, particularly his high-profile cases, such as the 2G spectrum scam litigation against former Telecom Minister A. Raja and efforts to scrutinize the security of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Dr. Swamy, as a legal eagle and anti-corruption crusader, has leveraged PILs to ensure governmental transparency, which adds weight to his current demand in national interest.

Dr. Swamy’s post resonates with a broader public sentiment, which reveal widespread confusion and concern over the alleged USAID funds, with some accusing NGOs, opposition parties, or the Modi government of benefiting from or mishandling foreign money. His insistence on disclosure or legal scrutiny reflects a legitimate public interest, given the potential implications for electoral fairness in India.

The Context of Trump’s Claims and India’s Investigation

The backdrop to Dr. Swamy’s demand is Trump’s repeated assertions that USAID allocated $21 million to influence India’s elections, alongside $29 million for Bangladesh, as part of efforts to boost voter turnout or strengthen political landscapes. These claims, initially met with confusion—given USAID’s clarification that the funds were intended for Bangladesh—have nonetheless triggered a national investigation by India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). On February 21, 2025, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal described the matter as “deeply troubling,” signaling the government’s concern over potential foreign interference in India’s internal affairs.

This context validates Dr. Swamy’s demand for greater disclosure. The potential misuse of foreign funds in India’s elections raises serious questions about governmental accountability.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Dr. Swamy’s threat to file a PIL if Modi does not disclose the USAID funds is a strategic and legally grounded response, reflecting his understanding of India’s judicial mechanisms. PILs, introduced in the 1980s by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, allow citizens or public-spirited individuals to seek justice on behalf of the public, bypassing traditional locus standi requirements.

Dr. Swamy’s demand for Modi to face legal scrutiny through a PIL is not merely punitive but a call for an independent judicial review to uncover the truth, ensure accountability, and prevent future instances of foreign meddling. This is particularly pertinent given India’s history of vigilance against external influence, as noted in The Hindu’s analysis of global electoral interference fears, where India has expressed concerns over Western criticism and alleged foreign agendas during election cycles.

Dr. Swamy’s PIL threat aligns with his past legal battles, such as his successful challenge to the provision shielding senior officials from corruption probes without government permission (Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI, 2014). This precedent demonstrates his ability to use PILs effectively to enforce transparency, reinforcing the legitimacy of his current demand.

A Press Conference or Parliamentary Statement ?

Addressing Dr. Swamy’s genuine demand through a press conference or parliamentary statement is not just advisable but imperative.

In the context of India’s global image, a transparent response is critical. With international attention on Trump’s comments and India’s investigation, a public statement would demonstrate India’s commitment to democratic accountability. This is particularly important given criticisms of democratic backsliding under Modi’s tenure, which highlight concerns over press freedom and civil rights.

Should Modi Resign?

PM Narendra Modi should consider resigning on ethical and moral grounds due to his apparent failure to maintain a robust and trustworthy U.S.-India relationship, which has deteriorated significantly under his leadership. This decline is starkly evident in the actions taken by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly targeted India, undermining the strategic partnership. For instance, Trump’s administration has implemented harsh deportation policies, chaining and forcibly removing Indian nationals—such as the 104 deportees in February 2025—causing humiliation and distress. Additionally, Trump’s threats of reciprocal tariffs, signal economic strain and tension, accusing India of being a "tariff king" and threatening trade reprisals. Most recently, Trump’s allegations linking USAID funds to Modi’s electoral influence, have further damaged India’s international standing and raised questions about Modi’s accountability, suggesting a moral lapse in safeguarding India’s honor and global status. These cumulative actions underscore Modi’s inability to foster a stable relationship with the U.S., compelling a serious ethical reconsideration of his leadership. Modi has also failed to nurture amicable and favorable relationships with India's neighbors. He has failed to remove push back China on illegal occupation of 4,035 sq km in Ladakh.

Conclusion

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s demand for greater disclosure on the alleged USAID funds, or face scrutiny through a PIL, is a justified call for transparency in the face of a troubling controversy. Rooted in his history of legal activism and political advocacy, Dr. Swamy’s post on X on February 22, 2025, amplifies legitimate public concerns about foreign interference in India’s elections, sparked by Donald Trump’s provocative claims. A press conference or parliamentary statement is essential to address Dr. Swamy’s demand, clarify the facts, and uphold India’s democratic integrity.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Scathing Critique of Narendra Modi: Unraveling Modi's policy failures

On February 19, 2025, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a veteran Indian politician, economist, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, took to X to voice a blistering critique of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In a post that has sparked widespread discussion, Dr. Swamy declared, 

This statement, reflects Dr. Swamy’s longstanding reputation as an outspoken critic, even within his own political circles, and raises questions about Modi’s leadership, India’s geopolitical stance, and economic trajectory.

Dr. Swamy’s Background: A Voice of Dissent

Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard-educated economist and former Cabinet Minister, is known for his Hindu nationalist leanings, legal activism, anti-corruption crusade and progressive economic ideas. This post is continuation of a pattern that is consistent with Dr. Swamy's ultra-nationalist views. It also reflects failure of opposition to hold ruling party accountable on various burning issues.

The China Border Dispute: Fact or Fiction?

Central to Dr. Swamy’s critique is the claim that Modi “gave away thousands of India’s undisputed land to China”. Since the deadly 2020 Galwan Valley clash, which claimed the lives of 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers, the two nuclear-armed neighbors have been locked in a military standoff. While no definitive territorial losses have been officially acknowledged by the Indian government, Dr. Swamy has stated that Modi government has ceded 4,067 sq km of grazing lands and strategic areas in Ladakh to China.

Satellite imagery, local testimonies, and official documents collectively suggest significant territorial losses in Ladakh to China since 2020. High-resolution satellite images reveal permanent Chinese structures, such as military outposts and roads, extending beyond previous LAC alignments, notably in Pangong Tso and Depsang Plains, indicating a fortified presence. Local herders, like Lopzang Dadul from Chushul, corroborate this, reporting traditional grazing lands now inaccessible due to Chinese troops and Indian military barriers, shrinking their livelihoods. A January 2023 Ladakh Police research paper further bolsters the case, documenting India’s loss of presence at 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points, attributing it to restricted patrolling and buffer zones that favor Chinese control. Together, these sources paint a picture of incremental but tangible territorial erosion along the LAC.

Economic Woes: Has Modi “Wrecked” India’s Economy?

Dr. Subramanian Swamy has claimed that India’s economic growth rate is languishing at 4-5% per annum, a stark contrast to the government’s more optimistic projections. This assertion, often discussed in platforms like the VHS Gyan Ganga Sunday show, aligns with his critique of official GDP figures, which he argues are inflated due to methodological flaws and over-reliance on corporate supply-side data rather than demand-side realities. Dr. Swamy contends that post-2020 recovery figures (e.g., 7.9% average growth since 2021) mask structural weaknesses, such as stagnant rural consumption and unemployment, which he highlights in VHS discussions with experts like Dr. M.R. Venkatesh. These sessions often cite the contraction in household consumption growth and the failure to create the 90 million non-farm jobs needed by 2030 for sustainable 8-8.5% GDP growth, per McKinsey estimates, lending credence to Dr. Swamy’s argument that the real growth rate hovers closer to 4-5%, burdened by policy missteps and an uneven post-pandemic rebound.

“Crawling Before Trump”: Foreign Policy Under Scrutiny

Dr. Swamy’s characterization suggests subservience, contrasting with Modi’s public image as an assertive leader on the global stage. The timing of Dr. Swamy’s post, just days after the Trump-Modi meeting, underscores his skepticism about Modi’s foreign policy, particularly as India navigates its role in forums like BRICS and Quad while managing U.S.-China rivalry.

Facing pressure from U.S. indictments against Adani for a $250 million bribery scheme, Modi reportedly acquiesced to President Donald Trump’s trade demands, agreeing to lower tariffs on U.S. goods and committing to billions in purchases of American oil, gas, and F-35 jets—moves seen as concessions to deflect attention from Adani’s legal troubles.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability or Political Theater?

Subramanian Swamy’s February 19, 2025, X post is a reflection of broader tensions within India’s political landscape. His claims about territorial losses to China, economic mismanagement, and subservience to the U.S. tap into ongoing debates about Modi’s leadership.

Dr. Swamy’s stature lends weight to his critique. For India, the issues Dr. Swamy raises—border security, economic stability, and foreign policy—are critical to its future.

Rahul Gandhi's British Citizenship: Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Role and the Latest from Delhi High Court

In a legal saga that has captured national attention, BJP leader Dr. Subramanian Swamy has been at the forefront of challenging the citizenship status of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The crux of the matter revolves around Gandhi holding British citizenship alongside his Indian citizenship, potentially violating Indian law.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Role:

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, known for his legal battles, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court. Dr. Swamy's contention is based on documents that show Rahul Gandhi as a British citizen in the records of Backops Limited, a company registered in the UK. These documents include annual returns from 2005 and 2006, where Gandhi's nationality was listed as British, and even in the company's dissolution application in 2009.

Dr. Swamy argues that these declarations violate Article 9 of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates that no person can be a citizen of India if they voluntarily acquire citizenship of another country. He has sought directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to decide on his representation to cancel Gandhi's Indian citizenship. Despite writing to the MHA in 2019 and subsequent interactions, the government has suffered from inaction or clarity regarding his complaint.

Delhi High Court's Latest Direction:

The Delhi High Court has recently taken an active role in addressing this issue. In a significant development on February 19, 2025, the court, presided over by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, questioned the Central government on why it hadn't responded to Dr. Swamy's representation.

The court directed Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the government, to obtain instructions on the matter. The bench clarified that it wasn't asking for a decision on the substantive issue but merely seeking an update on the stage of proceedings concerning Dr. Swamy's representation.

"The prayer is not to make decision on the substantive issues of the pending matter in either of the matters pending here or in Allahabad. He is only seeking directions on his representations. Seek instructions then regarding stage of the proceeding regarding the letter," the court stated, emphasizing the procedural aspect over the substantive.

Following this, it was revealed that the MHA had previously sent a show cause notice to Gandhi in 2019, to which no response was received, nor was any further action taken by the government. Dr. Swamy argued,

"The Government of India, on my letter to the Home Ministry, wrote a show cause notice to Gandhi to explain the data brought on record to show that he is also a British citizenship. Under Indian Law, no Indian can have citizenship of any other country. This was never replied, no reminders sent, no action taken by the government. The government must complete its responsibility."

The court has now scheduled the next hearing for March 26, 2025, giving the ASG time to gather further instructions, particularly in light of a 2019 letter from the MHA that was part of Swamy's petition.

Current Status:

The matter remains under judicial scrutiny with parallel proceedings in the Allahabad High Court where another petitioner, S. Vignesh Shishir, has sought a CBI investigation into Gandhi's citizenship. However, the Delhi High Court has made it clear that its jurisdiction isn't precluded by the pendency of another case elsewhere.

This ongoing legal battle showcases Dr. Swamy's persistent pursuit of accountability in India's political theatre.

Dr. Swamy's Critique of Modi's Leadership: A Churchill-Chamberlain Analogy

• Subramanian Swamy, known for his Hindu nationalist views, draws a parallel between Narendra Modi and Neville Chamberlain, suggesting a critique of Modi's leadership in times of national peril, similar to Chamberlain's misjudgment of Hitler before WWII.
• The reference to Winston Churchill implies Dr. Swamy's call for a more assertive and blunt approach from Indian leadership, akin to Churchill's stance against Hitler, highlighting a perceived need for stronger, more direct action in current geopolitical challenges.
• This post reflects ongoing discussions about India's national security, particularly the tensions with China and Pakistan, as highlighted in recent analyses like those from the Observer Research Foundation, suggesting Dr. Swamy's post is part of a broader discourse on India's strategic positioning.

Subramanian Swamy, a prominent figure in Indian politics with a background in economics, law, and academia, has historically been known for his outspoken views. His recent post on X (formerly Twitter) draws a comparison between PM Modi and Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who is often criticized for his policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler before World War II.

In his post, Dr. Swamy suggests that while it might be easy and comfortable to praise Modi, particularly in times of peace or political stability, the real test of leadership comes when the nation faces a crisis or danger. By likening Modi to Chamberlain, Dr. Swamy implies that Modi might be underestimating or misjudging the threats to India, similar to how Chamberlain initially viewed Hitler as a peace-loving leader, which history has shown was a grave miscalculation.

The invocation of Winston Churchill serves as a stark contrast. Churchill is celebrated for his foresight, resolve, and his unyielding opposition to Nazi Germany, which eventually led to his leadership during the war. Dr. Swamy's reference to Churchill indicates a call for a leadership style that is more direct, confrontational, and perhaps more visionary in dealing with India's current and potential adversaries. This comparison underscores Dr. Swamy's belief that India needs a leader who can speak bluntly and act decisively, much like Churchill did in the face of existential threats to Britain.

In summary, Dr. Swamy's X post is a layered critique, using historical analogies to comment on contemporary Indian politics. It reflects concerns over leadership style in the face of national security issues, urging for a shift towards a more assertive and visionary approach. This discourse places Modi's leadership under scrutiny, prompting a discussion on how India should navigate its complex international relations and internal challenges in the years to come.

Supreme Court to Hear Petition Challenging India's Places of Worship Act: A Look into the Krishna Janmasthan and Gyanvapi Disputes

In a significant development, the Chief Justice of India has announced that the Supreme Court will list for hearing in April 2025 a case challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This announcement comes from a post by Subramanian Swamy, a noted politician and the original petitioner in this case, who is actively involved in seeking judicial intervention to address historical religious disputes.

Dr. Swamy's petition seeks exceptions to the rules in The Places of Worship Act, specifically aiming at the restoration of two significant Hindu temple sites: Krishna Janmasthan in Mathura and Gyanvapi in Varanasi.

Krishna Janmasthan Temple in Mathura

According to Hindu tradition, Krishna Janmasthan in Mathura is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The site has a long history of being a focal point of religious significance, with claims that a temple dedicated to Krishna was initially built by his great-grandson Vajranabh. Over the centuries, the site has seen various transformations, including the construction of a mosque, leading to disputes over rightful ownership and religious use. Dr. Swamy's petition specifically requests the restoration of this site, arguing for the historical and religious significance it holds for Hindus.

Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi

Similarly, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi is at the heart of another contentious dispute. The mosque was built over the ruins of the ancient Kashi Vishwanath temple, which was allegedly demolished during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The mosque's location near the famous Kashi Vishwanath temple adds to the complexity, with Hindu groups seeking permission to worship deities they believe are still present within the mosque's structure.

Dr. Swamy's argument

Dr. Subramanian Swamy's legal argument for seeking exceptions for the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath site in Varanasi under the Places of Worship Act revolves around the profound cultural and religious significance these locations hold within Hindu tradition. He emphasizes that both sites are not merely places of worship but are deeply embedded in the spiritual and historical narrative of Hinduism. Krishna Janmabhoomi is revered as the birthplace of Lord Krishna, one of the most worshipped deities in Hinduism, with centuries-old traditions and stories associated with this location. Similarly, Kashi Vishwanath is one of the twelve Jyotirlingas, the holiest abodes of Lord Shiva, making it a pivotal pilgrimage site.

Dr. Swamy's contention is that these sites were originally Hindu temples before being demolished and mosques being constructed in their place during historical conquests, specifically under the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. He argues that the restoration of these temples would not only serve to restore the sanctity and continuity of Hindu religious practice but also address the historical injustices where these sacred spaces were forcibly altered.

By focusing solely on Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath, Dr. Swamy aims to highlight their exceptional status in Hindu cosmology, suggesting that their restoration is a matter of correcting specific historical wrongs.