In November 2025, Congress leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Kumar Ketkar made an allegation that drew limited attention beyond political circles, but carries significant implications. He suggested that foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Mossad, may have played a role in shaping India’s 2014 general election outcome. According to him, Congress’s dramatic fall from 206 seats in 2009 to just 44 in 2014 could not be explained solely through domestic political dynamics.

Ketkar did not present documentary proof. His statement remains an allegation. But dismissing it outright would also be intellectually irresponsible in a world where foreign interference in elections is no longer speculative.

Over the last decade, investigations in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and several African countries have confirmed attempts by foreign actors to manipulate voter behaviour, polarize societies, and influence political outcomes through data technology, targeted messaging, and psychological operations. Election interference today rarely involves physical coercion. It involves information, algorithms, demographics, and platforms. India, as one of the world’s largest digital populations and a critical geopolitical player, is hardly immune to such risks.

The 2014 election remains one of the most significant political shifts in Indian history. The collapse of Congress was not gradual; it was historic. While public dissatisfaction, corruption fatigue, and weak leadership all played roles, analysts have long struggled to account for the sheer scale and speed of the turnaround. What is often missing from that analysis is a deeper review of the informational and technological environment in which that election occurred.

In the years leading up to 2014, India saw a rapid expansion of social media penetration, advanced data profiling, political micro-targeting, and digital campaign techniques. It was also a period when international data firms and political consultancies were increasingly active in emerging democracies. Yet, no independent, transparent audit has ever taken place to assess the extent of foreign technological or informational involvement in India’s electoral process during that time. That absence of inquiry is itself a vulnerability.

Decline In Institutional Credibility

What followed 2014 has further fuelled suspicion among critics. India’s intelligence, defense, cyber-security, and surveillance cooperation with the United States and Israel expanded at an unprecedented pace. While strategic partnerships are not in themselves wrong, the concern raised by some observers is whether such close integration weakens institutional independence and influences internal political and security choices.

Simultaneously, confidence in democratic institutions has visibly declined. The neutrality of investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been questioned by opposition parties and civil rights groups. Decisions made by the Election Commission have increasingly been viewed through a partisan lens. Journalists and academics have reported pressure, legal intimidation, or surveillance. These trends do not prove foreign interference, but they do indicate a system that is becoming less transparent and more concentrated in its power.

Electronic Voting Machines {EVM), long presented as secure, have also not escaped controversy. While no conclusive proof of manipulation has been made public, the combination of opacity, limited independent access, and the sheer importance of electoral integrity has made continued public skepticism inevitable. In modern systems, the issue is not only whether technology is tampered with, but whether it can be independently verified as safe. A democracy does not rely on trust alone. It relies on transparent verification.\

Invisible Forms Of Power Projection

The deeper concern raised by Ketkar’s statement is not simply that foreign agencies may have influenced one election. It is that India, like many countries in the digital era, may be increasingly exposed to invisible forms of power projection. These do not look like invasions. They look like analytics. They do not arrive with weapons. They arrive with data.

If decisions can be nudged, narratives framed, fears amplified, and identities targeted at scale, then democratic choice can be shaped without the voter ever realizing it. This is not an Indian problem. It is a global democratic problem. But because of India’s size, diversity, and influence, the consequences there are particularly serious. The solution is not an accusation. It is accountability.

India does not need political rhetoric around its elections. It needs independent, bipartisan, and technically competent audits of its electoral infrastructure. It needs transparent review of data partnerships. It needs clear legal boundaries for foreign political consultancies and digital firms. And above all, it needs to rebuild public confidence that government is derived from consent, not calibration.

Ketkar’s allegation may or may not ever be proven. But the question it raises is legitimate: Are modern democracies still decided at the ballot box alone, or are they increasingly shaped in places far away? Until that question is addressed honestly, doubt will remain. And in a democracy, doubt is as dangerous as deception.

(The author is a political analyst and columnist with a deep interest in South Asian geopolitics, international diplomacy and policy reform. He graduated from King's College London with a focus in global governance and is passionate about narrowing the disparity among academia and policy making.  Views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at aaravsharmaa245@gmail.com)