Subversion of Indian Elections – Systems Vulnerabilities, Fixes & Needed Debates

Summary: Indian Elections are a spectacle – of a scale and intense slug fest that evoke admiration, derision and now alarm. This note unpacks what is dangerously wrong with the system at each level and what are the debates we need to have and what are clearly the best practical fixes. In this note, the most urgent and serious problems and how to address them are discussed. Interested readers can click on relevant hyperlinks to deep dive into references and my notes. For e.g. EVM system as used in the  Indian Election System deserves careful study because it is a critical element besides other factors like manipulated Electoral Rolls and immunity granted to Election Commissioners which, on the face of it, can upend the Indian Democracy. It is also important to know the difference between Indian Citizen, Indian Voter and Resident Indian. Those who are not subject experts should first consult the abbreviations.

 

Indian Election System is far from what India deserves. It is beset with serious problems at multiple levels – ironically all of these can be fixed – the biggest reason why this has not happened is lack of public pressure. Some fixes require constitutional amendments with 2/3^rd majority, a few require legislative amendments with a simple majority and others require only a procedural change which could be mandated by ECI or forced by SCI. No one needs to be told that subversion of Indian elections is a big stakes game, consequential reforms will not happen automatically through institutions, without public pressure nothing much will happen. The required changes can be classified as Essential and Desirable – and further, by the time that will likely be needed for debates followed by legislative or institutional actions and actual implementation.

The Political Funding System and the FPTP, First-Past-The-Post System which have got exacerbated due to rising cost of elections (world’s biggest and costliest) and proliferation of political parties, have completely warped the representation of people’s will and put in power parties which do not represent the views of the majority and all manner of machinations are employed for making and unmaking coalitions. Debating and fixing these two very serious problems are long-term projects and they must not be sidelined. However,  there are other urgent problems related to the Voting System which must be fixed ASAP. The priority should be to first save Democracy and then to work on making it a responsive Democracy.

The processes of Electoral Roll preparation and EVM’s usage which constitute the Voting System have followed the law of entropy and the disorder in the system continues unabated. ECI (Election Commission of India), once a reputed independent institution is today seen as a government agent. SCI has been generally dismissive of activists’ challenges against ECI’s processes and conduct. Therefore, it is only public pressure that can save India’s Democracy.

In its 75-year history, the Voting System has evolved from Paper Ballots (1951-2004) → EVMs (trial 1982, law 1989, full use 2004) → EVMs + VVPAT (SCI order 2013, partial 2014, full 2019) → VVPAT with dark glass modification (2017 onward; by 2019 full rollout). ECI has refused to share the source code citing security concerns and objections by ECIL and BEL. These two PSUs are sole suppliers and they have claimed IPR over the EVM’s program – which could be easily developed by a small team of programmers in one month. Many other countries which use some form of EVMs have published the source code for public scrutiny, for e.g. Australia.

Today India has a first-class DPI (Digital Public Infrastructure) but ECI is oblivious. ECI behaves as if it is in another backward country! The errors and fraudulent additions and deletions in the Electoral Rolls ECI prepares, even after SIR (Special Intensive Revisions) are being uncovered daily. These wrongful additions and deletions in electoral rolls are so striking in terms of volumes and types that they point to ECI’s extraordinary incompetence & arrogance, at best and, collusion with fraudsters, at worst.   

ECI continues to imperil the Indian Democracy. CECs not only tell lies, they are amazingly ignorant - Gyaneshwar Kumar in a press conference on 17-Aug-25 said digital electoral rolls (searchable text pdf as opposed to scanned pdf files) are not released because they can be edited and further, a SCI ruling of 2019 restrains ECI from releasing such searchable pdf files. He was fibbing, there is no such ruling. Ex-CEC Rawat, in presence of two other Ex-CECs, at a conclave on 6-Sep-25, similarly claimed electoral rolls in digital searchable formats are not released due to fear of editing, apparently these CECs haven't heard of DSCs (Digital Signature Certificates) which make the searchable pdf files tamper-proof. Documents signed with DSCs are legally enforceable. Even SCI orders are released with DSCs and published on its website. Current and past CECs don’t seem to be aware of such basic techniques? Furthermore, editing a file downloaded from ECI portal does not alter the state of the database on ECI's server. Rahul Gandhi has provided proof of 12% to 17% bogus electors in the lists of Haryana and Mahadevpura constituency. The high volume of these "errors" coupled with ECI's policies of withholding CCTV footage and not sharing Form 17-C immediately after poll closing time, invite strong suspicion of hanky-panky and naturally diminish faith in the Election system. No wonder, “Vote Chori” campaign spearheaded by LOP is gathering steam.

ECI's reputation has declined rapidly and, today its credibility is at its nadir. [The story of ECI - A 37 min documentary by DeshBhakt, Akash Banerjee dated 6-Sep-25]. ECI has failed to respond to most challenges of the citizens and Opposition Parties. Unfortunately, SCI has sided with ECI and treated citizens' challenges as motivated or instigated by Opposition Parties. SCI has also issued absurd post-poll audit orders which betray technical ignorance; SCI Judges are not aware that the malware used to game EVMs can self-erase before poll closing, leaving no trace for any auditor to find any evidence of manipulation. A few innocent contestants paid hefty fees and asked for such audits but no one has heard anything about the outcome so far.

There are eleven levels or stages where elections are being subverted or could be subverted. The delimitation of constituencies is the twelfth level where games can be played but that is not discussed here. 

The vulnerable stages in the election system are classified based on the characteristics of fixes – S for Short-term, M for Medium-term and L for Long-term and E for Essential or D for Desirable (abbreviations marked in square brackets in the first column).  An Opposition Leader of Bihar who was interviewed recently identified many stages which have likely been subverted by the ruling party. 

Vulnerable Stages of Election Subversion and Fixes: TABLE

CONCLUSION

Risks India's democracy faces can be cut significantly by implementing Actions marked S&E (Short-term & Essential). ECI has become an untrustworthy organisation due to EC's immunity and appointment rules. ECI's & SCI’s rulings make reforms difficult. Therefore, public debate and persuasion is essential. By utilising India's excellent DPI coupled with tweaking the Aadhaar Act and making minor changes in VVPATs, we can quickly secure India's democracy. Subversion of Indian Elections is a high stakes game and if hacking/manipulations is being done, it is likely being done by top drawer hackers who will NOT leave an audit trail. Reducing the need for humongous political funding and the necessity of changing the First-Past-The-Post system need to be much more vigorously debated. The large-scale deletion of genuine voters can be mitigated by making citizens alert and implementing remedial action# 5.4. In existing type of EVMs, malware introduction at DEO’s level allows a constituency’s result to get hijacked without an audit trail. Action at Sr# 8.2 is enough to thwart EVM hacks/manipulations. CU machine ID hack is also easy but it requires more accomplices to manage stolen machines and substitution. Actions#9,10 & 11 will thwart post-poll gaming.

AI-171 Air Crash - System Malfunction most likely cause but Pilot Actions are under cloud - against Common Sense

Updated: 1-Aug-25

Synopsis: There is enough evidence to indicate that the culprit was FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control system) which is a computer program coupled with sensors - it was a system failure - and not pilot(s) actions which crashed A-171. AAIB (Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau) report is unnecessarily sketchy and ambiguous, likely intentionally. Meant to be confidential, the report's contents were leaked and a false narrative built by Western media. Common sense methods Sherlock Holmes applied can debunk the "pilot error-suicide-murder" narrative. The analysis below relies solely on data and evidence contained in AAIB's report.

AAIB of India released its preliminary report barely in time. The Air India's B787-8 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB had crashed in Meghaninagar, less than 1.5 Km from the Ahmedabad Airport on 12-Jun-25. 

A preliminary report is required to be released within 30 days and AAIB released one on Saturday, 12-Jul-25 past mid-night. The 15-page report was unsigned - there was no press briefing. 

It's 14 pages contain almost useless information, lot of pictures and descriptions which were all known to everyone following the story. The article 12 has critical but truncated information, and information which is undoubtedly available with AAIB but has been withheld has created doubts about pilots' behaviour. One wonders why AAIB took the maximum time allowed to it for releasing the few facts it did in its preliminary report. Perhaps the time it took was for word-smithing and determining which time-stamps of events to hide and which to publish.  

The report seems to give a clean chit to Boeing and GE as it says, there are no recommendations to be made to these companies. Yet AAIB says, its preliminary report is not for apportioning blame (as if absolving parties of blame means something else)!

From the time plane starts rolling for takeoff it took 1Minute:34Seconds to crash. It became air-borne in 1M:02S, therefore, it was in the air for 0M:32S only. A second by second account could have been easily provided in one page with maximum of 32 lines in double space.

The following table lists the notable events after takeoff for Air India Flight AI-171, based exclusively on the AAIB preliminary report (article 12). Times are relative to the start of the takeoff roll at 08:07:37 UTC on June 12, 2025.

Time (MM:SS)	Event
00:00	Aircraft starts takeoff roll (08:07:37 UTC).
01:02	Aircraft reaches 155 knots, air/ground sensors transition to air mode, consistent with liftoff (08:08:39 UTC).
01:05	Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitions from RUN to CUTOFF (08:08:42 UTC).
01:06	Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch transitions from RUN to CUTOFF (08:08:43 UTC).
?	Pilot conversation: One pilot asks, “Why did you cut off?” Other responds, “I did not do so.” (No exact time specified).
?	Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deploys, indicating dual engine failure (No exact time specified).
01:15	Engine 1 fuel switch transitions from CUTOFF to RUN, initiating relight (08:08:52 UTC).
01:17	Engine 2 fuel switch transitions from CUTOFF to RUN, initiating relight (08:08:54 UTC).
01:28	MAYDAY call issued by pilots (08:09:05 UTC) - mentioned in article 10 on page 12
01:34	Flight data recorder stops, aircraft crashes (08:09:11 UTC).

In article no. 4 Aircraft Information, on page 5&6 of the AAIB's report, there is nothing that would draw any suspicion to an improper or insufficient maintenance performed or any known defect or deficiency in the particular plane. Were there any prior incidents of dual engine shutdown? AAIB failed to ask or answer this question? In this section, AAIB did cite one non-mandatory advisory issued by FAA (Federal Aviation Authority of USA): Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. Air India confirmed that it did not carry out checks on fuel control switch as they were advisory in nature and not mandatory.

The above account would leave the cause of the accident to be explored in
i) the design and performance of the plane manufactured by Boeing,
ii) the design and performance of the engines made by GE and
iii) the conduct of the Air India pilots.

Performance of the plane ought to have included performance of the software or a system malfunction which can occur due to a bug or malware introduced by a saboteur. But this possibility is not cited anywhere in the AAIB report.

AAIB's report, going further, gave almost a clean chit to Boeing and GE by saying that at this time, it had no recommendations to offer to Boeing or GE. It was less equivocal with respect to the conduct of the pilots. After reading AAIB's report more people think Pilots are responsible for the crash than Boeing and hardly anyone blames GE. AAIB has been proclaiming that the preliminary report is not a final report and people should not jump to conclusions. However, AAIB's report is a dead give away of its incompetence and susceptibility to extraneus pressures.  

Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, designated as PM (Pilot Monitoring the flight) and First Officer Kunder Clive designated as PF (Pilot Flying the plane) in the context of flight AI-171 were, between them, above average pilots' crew because the former had logged flying time of 15,638:22 Hrs and the latter 3,403:12 Hrs. The former held ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot License) - which is the highest rated commercial Pilot License and he had been Air India's flight instructor too.  

Curiously, in AAIB report - many events' time stamp hidden, Pilots' conversation truncated and identity hidden, full transcript and audio alarms going off, if at all, not disclosed, simple  Question not posed to Boeing: Can the 787-8B's system CUTOFF fuel to the engines without manual operation of fuel control switches or without physical movement of fuel control switches? Most importantly, The AAIB chose not to disclose the transcripts and descriptions of voices and sounds in the 32 seconds the plane was airborne - did the two pilots work in concert or did they have disagreements in the specific actions they took after they discovered the emergency (loss of dual engines)? Other than the question one pilot asked, what other indicators of dual engine shutdown (or loss of thrust) were there and when did they occur? AAIB has given a miss to this information in its preliminary report. 

Both pilots, reportedly have adequate or above average relevant flyig experience. They have an unblemished mental health record. The chances of their acting in concert to deliberately crash the plane, in a fit of suicidal-cum-murderous frenzy, are far less than the chances of a simultaneous dual engine failure which is calculated by many as less than 1 in one billion. 

Suppose only one pilot had gone berserk and the other was in a sane state, in such a case they would not act in concert. The Cockpit Voice Recorder would have been definitely processed by the AAIB. 

If the pilots did not work in concert, there would have been an altercation between them. The chances that officers involved in the AAIB's report preparation, from foreign agencies, particularly from Boeing, would not publish any incriminating conversation between the two pilots can be certainly ruled out. After all the Boeing and GE companies are interested in clearing their name ASAP. [As per AAIB, Officers involved were: "NTSB, USA appointed an Accredited Representative and Technical Advisers from Boeing, GE and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assist in this Investigation. A team led by the NTSB Accredited Representative comprising of representatives from Boeing, GE and FAA arrived at Ahmedabad on 15.06.2025 and participated in the Investigation. A team of officials from AAIB, UK also arrived at Ahmedabad and visited the site with DG, AAIB."]  See motivations to blame pilots - short clip

Common sense indicates that this accident is not caused by one or both pilots' deliberate actions to cut off fuel supply to engines - it would be simpler or easier to just nose dive rather than cut fuel supply and then try to restore the same all the while keeping the nose of the plane up - videos show the plane's attitude as it sinks from its peak height of four-hundred and odd feet above the ground level - AAIB report also has a diagram that shows 8 degrees upward inclination at the time of crash. Likely, there was a malfunction and the dual engine failure occured for reasons other than the fuel control switch moving from RUN to CUTOFF. 

It is reported, the two switches "transitioned" from RUN to CUTOFF after 3 seconds of takeoff with one second interval. The transition events are picked up from the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), which also record cockpit voices (there are two EAFRs one in the front and second in the rear of the aircraft). 

Let's consider two scenarios of system malfunction in which pilots are heros rather than villains:

A) It is possible that immediately after takeoff the plane suffered a dual engine loss owing to an unknown system failure and the pilots sensed it at once. They quickly decided after seeing the fuel switches in the RUN state that there was something amiss. They figured there was a need to recycle - i.e. reset. As per Boeing's manual for achieving fuel flow revival, in case of dual engine failure, requires exactly the type of recycling actions the pilots took - move the switches from RUN to CUTOFF and then back again from CUTOFF to RUN. See the videos at these links made by an experienced Captain of a Domestic Carrier - Gaurav Taneja (X reference @flyingbeast320): Part-1 Part-2 and Part-3.

B) It is possible that three seconds after takeoff, due to a system malfunction, even without anyone touching the fuel control flow switches, the fuel supply was cut off and the plane suffered a dual engine loss. The pilot who got alerted to the dual engine loss first, asked the other "Why did you cut off"?, to which the other responded, "I did not do so". In this scenario, it is possible the FADEC system shifted the switches from RUN to CUTOFF or it is possible that it did not shift the switches but CLOSED THE VALVES that shut the fuel (or drastically REDUCED the flow) to both engines and sent a signal for recording in EFAR - very likely the sensors are in the valves and not in the switches  and likely the FADEC decided to shut the valves based on incorrect inputs from sensors coupled with it.         

There was such a precedent in flight NH985 (from Tokyo to Osaka) just before touch down. KJM Today article has the details - dual engine shutdown occurred through system command, without manual operation of any switches. See also what Mary Schiavo, an Aviation Expert Lawyer has to say here (The Guardian article) and here (Mojo Video).  

Summary and Conclusion:

Revised Chronology of Events for AI-171

The table below lists the events from takeoff to crash (08:07:37 to 08:09:11 UTC, 1 minute and 34 seconds), integrating my hypothetical scenario#1 with AAIB-reported events. Times are relative to the takeoff roll start (08:07:37 UTC = 00:00), with absolute UTC times provided. Hypothetical events are marked as such, and AAIB-reported events are noted for clarity. The remarks column distinguishes the source of each event.

Time (MM:SS)	Event	Remarks
00:00	Aircraft starts takeoff roll.	AAIB-reported: Takeoff roll begins at 08:07:37 UTC.
01:02	Aircraft reaches 155 knots, air/ground sensors transition to air mode, consistent with liftoff.	AAIB-reported: Liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC.
01:03	System malfunction reduces or cuts off fuel flow to both engines, triggering EICAS warnings and/or audible alarms (e.g., “ENGINE FAIL”). Commanding pilot (First Officer) detects dual engine thrust loss.	Hypothetical: Assumes system (e.g., FADEC/TCMA) malfunction causes thrust loss one second after takeoff, as per my scenario. Alerts align with standard 787 cockpit warnings.
01:04	Commanding pilot asks, “Why did you cut off?” Other pilot responds, “I didn’t.” Pilots observe fuel control switches in RUN position despite thrust loss.	Hypothetical: Places CVR conversation one second after thrust loss detection, consistent with pilot confusion noted in AAIB report. AAIB confirms conversation but provides no timestamp.
01:05	Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitions from RUN to CUTOFF.	AAIB-reported: Switch movement at 08:08:42 UTC. Hypothetically, pilots deliberately move switch to reset system after noticing thrust loss with switches in RUN.
01:06	Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch transitions from RUN to CUTOFF.	AAIB-reported: Switch movement at 08:08:43 UTC. Hypothetically, pilots continue reset attempt.
01:07	Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deploys, indicating dual engine failure and loss of primary power.	AAIB-reported: RAT deployment noted but no timestamp provided. Hypothetically placed after switch movement, as thrust loss persists. CCTV confirms deployment during climb. Few experts have said that RAT would require 6+ seconds to automatically deploy after a dual engine failure
01:08–01:14	Pilots notice persistent thrust loss despite switches in CUTOFF, prepare to return switches to RUN to attempt engine relight.	Hypothetical: Assumes pilots assess situation and follow emergency procedures (e.g., engine restart checklist) within seconds, constrained by short timeline.
01:15	Engine 1 fuel switch transitions from CUTOFF to RUN, initiating relight attempt.	AAIB-reported: Switch movement (transition) at 08:08:52 UTC. Hypothetically, pilots attempt to restore fuel flow after reset fails.
01:17	Engine 2 fuel switch transitions from CUTOFF to RUN, initiating relight attempt.	AAIB-reported: Switch movement (transition) at 08:08:54 UTC. Hypothetically, pilots complete relight attempt for second engine.
01:18–01:27	Pilots observe one engine partially relighting but insufficient thrust to maintain flight. Aircraft begins descent.	Hypothetical: AAIB notes one engine regained some thrust, but not enough to prevent crash. Descent aligns with 625-foot maximum altitude and crash 1.5 km from runway.
01:28	Pilots issue “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY” call.	AAIB-reported: MAYDAY call at 08:09:05 UTC. Reflects pilots’ recognition of imminent crash. As seasoned pilots they follow the protocol in extreme emergencies - aviate, navigate & communicate (in that order)
01:34	Flight data recorder stops, aircraft crashes.	AAIB-reported: Crash at 08:09:11 UTC, 32 seconds after liftoff, into B.J. Medical College hostel.

The 787-8’s fuel system is designed to respond to both manual pilot inputs and system-generated signals, reflecting its fly-by-wire architecture.

The Boeing 787-8’s fuel flow pipeline delivers fuel from tanks to engines via boost pumps, engine-driven pumps, and valves (spar, metering, cross-feed), controlled by a combination of manual fuel control switches and automated systems (FADEC - Full Authority Digital Engine Control, IFS - Integrated Fuel System). The switches manually actuate the spar valves, while the FADEC manages pumps and metering valves using sensor inputs and software logic. The NH985 incident confirms that software (TCMA - Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation /FADEC) can reduce fuel flow without pilot intervention, but no evidence confirms it can close spar valves or mimic switch movement to CUTOFF, as seen in AI-171. The 787’s fly-by-wire design makes a software-induced cutoff theoretically possible, supporting my AI-171 scenario, but the AAIB’s focus on switch movement and lack of inquiry into software possibilities leaves this unresolved. Software malfunction could result from a bug or malware introduced by a saboteur. The fuel system’s electrical and electronic components enable both manual and system-driven control, with redundancy to prevent unintended cutoffs, but a rare glitch could disrupt this balance, as hypothesized for AI-171. The final AAIB report (due June 2026) should clarify whether such a malfunction occurred. In the near term, the Indian Pilots ought to haul AAIB to the court on charges of deliberate obfuscation, issuing a premature clean chit to Boeing and placing the integrity of Indian pilots under a cloud. AAIB should also be charged for leaking its draft report to Western media.

References:

1. My Q&A with ChatGPT on premature clean chit AAIB gave to Boeing and what is Boeing design and training related to fuel flow cutoff and relighting engines. Link

This chat reveals a critical design flaw - in an emergency FADEC should NOT overrule manual FULL THRUST COMMAND; possibly (unless there were other factors at play) pilots could have pulled up their plane even at the last moment but for this flawed design - FADEC was the boss as the Fuel Control Switches were in the RUN state and it disregarded pilots by design and merrily regulated the fuel flow "efficiently", at its own pace!! Should the Pilots not be given a button sequence or a pass code to tell the FADEC to yield?

2. Here is another software engineer pointing out how FADEC could have crashed the plane while Pilot's got overruled by the system - he describes the sequence of components failing after a lithium battery got into a thermal runaway:

Ranjit John, Founder Hawkai Data, has a great analysis and a scenario he constructs like Sherlock Holmes. His article dated 16-Jul-25 in LinkedIn reveals what likely happened and why it happened - his analysis is an example of smart sleuthing for finding the root cause. For those who prefer interviews - Barkha Dutt & Dr Ranjit John - 24-Jul-25 video of 45 min

3. 30-Jul-25 Geofrey Thomas Video - he reaches exactly the same conclusion I did - the RAT deployed 1 second after takeoff- BEFORE the switches reportedly transitioned, dual engine failure had occurred. He points out more inconsistency in the speeds Vr V1 V2 Vmax given the weight, temperature and pressure readings. Points to perplexing report of AAIB and its incompetence. Video 17 min

India’s Digital Public Infrastructure – achievements and possibilities soon?

India has a great digital infrastructure stack with its unique Aadhaar foundation. This is mostly owned and sustained by Government, therefore, it is referred as Digital Public Infrastructure. There are already many successful applications that have reached the remotest and poorest habitats in rural and forest areas. After introduction of Low Earth Orbit Satellites communication networks, India can opt for developing and implementing many new exciting services which make for 100% inclusion and help create a more responsive democracy. Before we start discussing those, lets become aware of few facts and possibilities from 2025 onwards.

Today India has among the best, if not the best, Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) of all major countries of the world. Other countries that have a great Digital Infrastructure have private players owning most of it; this is not so in India where ownership is significantly that of the Government or Government subsidised services constitute most of the DPI (China may be an exception).

In India the number of people who make online transactions as a proportion of literate people will likely be the highest in the world. The DPI provides great quality and reliable services free of cost and private players have built applications on top of it. Even the not-so-literate street vendors display a QR Code of their UPI (Universal Payment Interface) account mapped to their bank accounts or Paytm wallet accounts and people make payments into their account from their bank accounts or electronic wallets. India's top payment wallet players are listed at the end of the article.

The DPI has three pillars – what PM, Modi, the acronyms making champion, calls the JAM trinity. Jan-Dhan Bank account, Aadhaar ID system and Mobiles. In 2013 digital transactions as well as DBT (Direct Benefits Transfer) by the Government were already taking place among those who had bank accounts.  

On August 28, 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) with the goal of promoting financial inclusion by opening bank accounts for the unbanked. Banks were encouraged to open many accounts quickly, and reports claim that over 18 million accounts were opened in just one week as part of this initiative. PM forced RBI to drop the onerous requirement of KYC (Know-Your-Customer) paperwork and allow banks to open accounts for any Indian citizen above 10 years of age and having an ID proof. With this initiative, the financial inclusion, contemplated by Nilekani under the UPA regime, was scaled up rapidly. Today there are over 500 million Jan-Dhan active bank accounts, 56% belong to women and 67% are in rural and semi-urban areas.

The foundation of the DPI stack was laid in 2009 by the launch of Aadhaar project. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recruited Nandan Nilekani who had proposed a biometric based ID System for every resident Indian. Nilekani had described his vision of an online ID System and its potential benefits, in his book, “Imagining India: Ideas for the New Century”. The project faced opposition from most of the people in positions of power – political leaders and bureaucrats – at the Centre and State Governments. As the Chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in the rank of a Cabinet Minister, Nandan Nilekani did a stellar job of convincing almost all CMs and Cabinet Ministers, and conceptualizing, designing, developing and deploying Aadhaar ID System across the country. Nilekani was easily one of the best IT Managers in the world, a billionaire entrepreneur and one who was highly articulate. Time magazine had chosen him the Businessman of the Year in 2003. Nilekani joined Indian National Congress in March 2014. He contested from the Bangalore South constituency. Contrary to all expectations, he lost by 228,575 votes to BJP candidate Ananth Kumar in the 2014 Lok Sabha election. Modi had actively canvassed against him calling the Aadhaar project a big scam and one which deserved to be buried ASAP. Though Nilekani chose to retire from politics, he sought a meeting with the victor, Narendra Modi and convinced him about the utility of Aadhaar. After the meeting, Modi changed his stance and asked his government to aggressively continue issuing Aadhaar to all Indian residents. Today 99.8% of Indian residents have Aadhaar number.

By 2013, Aadhaar had been linked to 600 million Voter Cards (EPIC – Electoral Photo Identity Card). Had this exercise been continued with legislative support, India today would have had the biggest online voting system, far more reliable than the existing EVM System, in the world.

Unfortunately, Modi made the mistake of Passing the Aadhaar as a Money Bill. The Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016. The Act was introduced as a money bill, and certain provisions came into force on July 12, 2016. Money bill requires majority vote only in Lok Sabha. As BJP was not sure of securing +50% votes in Rajya Sabha, it did not propose Aadhaar as a General-Purpose ID System bill. As a result, Aadhaar cannot be legally mandated or used in applications which are not monetary in nature. Furthermore, SCI (Supreme Court of India) has ruled that even if one does not have Aadhaar, Government cannot refuse the monetary or other entitlements of that person.

If Aadhaar is passed as a security or General-Purpose ID System bill by both houses of the Parliament and extended in scope to the presently excluded territories of Assam, Jammu & Kashmir and Meghalaya, India can have a very robust security system besides online voting system and the world's most inclusive financial system.  

Here are some statistics, to console ourselves, that indicate how the investment in India’s DPI has paid off.

Year	Number of digital transactions per   day	Value of digital transactions per   day
2015	5.7 million	Rs.25,205 crores
2020	24.2 million	Rs.1.2 lac crores
2025	284 million	Rs.6.3 lac crores

 

Today the Government makes over 9 million DBT (Direct Benefits Tranfer) transactions daily of the value of Rs. 1,726 crores. The annual value of DBT in 2023-24 was Rs.6.9 lac crores. Approximately Rs. 2.2 lac crores have been saved due to avoidance of corruption and leakages through intermediaries. In future, DBT could be made "coupon linked money", in which the redemption of money could be made for specific purchases only - for e.g. school fees, food grains not just at PDS Ration shops but any shop! As of June 30, 2023, there were around 545,000 Fair Price Shops (FPSs) in India. These shops are the backbone of the country's Public Distribution System (PDS) and are responsible for distributing subsidized food grains to millions of citizens.

Over 1.2 billion mobile connections are active in India today. As of October 2024, there were 941 million broadband subscribers of which 896 million were wireless.

Over 99% of Indian families have at least one member with a bank account in India.

The above are statistics which must be sobered down a bit by the following statistics, which show India has long way to go in terms of user education and digitalisation, i.e. digital literacy and digital usage.

• Account Ownership: As of 2021, about 77% of Indians above 15 years owned a bank account.

• Digital Payments: The total transaction value in the digital payments market is projected to reach $1,892 billion by 2025 (China will reach a value of $4,240 billion).

• Online Banking: Approximately 51% of Indians use online banking channels (China's figure is 80%) .

While Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) have helped in bringing more people into the banking system, true financial inclusion also involves regular usage of financial services, access to credit, insurance, and financial literacy.

Going forward, the following applications will deliver great efficiencies to users, thanks to India's DPI:

1. Account Aggregator (AA) network was introduced as a financial data-sharing system by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) when it issued the Master Direction viz Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) - Account Aggregator (Reserve Bank) Directions, dated September 02,2016.
   
   
2. DigiLocker is a key initiative under Digital India program. Aimed at providing paperless governance to the citizen. Citizens can log into DigiLocker account to securely access and manage their digital documents, e.g. Aadhaar, Driving License, PAN, EPIC, Ration Card, Ayushman Card etc. provided by various government departments.
   
   
3. National Digital Health Mission envisages a secure online platform for storing and exchanging health related data of citizens. The Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission aims to create a connected digital health ecosystem in India. It intends to enhance accessibility and equity of healthcare services by ensuring continuity of care with citizens being the owners of their health data. This mission will link the digital health solutions of hospitals across the country.
   
   
4. After introducing Aadhar linked EPIC, India can not only have online voting for elections, it can introduce online Referendum voting - making Indian democracy truly responsive. Furthermore, India can easily introduce Two-Round System (TRS) in place of First Past The Post (FPTP) system. In FPTP the winning party can have much below the 50% Vote share but much above the 50% Seats share! Not so in TRS, the winner will always be the one having over 50% Vote share. FPTP distorts democracy in a multi party country like India much more than it can in a two-party country like USA.
   
   
5. After introduction of Coupon linked DBT, Government can remove all subsidised prices which distort the markets. Examples are - PDS prices at Ration Shops will be changed to market prices, Fertiliser prices will be made market prices, Electricity will be made market prices - because targeted beneficiaries will be given Coupon linked DBT for specific purposes. Going forward we will discover true cost of Subsidies AND we will be able to introduce market efficiencies - as consumers will have freedom of choice - she can buy rice from any shop not just PDS shop etc. Going sill further, we can remove all subsidies or coupon linked DBT and introduce DBT for targeted Basic Income (modified UBI - Universal Basic Income meant for all the poor people - i.e. BPL people).

 

List of top ten payment wallets in India:

Bajaj Finserv App: offers a wide range of services including bill payments, UPI transfers, and financial products. 

Paytm: A comprehensive app for UPI payments, bill payments, ticket booking, and shopping.

Amazon Pay: Provides a seamless payment experience with Amazon-specific offers.

WhatsApp Pay: Facilitates UPI transactions directly from WhatsApp chats.

Mobikwik: Combines digital wallet features with UPI payments, offering bill payments, mobile recharges, and credit line options.

BHIM: A UPI app developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for simple and secure transactions.

Freecharge: Offers UPI payments, bill payments, and recharges with cashback options.

JioMoney: Provides UPI payments, bill payments, and recharges, integrated with Jio services