Money and Muscle in Indian Politics: The Numbers behind Power

Money and Muscle in Indian Politics: The Numbers behind Power

Indian democracy, the largest in the world, prides itself on giving every citizen a voice. Yet data reveals that money and criminality now dominate the corridors of power. Elections, once seen as people’s movements, are increasingly becoming contests between the wealthy and the well-connected.

According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) analysis of the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024), 43% of Members of Parliament declared criminal cases against them. Nearly 29% faced serious charges, including murder, kidnapping, and extortion. The figure has steadily risen—from 24% in 2004 to 43% in 2019—indicating that criminalization has deepened, not diminished.

The share of MPs with criminal cases has nearly doubled over the past two decades.

Wealth, too, plays a decisive role. ADR data shows that 88% of MPs are crorepatis, with average assets exceeding ₹20.9 crore. The richest MP, Nakul Nath of the Congress, declared assets worth over ₹660 crore in 2019. This staggering gap between political elites and ordinary citizens—whose average annual household income is under ₹1.5 lakh—raises serious questions about representativeness.

Average declared assets of Indian MPs have steadily increased across election years.

Money not only influences who contests elections but also how campaigns are fought. The Centre for Media Studies (CMS) estimated that the 2019 general election cost ₹60,000 crore, making it the most expensive election in world history—surpassing even the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Most of this money went toward media advertisements, rallies, and voter outreach. Despite legal expenditure limits of ₹95 lakh per candidate for the Lok Sabha, real spending often exceeds it many times over.

Election expenditure in India has grown exponentially between 2004 and 2019.

The introduction of electoral bonds in 2017 further complicated campaign financing. Between 2018 and 2023, bonds worth ₹12,000 crore were sold, with nearly 75% of donations going to the ruling party. Though the system was meant to make funding transparent, anonymity clauses have instead hidden the money trail. In 2024, the Supreme Court of India struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme, calling it unconstitutional for eroding voter transparency.

Political scientists argue that such trends are undermining democracy itself. When money and crime become prerequisites for winning, merit and ethics lose value. Citizens, too, contribute to this cycle. Studies by the University of Chicago (2020) revealed that candidates with criminal cases were more likely to win than clean candidates, as voters often see them as “problem solvers” who can “get things done.” This perception exposes deeper mistrust in governance institutions.

While reforms exist, enforcement remains slow. The Election Commission now requires political parties to justify why candidates with criminal records were fielded, but most fail to comply. Fast-track courts for politicians are underfunded and overburdened, with thousands of pending cases. Party funding reforms, expert oversight, and citizen watchdogs are urgently needed.

There are some encouraging developments. Civil society groups such as Lok Satta and ADR continue to demand accountability and transparency. The Supreme Court’s 2024 verdict on electoral bonds has reignited public debate on political funding. Journalists, RTI activists, and young voters are increasingly questioning the nexus between wealth and power.

However, without strict campaign finance reform and active voter awareness, money and muscle will continue to dictate India’s democracy. Experts suggest a public funding model where all donations above ₹2,000 are disclosed, and all parties compete on equal financial footing. Until then, politics will remain an expensive business accessible to the rich and the reckless.

Democracy is not only about voting but also about who can afford to contest and whose voice gets heard. As long as candidates are chosen for their assets and influence rather than integrity and ideas, the true promise of Indian democracy remains incomplete.