In a pointed rebuttal to recent remarks made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk regarding the security of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), former Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has stepped forward to defend India’s EVM system, emphasizing that they have been designed and built in a highly secure manner. The exchange began when Musk raised concerns about the risk of EVMs being hacked and suggested eliminating them, a statement that prompted Chandrasekhar to counter with a detailed explanation of the robustness of India’s electronic voting infrastructure.
Taking to the social media platform X, Chandrasekhar conveyed his message with a firm tone, asserting that Musk’s sweeping generalizations about the security inadequacies of digital hardware do not apply universally. Chandrasekhar wrote, “This is a huge sweeping generalization statement that implies no one can build secure digital hardware. Wrong. @elonmusk’s view may apply to the US and other places – where they use regular compute platforms to build Internet-connected Voting machines.”
Elaborating on the specifics of India’s EVMs, Chandrasekhar highlighted that they are engineered with a focus on security and isolation from any form of network connectivity. “Indian EVMs are custom designed, secure and isolated from any network or media – no Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or Internet. There is no way in. They use factory-programmed controllers that cannot be reprogrammed,” he said, making a clear distinction from the systems criticized by Musk.
In his post, Chandrasekhar extended an offer to provide a tutorial on secure EVM construction. “Electronic voting machines can be architected and built right as India has done. We would be happy to run a tutorial Elon,” he asserted, standing tall on the integrity and reliability of India’s EVMs. Chandrasekhar’s background as the Minister of State for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in Modi’s Cabinet 2.0 lends weight to his statements, given his direct involvement in overseeing the nation’s technological infrastructure.
The controversy arose when Musk, on social media, aired his viewpoint that electronic voting machines pose a risk of being compromised either by human intervention or artificial intelligence. “We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high,” Musk had stated, sparking a debate over the safety and future of electoral technology.
The integrity of EVMs has been a recurring issue, especially highlighted during India’s recently concluded Lok Sabha elections.
. Several opposition leaders alleged potential vulnerabilities and the possibility of EVMs being tampered with. Despite these assertions, the Chief Election Commissioner, Rajiv Kumar, stood by the reliability of EVMs. “Now, it (result) is in front of everyone. Let the EVM rest till the next elections… It is a trustable thing which keeps on doing its work,” Kumar remarked after the elections, dismissing the allegations and affirming public trust in the system.
The discussion sparked by Musk’s comments and Chandrasekhar’s robust defense shines a light on a central question that democracies across the globe face: how to balance technological advancement with electoral integrity. For India, which has extensively deployed EVMs since the late 1990s and transitioned fully from paper ballots in 2004, the record of EVMs has largely been positive, contributing to efficient and prompt vote counting. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has consistently advocated for the use of EVMs, citing benefits such as reducing counting errors, enabling faster results, and combating ballot-related malpractices.
Further elaborating on the technical merits, experts point out that Indian EVMs are stand-alone machines with robust physical and digital security protocols. These include tamper-detection mechanisms, non-networked operation preventing remote access, and secure coding practices preventing unauthorized modifications. In contrast to some Western models that have faced scrutiny for use in connected environments, Indian EVMs are celebrated for their simplicity and security features.
Yet, the debate lingers, fueled by the broader mistrust in digital systems prompted by cybersecurity incidents in other sectors. Musk’s concern, though perhaps more rooted in the context of different systems like those used in the US, resonates in a global discourse where the stakes of fair, transparent, and secure elections remain paramount.
In conclusion, Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s emphatic response to Elon Musk not only defends India’s electoral technology but also highlights the need for informed discussions about the future of voting systems worldwide. His call for a tutorial signifies a readiness to share knowledge and expertise, proposing a collaborative path forward in ensuring that all democratic processes are secure and trustworthy. His words stand as a reminder that while technological skepticism is essential, it must be balanced with facts and real-world success stories like that of India’s EVMs.
