Paper
Christopher S. Chivvis, Rohan Mukherjee, Milan Vaishnav
{
"authors": [
"Milan Vaishnav"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Crooks Win Votes
In India, candidates with a criminal record have a higher rate than clean candidates. Parties nominate criminals at least partially because they win.
Published on May 18, 2017
Source: Atlantic
In India, parties across the political spectrum nominate candidates who have criminal cases pending against them. The country’s two truly national parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress, both select a fair number of parliamentary candidates—14 and 11 percent, respectively—who face serious charges, such as assault or murder. In one sense, the answer to why these parties nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds is painfully obvious: because they win. Across the past three general elections, “clean” candidates had a win rate of 6 percent. The win rate for candidates facing a charge of any type, by contrast, was just above 17 percent, and those facing serious charges had an 18 percent chance of winning. While there is some variation in the prevalence of candidates with criminal cases across parties, this is not an issue facing any one political party or type of party: It is clear that criminality in politics is widespread.
This short book excerpt was originally published in the Atlantic.
About the Author
Milan Vaishnav
Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Milan Vaishnav is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program and the host of the Grand Tamasha podcast at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His primary research focus is the political economy of India, and he examines issues such as corruption and governance, state capacity, federalism, and electoral behavior. He also conducts research on the Indian diaspora.
- How Populist Middle Powers Are—and Are Not—Reshaping Global Politics
- Carnegie’s Summer Beach ReadsCommentary
- +8
Sophia Besch, Eric Ciaramella, Steve Feldstein, …
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- A Halting Turn: India’s Military TransformationCommentary
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
- Build, Not Buy: The Semiconductor Lesson that Indian AI Experts Must LearnArticle
As AI grows more sophisticated, as the supply chains that power it become more contested, and as access to frontier models becomes geopolitically charged, India must begin to ask a different set of questions. Not what applications it can build on someone else’s infrastructure but what the world needs.
Konark Bhandari
- India’s Stake in the Global Subsea Cable RaceArticle
The Indian Ocean Region hosts one of the densest concentrations of subsea cables in the world. Yet, despite accounting for a significant share of global internet traffic, India’s participation remains limited.
Charukeshi Bhatt
- AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance GapCommentary
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
