Tesla CEO Elon Musk and former Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar recently engaged in a heated debate over the security and reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Undoubtedly, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also jumped in, suggesting that EVMs in India are a "black box" that cannot be scrutinized.

Responding to a post by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Musk raised concerns about EVMs, suggesting they should be eliminated due to the potential risk of being hacked by humans or Al, even if the risk is minimal.

"We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or Al, while small, is still too high," Musk wrote.

As the topic was too sensitive, Musk's post quickly went viral, attracting over 6.8 crore views and drawing attention from Indian political leaders.

In a sharp rebuttal, Chandrasekhar dismissed Musk's concerns as a "huge sweeping generalization." He argued that Indian EVMs are uniquely secure, custom-designed and isolated from any network connections such as Bluetooth, WiFi, or the Internet.

Interestingly, Chandrasekhar even offered to provide Musk with a tutorial on how Indian EVMs are built to be tamper-proof.

"Your view may apply to the US and other places where they use regular compute platforms and internet-connected voting machines," Chandrasekhar noted.
He further explained, "Indian EVMs are custom-designed, secure, and completely isolated- there is simply no way in. They have factory-programmed controllers that cannot be reprogrammed."

"Electronic voting machines can be architected and built right as India has done. We wud be happy to run a tutorial Elon," he added.

Musk was quick to respond, maintaining that "Anything can be hacked."

To which Chandrasekhar replied, "Technically you're right-anything is possible. For example, with quantum computing, I could decrypt any encryption, or with lab-level tech and enough resources, I could hack any digital hardware/system, including flight controls of a jet. But that's a different conversation from discussing the security and reliability of EVMs compared to paper voting. We can agree to disagree."