By Poonam I Kaushish
The stage is primed with an enticing electoral spectacle put forth by various parties as they serenade voters with ‘Vote For Me,’ complemented by an abundance of tempting freebies ahead of Capital Delhi’s electrifying election frenzy. The underlying belief is that populist offerings will yield greater electoral gains than well-founded policies and sustainable initiatives. In their unrelenting chase for the coveted Delli Raj Gaddi, rational economic principles have been sacrificed on the altar of political maneuvering. After all, isn’t Government money perceived as belonging to no one?
Amidst the electoral din characterized by monetary influence and cash incentives, observe how BJP, AAP, and Congress are vying to attract women voters—who make up 46%—with a shower of populist schemes that convert political gestures into tangible vote shares, measuring social and economic advancement through the lens of vote-bank politics. This trend has intensified post BJP-led Mahayuti’s sweeping triumph in Madhya Pradesh, partly due to cash assistance through the Ladki Bahin Yojana and Ladli Behna Yojana.
BJP’s ‘Sankalp Patra’ positions itself to win over women voters by offering Rs 2,500 monthly assistance, surpassing AAP’s Rs 2,100 and additional support of Rs 21,000 along with six nutrition kits for pregnant women, Rs 500 LPG cylinders for the underprivileged, and an enhanced pension for senior citizens. This sets a foundation for a “developed Delhi” that competes with AAP’s welfare-centric governance model.
In response, AAP emphasizes social justice and economic equity, promising free treatment for citizens over 60 in government and private hospitals, funding for Resident Welfare Associations to hire private security, guarantees for auto drivers—including Rs 1 lakh for daughters’ marriages and a life insurance of Rs 10 lakh—and Rs 18,000 monthly stipends for priests and granthis at mandirs and gurdwaras, alongside scholarships for Dalit students.
Congress also champions the cause of societal equity by pledging 300 free units of electricity, subsidized Rs 500 LPG cylinders, complimentary ration kits—including rice, sugar, cooking oil, grains, and tea leaves—to mitigate price hikes, health insurance coverage of Rs 25 lakh for all residents, and Rs 8,500 monthly support for educated unemployed youths.
However, one must question where these political leaders source the funds for such initiatives. Clearly, it is taxpayer money at play. Should our hard-earned taxes be deployed to enhance political parties’ electoral fortunes? Shouldn’t politicians and their parties bear this expense through their resources? Are loan waivers justifiable? Is there a distinction between freebies and subsidies? Which handouts are beneficial or detrimental? Who makes these decisions?
“People’s power,” states Congress President Kharge. Really? It’s a stretch, to say the least. Another party member counters, “Why point fingers at us? In February 2018, the Prime Minister allocated Rs 25,000 to working women, covering 50% of a two-wheeler’s cost, alongside the PM Kisan Yojna which grants Rs 6,000 a year to every farmer.” A BJP representative remarks, “When the affluent exploit the banking system, leading to massive NPAs and write-offs due to a rent-seeking bureaucratic culture, is it fair to argue the impoverished are overly indulged with these freebies? It’s an ‘endowment effect.’”
Indeed, parties feel compelled to project a populist image, as disregarding the symbolic gestures and political treats meant to lure voters would be foolish. But should our self-absorbed leaders assume the roles of contemporary feudal lords? Must those in dire need wait for hours—starving and in tattered clothes—for their mai-baaps to distribute funds that aren’t theirs? The general populace has become mere statistics to sustain the political machinery.
Regrettably, the competition to promise more freebies has gained ground among voters, yet economists warn that reliance on such incentives could stall sustained economic advancement, as these ‘revadi’ payments strain state finances, potentially stunting essential infrastructure development. This concern persists despite the Reserve Bank claiming economic indicators are stable. The Supreme Court has also expressed worry regarding the urgent need for enhanced accountability, cautioning against unchecked welfare schemes that may undermine a state’s financial stability.
Ironically, political parties recognize the deteriorating economic climate, marked by soaring prices and inflation, yet the pressures related to voting have birthed another irony: scarce fiscal resources are being rerouted away from investments that would yield long-term benefits for the impoverished, simply to spike short-term consumption, doing little to address the underlying issues of inequality.
Consider how the Congress-led Himachal Government is grappling to meet its election commitments amid a heavy debt load, with State Ministers not receiving salaries for two months. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, while the Ladli Behna scheme appeared to be a game-changer for the BJP, the government now faces a crushing financial burden, having borrowed Rs 10,000 crore in August, escalating the state’s total debt to Rs 4,18,056 crore.
The situation is parallel in Punjab, where the AAP government has outstanding liabilities totaling Rs 3,51,130 crore, unable to fulfill its electoral promises and facing a burgeoning liability of Rs 17,110 crore for providing free electricity to farmers and households. The Congress government in Karnataka is also in need of Rs 60,000 crore to meet five election pledges, having raised sales tax on diesel and planning to borrow Rs 1,05,246 crore. Telangana Congress faces similar challenges, requiring Rs 31,000 crore for farmer loan waivers.
As such, with cash handouts woven into party manifestoes, these parties expose their hypocrisy—while all deploy such schemes, they each accuse one another of doling out ‘revadi,’ underscoring a systemic issue rooted in India’s fractured political economy rather than simplistic political motivations. Growth has indeed generated wealth and mobility for some segments of society. But a significant portion of the population continues to live in conditions of extreme poverty and uncertainty. Unless this demographic starts benefiting from economic growth, expectations for fiscal assistance in return for political allegiance will persist.
Regrettably, successive governments, in their quest for votes, have undertaken financial obligations in sectors they should have avoided if adhering to the Constitutional allocation of spending areas between the Centre and the States. This has resulted in resource squeezes affecting strategic sectors such as defense. The BJP has excelled in this model by utilizing centrally-funded initiatives to cultivate political momentum, exacerbating the insecurity of opposing parties, who further fuel these dynamics by demanding political safeguards through populism.
Who will take the initiative to address this? It’s essential to differentiate between genuine welfare programs and mere handouts. Welfarism evaluates the needs of various societal sections within a broader developmental framework. In contrast, freebies cater to electoral considerations rather than addressing societal needs. Essentially, they signify concessions devoid of economic rationale and absent from larger economic planning as delineated by the government.
It’s crucial to recognize that the reality of persistent poverty lingers even 78 years post-Independence. Handouts may provide temporary relief but compromise the future. They do not rectify the neglect of education, healthcare, misguided priorities regarding industrialization, the underinvestment in rural development, growing corruption, an overinflated bureaucracy, or the challenges of overpopulation and lack of productivity. A government cannot afford to squander funds on populist caprices.
It is imperative for our leaders to refocus on the larger picture, actively working to mitigate poverty through rapid, equitable growth, supported by efficient delivery systems. The ultimate goal must be to reduce the number of individuals reliant on handouts. The pathway forward involves embracing fiscal conservatism, both in principle and practice, to avert the race to the bottom. Leaders must delineate a ‘lakshman rekha.’ — INFA
