In Akola Photo Credit: ANI
In the Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly elections, there was a pattern that followed – having cash transfer schemes for women at the center of political campaigns. From August, the National Democratic Alliance government in Maharashtra launched the ‘Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana’, under which women who meet the criteria will receive ₹1,500 per month in an Aadhaar-linked bank account. The opposition-ruled state of Jharkhand also had the ‘Jharkhand Mukhyamantri Maiya Samman Yojana’, in August, which provided financial assistance of ₹1,000 to eligible women.
Direct cash transfer schemes are not new to politics. According to Axis Bank, 14 States already have such schemes, covering almost a fifth of India’s adult female population. So why are cash transfer schemes for women growing in popularity across the country? Is this policy learned or is the state government afraid of losing it? Are we reaching a point where there are no alternative visions of welfare? There may be four plausible reasons for political parties in countries following this particular welfare genre.
More women in the public-political space
First, the steady rise in the presence of women in India’s public-political space is a force to be reckoned with that is pushing the party to meet their needs. From only 47% female turnout in 1962, the figure is now 66% in 2024. It is the same trend in the State Assembly elections. Along with the rise in voter turnout, the fact that women are increasingly voting independently reinforces the ‘women’s constituency’ narrative. The hurried manner in which Parliament passed the women’s reservation bill and the recent focus on ‘Nari Shakti’ is testimony to the mounting pressure on political parties to acknowledge the change. In the context of a close election, a vote swing can mean winning or losing a seat. The cost of ignoring women voters means paying a very high price.
Skip the middlemen
Second, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) is the flavor of the day. Direct cash transfers to bank accounts have advantages from the country’s point of view. This helps countries bypass existing intermediary structures that are barriers to making these benefits available. Systemic corruption of this kind is ubiquitous in the Indian setting, and the country lacks the ability to keep it at bay. With the advent of DBT, the State can now transfer money directly to beneficiary accounts and reduce leakages through the system. With parties becoming more individual-centric, DBT helps create direct links between individual leaders and citizens. Yamini Aiyar and Neelanjan Sircar call this “techno-patrimonial”, where technology helps promote personal loyalty to the leader.
The third reason is an extension of the previous argument. Cash transfers are an easy way to establish the narrative that the government in power is serious about its commitment to the electorate. For example, improving the functioning of state-run schools or hospitals or building new public infrastructure cannot happen overnight. The project requires careful planning, investment, and a long gestation period before it can bear fruit.
Moreover, given the fact that India’s poor constitute a significant constituency and the fruits of economic growth are disproportionately distributed, populist schemes of this kind are considered by a large number of voters. Regular credit to the beneficiary’s account is also a constant reminder of the leader’s ‘benevolence’, further advancing the party’s position.
The core problem
Fourth, it also points to a larger problem with the welfare landscape in India. Flat welfare, with States across the country creating similar schemes, shows the lack of imagination about welfare in India. One can euphemistically call this “learning policy”, but the fact that even the State ruled by the opposition party does not offer an alternative to this DBT welfare strategy – honed to perfection by the Bharatiya Janata Party at the central level – is worrying.
Although a scheme like this is seen as a quick and effective solution to the poverty crisis, DBT has its own problems. Scholars point out that the Indian state, by prioritizing ‘efficiency’ in the use of technology, is shielding itself from working hard to improve the state’s capacity. By putting cash in the hands of the poor, the state encourages its citizens to use private alternatives for basic needs. While the rich in India have opted out of this system and are relying on the private sector for their needs, the poor are also encouraged by the state to maintain themselves. But can India’s poor escape the country? Cash transfers, at best, act as a bandage, but the country still needs to treat a larger wound before it becomes infected – if it is not already one.
In the coming days, yojanas such as ‘Ladki Bahin’ and ‘Maiyan Samman’ will take center stage. So, are these the new rules of the game? Or will there be a break to this pattern? The answer will determine the future welfare landscape.
Abhijith Nair is a research scholar at King’s India Institute, King’s College, London. Shreya K. Sugathan is a research scholar in the Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad
Published – 05 December 2024 12:08 IST
