.jpeg)
The functioning of Indian democracy determines its ability to achieve the desired goal of a welfare state. India is a people’s democracy, where the government is formed and run by the people, making public participation a key pillar of its democratic success. After colonial rule, independent India's primary focus was to ensure equal rights and justice for all its citizens. Various programs and policies have been implemented to eradicate poverty, improve healthcare and education, guarantee employment, and protect workers' rights. However, even after 75 years of independence, issues of equity and justice remain prominent.
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)—which guarantees 100 days of employment to citizens at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP)—is a significant policy intervention. Implemented for nearly two decades, it has served as both a relief measure and, in some cases, a political tool to secure votes. The selection of beneficiaries under this scheme has often been influenced by political affiliations. In many instances, supporters of the ruling political party have been given priority. One beneficiary even stated, "We might get job cards if we vote for the ruling party."
Further, is it not discriminatory that elderly individuals above 60 years of age—who are typically considered retired—are included as beneficiaries under MGNREGA? Shouldn’t employment under this scheme be targeted toward the younger workforce, who are more capable of engaging in labor-intensive work?
A similar political bias is evident in the selection of Below Poverty Line (BPL) beneficiaries. There have been cases where individuals owning pakka (concrete) houses have managed to obtain BPL cards. Additionally, acquiring a job card under MGNREGA has become a matter of political allegiance rather than need. Many beneficiaries consider it a “lucky opportunity” to receive wages without actual work due to their loyalty to a particular political party. In return, they actively participate in political activities, such as rallies and demonstrations, organized by the ruling party. One such beneficiary even remarked that they earn far less than their local political leaders.
The scheme’s long-term sustainability is also questionable. If MGNREGA were truly designed as patient capital (a long-term investment in rural development), its impact should be visible in sustainable infrastructure and economic growth. However, an assessment conducted in Borgodar Goda Gram Panchayat, under Nandakumar Block of East Medinipur, West Bengal, based on structured interviews and case studies of 200 beneficiaries, revealed that MGNREGA is often used for political gains—to secure votes. Only minimal rural infrastructure has been created for economic development, which is insufficient to protect people from natural disasters like floods and droughts, despite the area being flood-prone.
Moreover, younger beneficiaries with at least a secondary level of education perceive MGNREGA as a stepping stone toward future government employment rather than a temporary relief measure. This changing mindset fosters dependence rather than self-reliance, for which political parties and governments must be held accountable.
Isn’t this a misuse of human resources for political gain? Is this not a dangerous consequence of democracy? Is democracy truly democratic when it is manipulated for electoral benefits? How long will innocent, generationally poor citizens remain victims of such political strategies?
Self-reliance must replace dependency. The focus should be on creating real employment opportunities and fostering an environment where work is the key to a better livelihood and a stronger nation.
Comments