Taxpayer-funded visibility: Where public information ends and political promotion begins

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

Visit any public place—a railway station, petrol pump, government office, or simply open a newspaper—and the Prime Minister's image is almost impossible to miss. Government advertisements have become a ubiquitous feature of India's public landscape, appearing across television screens, radio broadcasts, newspapers, digital platforms, and outdoor hoardings. While governments have a legitimate responsibility to inform citizens about policies and welfare schemes, the scale and nature of such publicity campaigns have raised an important question: should taxpayer money be used primarily for public information or for political image-building?

The issue has once again come under scrutiny following a recent Right to Information (RTI) response from the Central Bureau of Communication (CBC), which revealed that the Union government spent approximately ₹2,586 crore on advertisements between 2020 and 2026. The expenditure covered a wide range of media platforms and communication channels intended to publicise government initiatives and programmes.

The disclosure has reignited a longstanding debate over the purpose, necessity, and accountability of government-funded advertising. Supporters argue that such spending is an essential part of governance, enabling the state to reach citizens with important information. Critics, however, contend that a substantial portion of these expenditures serves a political purpose by promoting the image of the ruling leadership rather than simply communicating public policy.

Those critical of the spending argue that public funds should be directed primarily toward welfare programmes, infrastructure development, healthcare, education, and employment generation. In their view, every rupee spent on publicity is a rupee unavailable for addressing pressing social and economic challenges. The concern is not merely about the size of the expenditure but about its priorities and outcomes.

A central criticism is that many government campaigns appear to place considerable emphasis on the image and messaging of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Critics argue that public advertisements should focus on informing citizens about their rights, entitlements, and access to government services. Instead, they contend that many campaigns resemble branding exercises that blur the line between governance and political promotion. This perception, whether accurate or not, has fuelled concerns about the creation of a personality-centric political culture funded by public resources.

The debate also raises questions about opportunity costs. The ₹2,586 crore spent on advertising could have been utilised in numerous areas where funding shortages continue to affect millions of Indians. Government schools require modernisation, rural healthcare facilities need expansion, public institutions demand strengthening, and social welfare programmes often struggle with inadequate resources. Critics therefore argue that large publicity budgets deserve careful scrutiny, particularly in a country where developmental needs remain extensive.

Another concern relates to media independence. Opposition leaders, activists, and policy analysts have argued that substantial government advertising budgets can create financial dependence among media organisations. While there is no automatic connection between advertising revenue and editorial positions, critics maintain that such dependence can influence media priorities and potentially discourage rigorous scrutiny of government policies. Questions have also been raised about transparency, as the RTI response disclosed aggregate expenditure figures without detailing the private agencies, media houses, or advertising firms that received the funds.

Furthermore, critics point out that the disclosed amount may represent only a partial picture. The CBC figures do not include advertising expenditures incurred directly by individual ministries, public sector undertakings, or state governments. Consequently, the actual amount spent on government publicity across the broader public sector could be significantly higher than the figure currently available in the public domain.

Supporters of the government's communication strategy strongly reject allegations of misuse. They argue that effective governance requires effective communication. India is a vast and diverse nation where millions of people, particularly in rural and remote regions, may not have easy access to information about welfare schemes and public services. Government advertisements, they contend, play a crucial role in ensuring that citizens are aware of healthcare programmes, financial inclusion initiatives, agricultural support measures, digital literacy campaigns, and other welfare benefits for which they may be eligible.

The government also maintains that public communication extends well beyond the promotion of welfare schemes. Advertisements are routinely used to disseminate public health advisories, disaster warnings, road safety messages, voter awareness campaigns, and information related to national events and commemorations. From this perspective, expenditure on communication is viewed as an investment in civic engagement and public awareness rather than merely a publicity exercise.

Supporters further note that government advertising is not unique to the current administration. Successive governments at both the Union and state levels, irrespective of political affiliation, have allocated significant resources to public communication campaigns. Advertising government policies and achievements has long been a feature of democratic governance, making it difficult to portray the practice itself as exceptional or unprecedented.

Yet the larger question remains unresolved. Where should the line be drawn between informing citizens and promoting political leadership? Democratic governments undoubtedly have a responsibility to communicate with the public, but they also have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer-funded communication serves a clear public purpose and does not create the perception of partisan promotion.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the ₹2,586 crore expenditure is about more than numbers. It touches on broader issues of transparency, accountability, media independence, and the responsible use of public resources. As governments increasingly rely on sophisticated communication strategies and digital outreach, maintaining a clear distinction between public information and political branding will remain essential for preserving public trust. Citizens have a right to know how their governments function and what benefits are available to them, but they also have a right to expect that public funds are spent in ways that advance the public interest rather than political image-making.

---

Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a collective of digital activists working to combat disinformation on social media