India needs a welfare state. But does it need a politics of permanent dependence?
That is the uncomfortable question India must ask as political parties increasingly compete to offer cash transfers, subsidies, free services and other benefits to voters. Welfare is a legitimate responsibility of a democratic government. But when welfare becomes the principal language of an election, something fundamental changes. The citizen risks becoming a beneficiary first and a citizen second.
A social-security scheme should provide a safety net to someone who has fallen on hard times. It should help a vulnerable family survive, educate its children, access healthcare or withstand an economic shock. But the ultimate purpose of welfare should be to help people move from vulnerability to security, and from security to self-reliance.
The danger begins when temporary support becomes permanent policy—and permanent policy becomes an electoral strategy.
India is approaching eight decades of independence with impressive economic and technological achievements, but also with deep disparities in income, employment, education and healthcare. We have built highways, airports, metros, bridges and expressways at an extraordinary pace. Yet the quality of education and healthcare remains highly unequal. For many families, good education and quality medical treatment are increasingly services they must purchase rather than public goods they can depend upon.
This contradiction deserves greater political attention.
Economic growth is essential, but GDP growth alone cannot define national progress. A country cannot claim comprehensive development merely because its infrastructure is expanding. Development must also mean better schools, accessible healthcare, productive employment, higher household incomes, food security and greater social mobility.
Instead, electoral politics is increasingly dominated by what can be delivered immediately.
The Nationalisation Of The “Freebie” Race
This is not a story about one political party or one state. It is a national phenomenon.
Tamil Nadu has a long history of competitive welfare politics under both the DMK and AIADMK. Delhi's AAP government has made free or subsidised electricity, water and public services an important part of its political appeal. Telangana's previous BRS government built a substantial welfare architecture, while the Congress government that followed introduced its own guarantees. Karnataka's Congress government went to voters with a package of major guarantees. Odisha's long-serving BJD government developed an extensive network of welfare schemes, while the BJP has subsequently pursued its own welfare commitments.
In Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and several other states, political competition has similarly produced promises involving cash assistance, subsidies, free services and targeted benefits.
At the Centre, too, governments of different political formations have expanded social-security programmes, including food support, rural employment, housing, cooking-fuel assistance, health insurance and direct benefit transfers.
The political logic is obvious.
A new road may take years to build and even longer to transform an economy. A new hospital may improve lives for decades, but its political benefit is difficult to quantify. A monthly transfer, subsidy or free service, however, arrives directly at the household.
The voter sees it.
The political party gets credit for it.
And the electoral cycle continues.
This creates a dangerous incentive: if one party promises a benefit, another party promises a larger one.
Welfare then becomes an auction.
From Citizen To Beneficiary
The deeper concern is not that governments spend money on the poor. They should.
The concern is what happens when citizens begin to evaluate democracy primarily through the benefits they personally receive.
The political question changes from “Which government can create jobs and improve public services?” to “Which government will give me more?”
That is not merely an economic transformation. It is a democratic one.
A citizen is supposed to hold a government accountable for institutions, employment, education, healthcare, law and order, infrastructure and economic opportunity. A beneficiary, by contrast, is more easily tied to the continuation of a particular scheme.
The distinction matters.
A strong welfare state should create security without creating political dependence. It should empower citizens to participate more freely in democracy—not make them feel that their economic survival depends on keeping a particular party in office.
West Bengal As A Case Study
West Bengal illustrates this tension particularly well, but it would be unfair to portray it as uniquely responsible for India's dole politics.
Under the Trinamool Congress government, schemes such as Lakshmir Bhandar, Rupashree and Samabyathi became prominent features of the state's welfare landscape. Supporters argue that these programmes provide meaningful assistance to women and vulnerable families. Critics argue that welfare announcements can sometimes receive greater political attention than the harder and slower work of generating productive employment and strengthening public institutions.
The political response after the 2026 Assembly election is equally instructive.
The BJP, having come to power after making its own set of attractive electoral promises, now faces the expectations created by those commitments. The lesson is broader than West Bengal: a party that campaigns against excessive welfare promises can itself become part of the welfare competition once it seeks electoral legitimacy.
This is precisely why the debate should not be reduced to TMC versus BJP.
The real issue is the structure of Indian electoral politics.
If welfare promises win votes, political parties across the ideological spectrum will have an incentive to make them. The result can be a cycle in which each election raises the fiscal and political price of the next one.
Who Pays For “Free”?
There is no such thing as a permanently free benefit.
Someone pays—through taxation, public borrowing or reduced expenditure elsewhere.
This does not mean that every welfare scheme is a “freebie”. Food security for the vulnerable, pensions for the elderly, healthcare support, rural employment programmes and targeted assistance can be entirely justified. Indeed, such interventions can strengthen the economy by protecting human capital.
But governments must ask harder questions.
Is the scheme reaching the genuinely vulnerable? Is it fiscally sustainable? Does it improve health or education? Does it create employment? Does it increase women's economic participation? Does it help families escape poverty—or merely manage poverty indefinitely?
The difference between social security and electoral populism lies largely in these questions.
The Real Competition India Needs
Political parties should compete not over who can distribute more, but over who can create more opportunity.
Instead of asking voters to choose between competing monthly allowances, parties should compete over who can build better schools, hospitals and universities; who can create productive jobs; who can raise agricultural incomes; who can support small businesses; who can make cities more liveable; and who can make India's young people employable.
Cash assistance can keep a family afloat.
A job can change its future.
A subsidy can reduce today's burden.
A good public school can change the next generation.
A free medical treatment can prevent a family from falling into poverty.
A strong healthcare system can prevent that vulnerability in the first place.
That is the distinction India must not lose.
Welfare Must Be A Bridge, Not A Destination
India cannot—and should not—abandon welfare. A humane democracy must protect those who cannot protect themselves.
But welfare must remain a bridge to opportunity, not a destination of dependency.
The success of a welfare programme should therefore not be measured only by the number of beneficiaries it creates. Its deeper success should be measured by how many people eventually become economically secure enough to no longer need it.
The question facing India is not whether governments should help the poor. They must.
The question is whether governments will have the courage to tell voters that the ultimate objective is not to keep them dependent on government assistance, but to make them independent of it.
India's political parties should compete to distribute dignity, not dependency.
And India's voters should demand more than what a government can give them before the next election. They should ask what that government is building for the twenty years after it.
A government that gives a citizen a fish may win an election. A government that creates the conditions for that citizen to earn a living may change a life. The latter is the politics India needs.
---
*Contact: harasankaradhikari2010@gmail.com
Comments