Interestingly, some TMC leaders and supporters in West Bengal were quick to credit Mamata Banerjee for the incumbents’ victory in Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly elections. Even though redistribution and aid politics are prevalent and are thought to win elections, in recent years, they have mostly targeted women, and women-centric schemes have proven to produce magical effectiveness.

The cradle baby scheme, the Thalikku thangam thittam, or “Gold for Marriage” scheme, the free table fan, mixer grinder, etc., were among the many freebies or heavily subsidised programmes that former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa implemented during her 15-year reign. These may have partly contributed to Jayalalithaa’s electoral success as well. The age of cash transfers then arrived. In this regard, Mamata Banerjee may have been a champion.

The Kanyashree scheme, launched in 2013, was her government’s first noteworthy effort in this area. The plan is straightforward: females should not marry until they are legally adults and should continue their studies. For this reason, the government makes financial aid available to female students. In fact, Kanyashree received the highest public service award from the United Nations in 2017.

The Lakshmir Bhandar initiative was then introduced in 2021 by the Mamata-led West Bengal government to give eligible women aged 25 to 60 ₹1,000 per month (₹1,200 for SC/ST categories). In fact, such direct financial assistance to women proved to be very effective during elections subsequently.

Other States follow

Naturally, incumbents in other parts of the nation swiftly adopted the concept. Months before the 2023 Assembly elections, the Madhya Pradesh government introduced the Ladli Behna Yojana for women. And the BJP returned to power with a sizable majority after surviving the State’s anti-incumbency wave.

Last year, the Karnataka Congress administration introduced the Gruha Lakshmi plan, which gives the women heads of BPL households ₹2,000 per month. In their manifestos prior to the Haryana elections, the BJP pledged ₹2,100 per month, while the Congress promised a monthly allowance of ₹2,000 to every woman between the ages of 18 and 60.

One of the BJP’s main pledges prior to the Odisha Assembly elections was ₹10,000 per year in the Subhadra Yojana. The M.K. Stalin government launched the Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (Kalaignar Women’s Rights Grant Scheme) in 2023 to give women ₹1,000 per month in financial assistance.

In this election year, the Maharashtra government introduced the Mukhyamantri-Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, which offers ₹1,500 monthly financial assistance to women aged 21 to 65, and the Jharkhand government introduced the Mukhyamantri Maiya Samman Yojana, a ₹1,000 monthly financial assistance programme for women aged 21 to 50. And these schemes are now widely regarded as a major factor in the incumbents’ electoral triumph in those States.

Well, does society benefit from such direct cash transfers, which many view as a miniature version of Universal Basic Income (UBI)?

Tangible benefits

Apparently so. According to a newspaper article I read, an organisation in West Bengal conducted a study of 1,500 women earlier this year, and 61.1 per cent of the surveyed women said Lakshmir Bhandar had improved their position in the household and given them financial security through the monthly payout.

The majority of women said that the small but consistent monthly income had reduced insecurity and, in some situations, boosted their confidence and sense of self-worth. Many analysts believe that Lakshmir Bhandar has accorded the promise of dreams to women from modest backgrounds. Similar features may be seen elsewhere.

Though critics frequently call these policies populist, their social and economic advantages, as well as their tangible political dividends, can’t be denied.

In fact, it’s often accepted that welfare programmes aimed at empowering women are becoming a key component in winning elections. Again, in the past, political analysts frequently critiqued women’s lower voting turnout than men’s. But targeted welfare measures aimed at empowering women are now reshaping this narrative too; women voters are no longer a passive demographic group.

Will the domain continue to expand in the foreseeable future as more States may adopt cash transfer programmes targeted at women? Without a well-defined termination plan, however, it might be challenging to reverse such a plan, at least politically. And as voters may start misreading them for “right” rather than “privilege,” it could reduce the electoral advantages of such schemes as well.

Will the success stories of such programmes reach a saturation point in the near future, in terms of social, economic, and political aspects? However, such schemes may be spreading their wings for the time being.

The writer is Professor of Statistics, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata