Populism in India is often characterized by leaders claiming to speak for the “common people” against a corrupt elite, frequently using social welfare policies as a vehicle for electoral appeal. In the Indian context, this has meant extending and publicizing state benefits – from subsidized food and power to direct cash transfers and loan waivers – to build broad support. Scholars note that recent Indian populism blends traditional welfare redistribution with majoritarian ideology: for example, the current ruling party combines “left-wing populism in favor of the poor” with “right-wing cultural majoritarianism,” using welfare programs as strategic instruments to gain legitimacy and voter trust. Welfare populism is not new to India – indeed, as one study observes, the “history of welfare populism is constant from leftist Indira Gandhi to rightist Modi,” rooted in the late 1960s era of redistributive politics. The modern phase of this phenomenon intensified after 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government adopted a “new welfarism,” focusing on tangible benefits like cash transfers, free gas cylinders, electricity, and water to broaden its popular base. In short, welfare populism in India refers to the use of generous public assistance and “freebie” promises as a deliberate electoral strategy.
Welfare Schemes as Electoral Tools
A range of government schemes have been explicitly employed as vote-attracting tools. These include subsidies and freebies (for food, fuel, electricity, water, and appliances), direct cash transfers, and debt-relief packages. For instance, central programs like Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (free LPG fuel connections to the poor), Saubhagya (electrification of rural homes), and Ayushman Bharat (national health insurance) have been extensively publicized by the BJP as evidence of pro-poor governance. State governments too have promised and delivered many such schemes. In Tamil Nadu (a state often called the “cradle of populist schemes”), ruling parties routinely offer free color televisions, subsidized rice, microwaves, and even free college education in election manifestos. West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress has long used programs like stipends for students, free bicycles for schoolgirls, and subsidized rations to mobilize voters (factors credited with its sweeping victories in both state and national elections). In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party built its appeal on “middle-class” welfare: it famously offered free water (up to 20,000 liters per household) and 200 units of free electricity to all residents, wins that resonated especially with urban voters despite initial opposition labels of “freebies”. Even mainstream opposition parties have joined the bandwagon – for example, in 2025 the BJP, winning the Delhi assembly, pledged to continue AAP’s free water and electricity schemes rather than scrap them.
These and many other examples illustrate a pattern: election campaigns increasingly feature promises of immediate material gains. In the April–June 2024 general election, national and state leaders across the spectrum offered more handouts, from direct pension hikes to subsidized loans and free utilities. In the months after the vote, numerous state budgets swelled welfare budgets – Maharashtra announced new cash transfers to women and free farm electricity (costing over 2% of state GDP), and Haryana waived rural water dues and cut cooking gas prices for the poor. As Reuters reports noted, “the handouts by state governments and promises by opposition parties trying to match the largesse” risk upsetting India’s fiscal stability. In sum, welfare schemes (free goods and payments) have become core tools for mobilizing support at both national and local levels.
Elections and Case Studies
Specific elections vividly illustrate welfare politics. In the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, Narendra Modi ran on a development agenda, but once in power his government expanded many welfare schemes under the leadership’s umbrella of “sab ka saath, sab ka vikas” (development with inclusion). By 2019, analysts observed that welfare politics had become entrenched in BJP strategy. Yamini Aiyar notes that in the 2019 election the BJP won “a decisive mandate” in part by blending appeals to the poor with its cultural agenda – deploying welfare programs as a major pillar of its populist playbook. (The Congress party also floated populist ideas: for example, its 2019 manifesto included farm loan waivers and a guaranteed income scheme for the poor – though it did not ultimately win.) Similarly, the 2024 national election saw welfare issue prominence: after losing its majority, the BJP-led coalition immediately promised more cash and freebies, even while Prime Minister Modi had previously denounced freebie politics as “very dangerous for the development of the country”. In short, each recent general election has revolved heavily around promises of subsidy and support – whether from the ruling party or its challengers.
State elections often feature even sharper examples of populist giveaways. In Tamil Nadu’s 2021 polls, both major Dravidian parties (AIADMK and DMK) announced large freebie packages despite the state’s deteriorated finances. Observers note that welfare promises – often inherited from the M.G. Ramachandran and J. Jayalalithaa eras – remain politically indispensable in the state. In West Bengal’s 2024 Lok Sabha vote and 2021 state vote, Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress again emphasized its extensive welfare record. One analysis of the 2024 West Bengal results argues that the TMC’s landslide win was due in large part to “welfare schemes provided by the TMC-led state government” and the party’s organized delivery of them. Likewise, Delhi’s 2015 and 2020 assembly elections were effectively referenda on AAP’s subsidies: the party swept both times on the strength of its free water, subsidized power, and free bus rides for women. In every region mentioned – from federal contests in 2014, 2019, 2024 to state polls in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Delhi – welfare promises have been central to parties’ electoral strategies.
Economic and Governance Implications
While welfare promises can be popular, they have tangible economic and governance costs. By definition, populist giveaways strain public finances. A recent analysis finds that indiscriminate freebies “negatively impact the state and the entire economy” by aggravating fiscal deficits. For example, Tamil Nadu’s finance department reported that its revenue deficit has ballooned (to over ₹65,000 crore in 2020) largely because of rising spending without a matching revenue base. Across states like Maharashtra and Haryana, budgets have been rejigged to accommodate cash handouts and subsidized utilities, raising deficit targets and debt burdens. Economists warn that such moves could eventually cut into infrastructure and human development spending. One forecasting group cautioned that “the prevalence of populist promises… could upset the fine fiscal balancing act” India had maintained, and described the fiscal consequences as potentially “devastating”.
Governance also suffers when policy is driven by short-term populism rather than long-term planning. Populist spending often targets immediate, tangible benefits that win votes now, at the expense of investments in education, health, or job creation that pay off slowly. As political analysts observe, a reliance on vote-winning freebies can entrench “vote-bank politics” and erode policy-based decision-making. For instance, an expert study of Indian states concludes that while populist schemes do provide “immediate socio-economic benefits” and inclusion for some groups, they “pose significant challenges to democratic governance,” including fiscal stress, clientelistic politics, and weakened accountability. These observers call for a careful balance: maintaining welfare support without undermining the integrity of democratic institutions or fiscal responsibility. Indeed, even Prime Minister Modi – despite presiding over many subsidy schemes – has publicly cautioned against a “culture of freebies” that could undercut development. In practice, too many populist commitments can leave governments unable to fund other priorities or meet rising expectations, thereby creating future governance problems.
Voter Behavior and Accountability
How do these welfare promises affect voters and democratic accountability? The relationship is complex. On one hand, large-scale subsidies and transfers do appear to influence public attitudes. Survey experiments show that simply informing voters about government welfare programs raises the incumbent’s approval ratings by double digits. Notably, beneficiaries of even modest schemes can swing their votes. Data from India’s 2019 elections indicate that households receiving the free LPG connections under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana were significantly more likely to vote for the ruling party, perceive it as pro-poor, and support its re-election. Strikingly, this impact was as large as that of much more expensive benefits like rural housing grants, suggesting that low-cost freebies can be as electorally potent as high-cost programs. In other words, the type of subsidy (cheap or expensive) may matter less than the fact of distribution itself: both a gas cylinder subsidy and a free house proved similarly effective at winning voter goodwill.
On the other hand, evidence also cautions that welfare does not mechanically translate into votes. As one study notes, the “common wisdom” that freebies automatically win elections has “limited hard evidence” in India. Voters often evaluate the outcomes more than the process: research finds that Indians place more value on the fact of getting a benefit than on bureaucratic efficiency in how it is delivered. Traditional identity and performance considerations still endure: even well-targeted transfers may leave caste and regional loyalties intact at the local level.
In practice, however, populist welfare does shape perceptions of parties. The Journal of Democracy study quotes analysts who regard strategic welfare outreach as providing the BJP moral legitimacy and trust among voters. Other analysts argue that broad-based populist schemes can dilute narrow identity appeals: for example, beneficiaries of universal transfers reported being “less likely to vote for narrow, caste-based parties” and more likely to endorse the incumbent’s re-election. At the same time, these handouts can cultivate dependency: once voters experience subsidies, they may expect their continuation, making it politically difficult for successors to roll them back. In short, populist welfare appeals do incentivize voter support for incumbents in the short term, but they also shift political competition toward a transactional model, where parties compete by one-upmanship on benefits rather than by debate over long-term policies. This can weaken democratic accountability if it reduces the incentive of governments to pursue reforms or prudent budgeting.
Conclusion: The Future of Populism and Welfare Politics
Looking ahead, welfare-oriented populism seems likely to remain a potent force in Indian politics. Deep inequalities, rural distress, and an electorate that demands immediate relief make big promises irresistible to politicians of all stripes. At the same time, there are warnings that without restraint such policies risk economic instability and governance breakdown. Some experts call for distinguishing constructive social welfare (targeted subsidies for education, health, infrastructure) from short-term “freebies” that merely buy votes. The debate is ongoing: can India maintain fiscal health and grow jobs while satisfying mass demands for subsidies? Recent trends suggest the contest will continue. Parties are now more willing than ever to promise freebies if it wins elections, as seen even in states traditionally averse to such tactics.
What could change this dynamic? One factor is economic growth and employment. If faster growth produces enough jobs and broader prosperity, voters may grow less dependent on doles and more focused on development outcomes – as one analysis argues, the BJP’s initial “aspirational” appeal to jobs in 2014 was a departure from mere welfare rhetoric. But until such structural benefits are widely felt, welfare schemes will remain a powerful mobilizing tool. Another factor is digital governance: India’s “JAM” revolution (Jan Dhan bank accounts, Aadhaar ID, mobile connectivity) has enabled the state to deliver benefits more transparently and directly. This reduces corruption and middlemen, but it also makes universal transfers easier and more salient, potentially reinforcing the populist model.
In conclusion, India’s populist turn in recent decades has vividly demonstrated how welfare politics can drive electoral success. As scholars warn, however, this success comes with trade-offs. The country faces the challenge of “a fine balance” – ensuring that welfare initiatives indeed produce sustainable human development rather than undermining fiscal and institutional health. The story of India’s democracy will be partly defined by whether its leaders can manage this balance. So far, populist welfare politics shows few signs of abating; indeed, as Prime Minister Modi’s own alliance braces for state elections, the inclination toward more handouts appears to be intensifying. Observers will be watching closely whether this trend satisfies public hunger for support or triggers a backlash over slowed growth and reduced accountability in the years to come.
. . .
Sources:
Peer-reviewed and credible policy analyses, including political science and economics studies, major news reports, and government statements, were used to document the rise of welfare populism and its consequences in Indian elections. Each source is cited with specific relevant excerpts.