Revadi vs Rights

Around this time last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a stinging attack on the opposition parties in India, accusing them of perpetuating revadi, a culture of distributing freebies to secure votes. Both the Supreme Court and the Election Commission waded into the conversation, aligning largely with the Prime Minister’s stance.

Thirteen months is a long time in Indian politics. In the run-up to the Madhya Pradesh state assembly election, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) released its manifesto (Sankalp Patra), making a series of promises that mirrored the practices Prime Minister Modi had derided earlier. These promises included an increase in the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for wheat and paddy, houses for 13 lakh families, enhanced assistance through the Ladli Lakshmi Yojna to Rs 2 lakh, and an extension of the benefits of the Ladli Behana Yojna to unmarried women with a monthly allowance rising to Rs 3,000 from Rs 1,000. Additionally, the BJP promised 100 units of free electricity, gas cylinders to women at Rs 450, and an unemployment stipend of Rs 10,000. The Prime Minister himself recently declared, during an election rally, the continuation of providing free rations to 80 crore people
for an additional five years under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana (PMGKAY).

The BJP’s manifesto for the Madhya Pradesh state assembly election reflects the state of human development after a decade of BJP rule at the Centre.

It is now evident that the BJP’s approach of using PM Modi to criticise opponents for offering freebies while simultaneously presenting their own basket of freebies has run its course. This is by no means a domain exclusive to the BJP. Political parties across the spectrum have embraced this electoral strategy, but it is only PM Modi who seems to have adopted this tactic to attack his opposition. But clearly, the term ‘revadi culture’ seems more a cynical political tool than an alternative vision of pro-poor development, aimed at delegitimising the electoral tactics of opposition parties.

The debate on revadi culture raises pertinent questions about the nature of the social contract between citizens and governments in India: (1) Do voters not expect governments to deliver longer-term economic growth and the associated opportunities? (2) Is the primary role of a government now seen as providing immediate relief and access to a limited set of products for free? (3) What about India’s earlier rights-based approach to development?

Addressing the last question first, post-2014, the BJP government dismantled constitutionally guaranteed rights, weakened MNREGA by choking the flow of funds, and weakened the Right to Information Act (RTI) by introducing procedural hurdles and harassing activists. While MNREGA remains intact, the government’s ideological disdain for an empowered citizenry resulted in a series of pet schemes that carried personalised branding to promote the prime minister himself. This has fetched the BJP repeated electoral success too.

At the same time, with subdued economic growth and limited opportunities for individuals, voters come to rely on the government for immediate benefits—through cash, a house, a gas cylinder, and the like. Over time, this allows governments to get off the hook from expectations such as creating jobs that can sustain the livelihoods of families, improving the quality of educational and health facilities, bringing about structural reforms that expand economic opportunities for farmers, etc.

While some level of freebies is a political reality, it is only one part of a larger welfare agenda that India desperately needs. Alongside, it is important to reflect on the evolving nature of the social contract between citizens and an elected government in India today. A welfare agenda from a government that allows citizens to hold itself to account is one that combines an effective social safety net for the vulnerable sections of the population with policies that enable them to realise their potential, overcoming constraints posed by their economic and social deprivations. It is not just about free food grains or cash; it relies on enhancing access to quality healthcare and education, equitable access to economic opportunities, and fostering conditions for an active citizenry. None of these can be built overnight.

The election manifestos of political parties for the ongoing state elections capture one component of the necessary welfare agenda that we need as a majority of the population grapples with economic uncertainties. However, it also reflects the pragmatism of political parties in their assessment of what will work in an election campaign. But that’s only the beginning; a lot more remains to be done.

(The writer works on governance projects in South Asia and East Africa)