Will West Bengal’s election special Budget breed parasites?

Schemes that directly benefit sections of the economically most vulnerable have become a necessity, as more and more states have adopted such mechanisms to deliver relief to people locked in a cost-of-living crisis.

West Bengal’s 2025-2026 election special Budget will pump in Rs 44,139.65 crore into the state’s rural economy, and Rs 13,381.68 crore for urban and municipal development, in addition to a 4 per cent hike in the Dearness Allowance (DA) for state government employees. The other allocations in the last Budget of the current Mamata Banerjee government like the Rs 500 crore for a masterplan for Ghatal, a stronghold of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Suvendu Adhikari are all aimed at the same target, convincing voters that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) is a better bet than its challenger.

A Budget firmly tilted to woo voters or reaffirm voter loyalty for the ruling party or its challenger by increasing subventions under Direct Bank Transfer (DBT) schemes in an election season has been the target of the Supreme Court’s rebuke. Two senior judges of the apex court, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih were disapproving, with Gavai calling “freebies” a mechanism for “creating a class of parasites.”

Political parties on both sides of the divide are in two minds on the purpose of Budget allocations that increase or create new routes for DBT. In West Bengal, Adhikari went on the offensive calling it “anti-people” and a measure of the bankruptcy of the TMC government. He explained: “The state government has betrayed two crore unemployed youths of the state. This Budget is anti-North Bengal, anti-Junglemahal, and anti-Sundarbans. It is anti-farmer, there is no new plan for health, and there is no mention of women in this Budget.” He went on to add that this Budget would be the last for Banerjee and the next one would be a pro-people Budget for development that his party would unveil, after it wins the 2026 Assembly elections.

It is par for the course for the Opposition and the ruling party to clash over the size of the Budget and its separate allocations, as well as the deficits and the debt government incurs in order to spend on schemes and projects that are deemed a priority. It has become normal for Budgets to target voters before an election is due, cynical as this tactic may appear to critics and the Opposition.

The first full Budget of the current Narendra Modi government presented on February 1, was attacked in almost identical ways by the Opposition. It was trashed as an election special designed to woo voters in the crucial prestige fight over the Delhi government with relief for the middle class and a slew of projects for Bihar, where elections are due at the end of the year.

The design for “creating a class of parasites” is not restricted to any one state or any one election. In Maharashtra, before the 2024 Assembly polls, the Budget of the Eknath Shinde-led Mahayuti government included special schemes targeting women, the youth, and farmers. In Jharkhand, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) government launched the Mukhyamantri Maiya Samman Yojana ahead of the state assembly election in 2024. In Delhi, the just-defeated Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had promised a similar direct cash transfer scheme for women, but failed to roll it out. The scheme may now be rolled out.

The West Bengal Budget is, therefore, not an exception; it only proves the new rules of the intensely competitive electoral politics that has been normalised in recent years. States ruled by the Opposition and states ruled by the BJP have all adopted the model of seeking votes by offering direct cash transfers. It is easy making promises but keeping them is a different matter. Adhikari accused the Banerjee government for its “excessive dependence on debt”, arguing that the Budget reflected reckless borrowing habits that would further burden West Bengal with debt instead of fostering self-reliance. Unlike in Maharashtra, West Bengal has not pared its hand-outs by slashing the number of beneficiaries.

Over the past week the dispute between the West Bengal government and Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman is over inflated numbers of beneficiaries submitted by the state to claim funds for programmes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme, for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, subsidies under the mid-day meal scheme and for rations.

The competition to offer more through direct cash transfers, free rations, housing schemes, and waivers on electricity and water charges between rival political parties to persuade voters is now routine. It points to a deeper malaise.

The West Bengal Budget is a classic example of how states compensate for hardships faced by vulnerable segments of the population. It can be argued that these segments represent the bulk of voters being women and youth, of which youth, in the case of West Bengal, constitute over 60% of registered voters.

This year’s focus on rural development and Banerjee’s claim that 50% of the Budget allocation will benefit women is practical politically. The two segments, women and rural voters, have been loyal to Banerjee since 2011, and this was confirmed in the results of the recent by-elections after the horrific rape and murder of a junior doctor in a public hospital. While urban West Bengal took to the streets to condemn the Banerjee government, the rural voters were not swayed by the event as well as revelations of rampant corruption in the state health services system.

There is no universal social security scheme centrally administered and paid for in India unlike a very large number of low middle income economies, quite apart from the rich economies of Europe and North America. Schemes that directly benefit sections of the economically most vulnerable, like women, unemployed (especially educated youth), farmers, the disabled, and senior citizens have become a necessity, as more and more states have adopted such mechanisms to deliver relief to people locked in a cost-of-living crisis.

The schemes are not anti-development. The benefits offset the impact of few job opportunities, unpredictable employment, the fall in wages in real terms, spiralling inflation underlying all of which is the slowdown in India’s growth momentum.

People do not turn into parasites because of subventions. Nor do labarthis, beneficiaries, turn into free loaders when the party in power changes.

Shikha Mukerjee Is a Kolkata-based senior journalist.