top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Fee Signal

The government’s decision to create a legal framework for levying charges on UPI transactions has understandably triggered concern, even though it insists that ordinary users and small merchants will continue to enjoy free payments. The proposed amendment does not impose a fee on UPI today. But it removes the statutory barrier to one being imposed in the future, making the government’s reassurance less than the final word. The government argues that this is a measure for UPI’s long-term...

Fee Signal

The government’s decision to create a legal framework for levying charges on UPI transactions has understandably triggered concern, even though it insists that ordinary users and small merchants will continue to enjoy free payments. The proposed amendment does not impose a fee on UPI today. But it removes the statutory barrier to one being imposed in the future, making the government’s reassurance less than the final word. The government argues that this is a measure for UPI’s long-term sustainability. The world’s largest real-time payments system, which processed 2,366 crore transactions worth Rs. 29.9 lakh crore in July alone, cannot indefinitely depend on subsidies as transaction volumes, cybersecurity requirements and infrastructure costs rise. A nominal Merchant Discount Rate on larger merchant transactions, it says, would help create a more sustainable ecosystem without burdening ordinary users. That argument has merit. But so does the concern that a payment system which became a national habit precisely because it was cheap and frictionless should not slowly acquire a price tag. Once the legal machinery for charging exists, there is no guarantee that the boundary between large merchants and small ones, or between merchants and consumers, will remain permanently fixed. The Finance Minister has clarified that any Merchant Discount Rate will apply only to a limited set of merchant transactions above a threshold and will be nominal, well below card-payment rates. The details will eventually be decided by the UPI and Services Steering Committee headed by the National Payments Corporation of India. In other words, there is no charge on the table for the ordinary UPI user today. But there is now a legal mechanism for charges to be introduced tomorrow. That is precisely why any alarm, though exaggerated, cannot simply be dismissed. The government, through its clarification, has reassured that UPI’s free-to-consumer model remains intact. The important issue is whether its financing model can evolve without undermining the habits that made it revolutionary. UPI succeeded partly because it made digital payments cheaper and simpler than alternatives. There is also a larger principle at stake. UPI is not merely another commercial payments platform. It is the product of public investment, regulatory architecture and private innovation. The state should therefore be wary of treating its sustainability as an ordinary market problem. The sensible answer lies between free-for-all subsidies and indiscriminate fees: transparent thresholds, genuinely low MDRs, strong protection for small merchants and an absolute firewall around ordinary consumers. The government should publish the economic case for any future charge, including its effect on merchants and consumers. UPI was built on trust as much as technology. The government is right to protect its remarkable achievement. It should remember that keeping UPI free is not merely a political promise. It is part of the product.

The BJP’s Gen Z Moment

The CJP movement in Maharashtra exposes the limits of an older political communication model and signals a changing relationship between young voters and power.

Every generation arrives convinced that it understands the country better than the one before it. Indian cinema has repeatedly captured this quiet conflict between inherited wisdom and youthful impatience. From Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar to 3 Idiots and Udaan, the message has remained remarkably consistent: older generations trust experience; younger ones demand freedom, recognition and a chance to define their own future.


Today’s Generation Z may encounter these films through streaming platforms rather than theatres, but the tension they portray has acquired a new political relevance. The ongoing CJP movement in Maharashtra is not merely another episode of street politics. Beneath its immediate demands lies a broader conversation about aspirations, frustration and a growing communication gap between those who govern and those who expect to be heard.


Communication Gap

Conversations with young voters in recent weeks reveal a recurring sentiment: many believe the political establishment has failed to understand their anxieties. For some, the BJP’s communication machinery no longer speaks the language of a generation shaped by smartphones, social media and instant feedback. They argue that the party’s spokespersons, digital campaigns and organisational ecosystem continue to reflect the political environment of 2014 and 2019, when a powerful central narrative and disciplined messaging delivered electoral dividends. Post-2024 India, they suggest, requires something different.


Whether this assessment is entirely fair is debatable. But politically, perceptions matter as much as facts. The NEET paper leak controversy became the emotional catalyst for many young protesters.


Even voters without political affiliations acknowledged that such episodes weaken confidence in institutions.


Yet conversations with older generations reveal a more complicated picture. Many middle-aged and senior citizens expressed sympathy with students’ concerns and criticised any excessive use of force during protests. At the same time, they were uncomfortable with abusive language, offensive slogans and personal attacks directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Their argument was not against protest itself, but against the erosion of civility in public debate.


This difference reflects a generational divide as much as a political one. Younger voters increasingly view confrontation as a natural extension of digital activism, where outrage spreads quickly and institutions are challenged openly. Older voters often place greater emphasis on restraint and traditional norms of political engagement.


For the BJP, the challenge is therefore larger than handling one protest. It is about recognising the cumulative effect of multiple public concerns. Inflation, unemployment, corruption, farmers’ issues, infrastructure gaps and rising living costs remain part of everyday conversations. Alongside these are anxieties about social harmony and caste tensions. The CJP protests appear to draw energy from this wider atmosphere of dissatisfaction rather than from a single grievance.


Political movements rarely emerge overnight. They begin as scattered signals of discomfort before becoming larger expressions of public mood. Parties that recognise these signals early retain the advantage; those that ignore them often find themselves responding after the narrative has already shifted.


Many political observers believe the BJP underestimated the early momentum of the CJP movement. By the time responses became visible, the issue had already expanded across social media platforms and entered broader public conversation. In the digital age, once a narrative takes shape online, correcting it becomes considerably harder.


The BJP’s communication challenge is not simply about producing more messages. Politics today operates through Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, podcasts, influencers and creator networks. Political authority is no longer communicated only through television debates or press conferences. It is negotiated every day in a decentralised digital ecosystem.


The party that once built one of India’s most effective political communication systems now faces a different environment. Young voters consume information differently. They expect interaction rather than instruction, conversation rather than slogans. They are more willing to question authority and less attached to political loyalties inherited from previous generations.


This challenge extends to media relations as well. Visibility remains important, but visibility alone does not create trust. In a fragmented information landscape, political parties must engage across multiple platforms and audiences rather than rely only on established channels.


New Opening

The CJP movement also presents opportunities for Maharashtra’s opposition. The Shiv Sena (UBT) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena have attempted to position themselves closer to youth concerns through social media outreach and urban issues. Leaders such as Aaditya Thackeray and Amit Thackeray have gained visibility among younger audiences, where short videos, memes and digital content increasingly shape political impressions.


For the Shiv Sena (UBT), the protests offer a chance to reinforce its image as a party attentive to urban youth and middle-class concerns. For the MNS, traditionally associated with Marathi identity and city-centric issues, the moment provides an opportunity to broaden its appeal towards employment, education and aspirations. Whether online attention can translate into lasting political support remains uncertain, but both parties are likely to study these changing voter instincts carefully.


The BJP must also examine its relationship with its own organisational base. Many party workers continue to draw confidence from the victories of 2014 and 2019. But the 2024 election demonstrated that Indian politics has entered a more competitive phase. Voters are more demanding, more informed and less willing to overlook governance gaps. Past victories cannot become substitutes for present engagement.


The RSS, too, has entered public discussion, with some observers asking whether it should play a more visible role in reconnecting political messaging with grassroots concerns. Whether such expectations are practical is another matter. But the debate itself reflects a changing political environment in which attention is no longer focused only on elected leaders.


Ultimately, the CJP movement should not be viewed merely as an opposition opportunity or a challenge to the ruling party. It is a reminder that public opinion is constantly evolving. Political organisations that listen, adapt and engage are more likely to retain public confidence than those that depend only on past achievements.

Comments

bottom of page