The Perils of ‘Labharthi Politics’: Why Handouts Don’t Guarantee Votes

Populist politics may occasionally win the electoral battle, but history shows that well-intended schemes sans a sustainable and comprehensive policy foundation often backfire.

Ever since the BJP-led alliance’s resounding victory in the Maharashtra assembly elections, welfare schemes like Ladki Bahin have taken center stage in the electoral playbook of political parties across India. What was once dismissed, even ridiculed, by the opposition as a populist gimmick has now become a template, with rival parties scrambling to outdo one another, promising even larger cash transfers. The upcoming elections in Delhi are unfolding along similar lines, with parties deploying what is now widely referred to as Labharthi politics - the politics of beneficiaries. But beneath the surface of these grand promises lies a more complex question: Does Labharthi politics always guarantee electoral success? Or is there a point at which the promise of handouts ceases to be a winning strategy?

History suggests otherwise.

The recent passing of Dr. Manmohan Singh rekindled public memory of a time when economic policy, not populist giveaways, shaped India’s trajectory. In 1991, as finance minister, Singh ushered in a new era of liberalization, privatization, and globalization - transformations that lifted millions into the middle class. Yet, the foundation for this shift had been laid earlier. Rajiv Gandhi’s administration, buoyed by an unprecedented parliamentary majority, had envisioned a modernized India: investments in telecommunications, computerization, and higher education paved the way for a future the country was barely ready for. By the time the 1990s rolled in, these policies bore fruit.

India’s IT sector soared, capitalizing on the Y2K scare and the dot-com boom. The banking and financial services industry flourished. The automobile sector expanded, tourism and hospitality thrived. And most crucially, a vast swath of the poor and lower-middle class ascended the economic ladder, propelled by well-paying jobs in a newly globalized economy. By any metric, these citizens were Labharthi - beneficiaries of Congress’s forward-looking policies.

Yet, at the ballot box, gratitude did not translate into votes.

From its electoral peak in 1984, Congress experienced a steady, sharp decline. Meanwhile, the BJP, once a marginal force, surged ahead, capturing a demographic that, by logic, should have remained loyal to Congress - the very voters who had gained the most from its policies. This paradox raises a crucial question: Why did the beneficiaries of Congress’s economic reforms not ensure its political dominance?

One answer lies in the shifting aspirations of the middle-class Congress had helped create. As incomes rose and urbanization expanded, voters who once relied on government intervention sought different priorities. They wanted efficiency, governance, and modernity—not nostalgia for past economic crises. The Congress, instead of embracing this rising demographic, grew increasingly hesitant. Its economic vision faltered, its reforms slowed, and, in moments of political expediency, it reversed course. The Shah Bano case, where the party surrendered to reactionary pressures, alienated progressives. Its reluctance to continue the momentum of liberalization bred disillusionment. The same middle class that had benefited from Congress’s decisions no longer felt represented by it.

The lesson for today’s Labharthi politics is stark: handouts may win hearts temporarily, but they do not secure lasting political allegiance.

For schemes like ‘Ladki Bahin’ and other direct cash transfers to sustain electoral loyalty, they must be part of a broader, coherent strategy. Policies cannot be contradictory - offering economic incentives while fostering social divisions is a losing game. Sustainability is another challenge. Temporary largesse, doled out in a pre-election frenzy, risks backfiring if voters sense that the well will dry up after the votes are counted. The electorate today is not as easily swayed as in the past; with greater awareness and global exposure, voters are increasingly discerning. The era of treating them as passive recipients of state generosity is waning.

The current race to replicate Maharashtra’s Ladki Bahin scheme in Delhi underscores this challenge. While the immediate optics of such programs may be favourable, their long-term political efficacy remains dubious. Voters are increasingly looking beyond transactional politics, demanding structural changes that enable sustained economic growth rather than temporary relief. Political parties would do well to heed the lessons of the past decades that economic benefits alone do not ensure loyalty, and short-term gains can quickly turn into long-term liabilities if not backed by a coherent, future-oriented vision.

Parties banking on Labharthi politics must also acknowledge the law of diminishing returns. If every party jumps on the bandwagon, the competitive bidding war renders each new promise less effective. Worse, voters may begin to see through the game: that these schemes are less about empowerment and more about electoral arithmetic. The danger for politicians is clear - if voters perceive that they are merely pawns in a zero-sum contest of short-term giveaways, the backlash will be swift.

History does not look kindly upon those who ignore its lessons. Congress once assumed that economic prosperity would translate into unwavering political loyalty. It didn’t. Today’s politicians, flush with the confidence of cash-driven campaigns, would do well to remember that even the most generous handouts cannot replace a compelling, sustainable vision for the future.

(The author works in the Information Technology sector. Views personal.)