_edited.png)
Written by - Shriyans Bansal, Institute of Law, Nirma University
One such issue that is particularly prevalent in India is inequality and it is interlinked with the social, economic, and political setup. The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening with each year. Wealth has been concentrated in very few people's hands. According to Oxfam India report 2023, 1% of the population owns over 40% of the total wealth, whereas the remaining 50% hardly holds 3%. Added to this sharp inequality is a jagged edge of other factors: caste, gender, and regional disparities which makes economic inequality multi-faceted. This issue is of remarkable concern in the political arena more so during elections. The recent elections in India can give an important framework regarding how political parties use economic inequality both as a thematic unifying device and as a tactical instrument.
The Electoral Landscape
The question of economic inequality in a country as diverse and densely populated as India transcends policy issues and becomes a principal determinant of political outcomes. Indian political parties, since time immemorial, have taken note of the issue of economic inequality in their electoral fortunes, getting the playing field to their favour when it comes to appealing to voters with such diverse demographics. The concrete specifics often take the shape of specific welfare schemes, vows to reorganize the economy, and broad rhetoric that pits the broad populace against the rich.
For instance, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has successfully integrated economic nationalism with welfare populism to appeal to voters who are economically less competitive. Among these are the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the recently launched Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, Ayushman Bharat, designed policy objectives to provide for the needy of the population but scripted as well for the political parties that have formulated them as a party for the needy.
Many of these initiatives are all but getting economic support from the less developed sectors, most especially the countryside where resources fall short.
On the other hand, INC (Indian National Congress) has been involved in solving economic injustices through programs for direct transfer of cash benefits and guaranteed income initiatives. The Nyuntam Aay Yojana was proposed by the Congress party during the 2019 elections, involving a guaranteed income transfer to the poorest householders—a clear plan of attack on unequal incomes. That party lost, but a clear message was given that economic inequality can very well become one of the flashpoints in the forthcoming election campaigns of developing countries.
The Politicization of Economic Inequality
This puts economic inequality at the forefront as the main issue that captures the attention of political debate and discourse across the political landscape, especially during elections, because it is an issue that attacks the survival of millions and upon which most of the political parties can milk out. For the build an agenda upon rhetoric that would pitch the "common man" versus the "elite". That's a huge narrative power in countries like India.
Along with this, regional parties have well-politicized the issue of economic inequality to undermine the national-level parties. The party in power in West Bengal, the Trinamool Congress, has utilized economic inequality to announce a host of measures such as the Kanyashree Prakalpa, a scheme of making cash transfers to girls; Sabooj Sathi, distributing free bicycles for students; among many others that have become the main cement for TMC's strong voter base among the underprivileged.
On the other hand, The AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) in Delhi has been delivering water, electricity, and education without charge in areas that are being lauded by voters going through hard times. Moreover, the party has ingeniously married economic issues to Hindu nationalist rhetoric and touched chords of sentiment both at the economic and cultural levels. This was most effective in those states where economic inequality was combined with caste-based divides, like in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the BJP has been able to up its appeal, spreading itself across a wider section of the population.
How Welfare Programmes Impact Voting Behaviour in Elections in India
It is indeed these welfare programs being launched by the state machinery that up-regulates patterns of voting behaviour in India. Such programs almost invariably turn toward a selected segment of the voting population, mainly poor people. They have their greatest impact when such programs take on critical problems: housing, health, and cash support. That is really what creates the difference for the voters in need.
The fruits of this strategizing were well reflected in the win of the Bhartiya Janata Party in 2019, which furthered its welfare schemes and was known for mobilizing the rural and economically deprived constituencies in huge numbers. Amongst such schemes is the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) program, which credits money directly into the accounts of farmers; it becomes another scheme that is not just aimed at but also touching base with the voters. The BJP took good care of the economic vulnerabilities of the rural voters, and it thereby secured the electoral advantage pretty decisively.
Welfare programs also give way to some form of electoral patronage when a voting citizenry's allegiance to a given political party is based upon the handouts, they receive rather than other more holistic, ideological, and policy reasons. This in itself can further create dependencies on such programs that are not sustainable in the long run and negate the need for such types of changes that work to attack the root causes that are leading to economic inequality.
Challenges of Addressing Economic Inequality through Electoral Means
These dynamics are a potent challenge to addressing economic inequalities, but efforts to do so electorally are rife with pitfalls. One such pitfall is that political parties mostly tend toward what is popular at the moment, not actions that are long-term attainable. As necessary as welfare programs are, they too often become measures of last resort, not addressing the structural issues at the base: land reform and labour rights, universal quality education, and health care.
Moreover, the politicization of economic inequality can sometimes lead to increased social disunity. If economic discontent is expressed in terms of caste or religion, it may exacerbate pre-existing fault lines and increase the degree of polarization. This is what happened to a large extent during the 2019 elections when the BJP's policy of using economic issues as part of the Hindu nationalist discourse contributed significantly to deepening social fissures in certain regions.
Further, schemes like welfare may only serve to camouflage the fact that the economy likely requires more fundamental changes. After all, while the BJP government has come up with a long list of welfare schemes, its economic policies such as demonetization and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax have been criticized as leading to job losses and reduced economic opportunities for the masses. These policies were highly representative of the Indian working population and had rather a strong negative effect on the small businesses and the informal sector.
How Caste-based Politics Echoes Economic Inequality in India
The politics of caste is deeply intertwined with how economic inequality is confronted and politicized in the Indian context. Very often, economic disparities within India are at the core of caste, where historically and traditionally viewed lower castes, such as Dalits and Adivasis, experience higher poverty rates with reduced resource and opportunity access. Political actors often get a hold of caste-oriented politics that seeks to address these very inequalities, usually by making welfare policies and their implementation directed toward certain castes.
For instance, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) bases its politics on eliminating economic and social inequalities affecting the Dalit community and other lower castes. From mere insistence on land reforms, access to education, and employment for these groups, it aligns both forms of caste and class-based forms of inequality. The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been trying to mobilize the lower castes with an emphasis on increasing economic opportunities and welfare, even as it champions the cause of pan-Hindu unity, transcending caste divisions.
However, when such issues are used by the political parties as a rallying point for their respective constituencies on the grounds of caste affiliations, these could be inflammatory and even lead to conflicts. These in turn can lead to policies where attention is paid to the appeasement of certain voter considerations rather than an effective agenda to take away the basic problem of economic inequality.
It is this conundrum that lies in front of Indian democracy: how to bring economic equality without adding to social inequality, and how to implement policies that are fair and just for everyone, irrespective of caste.
Global Elections: A Comparative Perspective on Economic Inequality Attitudes
Not only in India but this politicization of economic inequality occurred throughout the world, where parties were replaced by populist leaders translating economic grievances into political power. For example, in the USA's 2016 election, the question of economic inequality was quite high in both Donald Trump's and Bernie Sanders' campaigns. Trump wanted to bring back jobs to set the trade imbalance right, whereas Sanders sought wealth-dumping measures and universal healthcare.
The two approaches coexisted by interacting with widespread economic malaise, mobilizing voters who felt sidelined by the direction of the economic system.
In Latin America, leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia made use of economic inequality as one of the foundation stones of their leadership. For Chavez, his Bolivarian Revolution with oil-fuelled social programs and ridding the poverty rate sharply; for Morales, redistributing wealth to indigenous groups. The case of these two examples serves to demonstrate how potent a factor of economic inequality can be for electoral politics, part of the staple diet of any good political leader to tap into huge mobilizations of people.
But the Indian context is special because there is a cross-play between economic inequality and identity politics, particularly, in terms of caste. Unlike very many Western democracies, where class is the principal paradigm of inequality, in India, it has often been impossible to understand economic inequality without paying heed to the process of social stratification. That only complicates things further, and solutions for those things are correspondingly harder to realize.
Impact of Electoral Strategies on Governance
It is very important to see how such an approach to the politics of inequality translates into rule. For instance, the major thrust of the BJP since the time of the initiation of welfare populism has been through massive social welfare and infrastructure investments mainly in rural parts. For example, under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme, money has been directly credited to the accounts of the poorest farmers, reducing rural poverty by one measure. Nonetheless, critics argue that while such programs come with benefits, they do not address the root issues responsible for causing economic inequality. There is, therefore, a need for fundamental economic reform that promotes sustainable growth and reduces inequality over time. While the focus on welfare programs is beneficial, at times it diverts attention from the need for economic reform itself, ultimately producing a cycle of dependence instead of one of empowerment.
This, in stark contrast to the governance model they have used for Delhi, very evidently focused on free public services that have been widely applauded for their effect on reducing economic disparities at the grassroots. The AAP freebie model in education, healthcare, and utilities takes delivery to decent levels where deficiencies have long been cried over. Doubts, however, remain about whether this system is sustainable because it is not based on serious fiscal responsibility and is not a constraint to long-term economic growth.
The Future of Economic Inequality in Indian Political Scenario
The politicization of economic inequality will continue to be a crucial element in India's electoral politics, as the country grapples with its intricate socio-economic matrix. The real test, certainly for the political parties, will be to go beyond talking and instead act on policies that take into account what is really happening at the heart of their inequality problem. It demands a fine line between short-term social welfare and long-term policies, structural reforms that cut the risk of economic policy shopping for votes cloaked in social themes (inclusion which transcends identity politics).
Tackling economic inequality in India at a larger scale will require delving into the root of the problem. The first is land reforms, especially in rural areas whether are linked to wealth and social status. Fair distribution of land, along with Agri-modernization would boost productivity and are likely to result in overall economic betterment for small & marginal farmers. The second is to reinforce access and quality of education, health care etc. This will help in demolishing the door on poverty cycle and provide equal opportunities to all without looking at their social or economic backgrounds. Labour reforms are also urgently required to tackle the substantial informal sector of employment in India, which leaves most employed Indians without job security or social protection. By significantly strengthening labor law enforcement, we can help lower income inequality and lift the prospects of millions of workers who need better wages, working conditions. Furthermore, continued support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), inclusive measures to create jobs by promoting entrepreneurship—especially in marginalized communities—and fostering growth that benefits all can help close the gap. Moreover, governance should be inclusive and everyone must have a say in it specially the poor or downtrodden mass. In order to generate more net trust in government institutions and implement policy aimed at reducing inequality successfully, it is imperative for political parties to prioritize transparency along with accountability and the rule of law.
The recent Indian elections have shown that economic inequality is not just a policy issue but a powerful electoral tool that can shape political outcomes. As India looks to the future, the way in which economic inequality is addressed—or exploited—will have significant implications for the health of its democracy. By focusing on long-term solutions that address the structural causes of inequality, India can work towards a more just and equitable society.
LinkedIn Link - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/ 💼📚👩⚖️
Telegram Link - https://t.me/+1-pfOBHo2a84MWRl
WhatsApp Link - https://chat.whatsapp.com/IMfN