Welfare programmes in India are losing the electoral pull they once commanded, according to a new analysis by British policy experts that draws on recent state election results and opinion polling. The study, published by the Centre for Social and Policy Studies in London, suggests that voters are increasingly evaluating welfare on outcomes rather than promises, a shift that has implications for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party and the opposition Indian National Congress.

Authored by Dr. Alistair Finch and Dr. Meera Krishnan, the report examines the impact of three major welfare schemes: the PM-KISAN income support for farmers, the Ujjwala cooking gas subsidy, and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The authors find that while these programmes still deliver modest electoral dividends, the effect has diminished by nearly 40 per cent since 2019. In key states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra, voters who received benefits were only 5 to 8 per cent more likely to vote for the incumbent party, compared with 12 to 15 per cent in the two general elections five years ago.

“The magic of a free gas connection or a cash transfer is fading,” said Finch in a press briefing. “Voters are now asking whether the quality of public services matches the promise. They want better schools, reliable electricity, and jobs that last.” The report attributes the trend to rising aspirations driven by rapid urbanisation and higher literacy rates. It also points to a growing trust deficit: many recipients believe welfare is skewed by patronage, especially in states where local political brokers control distribution.

For the BJP, the findings are a warning. Modi’s 2024 campaign heavily emphasised social welfare, with slogans such as “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” and a record outlay of nearly £150 billion over five years. Yet the party lost ground in several Hindi-belt states last year, including Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, despite having expanded coverage. The Congress, which has historically championed welfare, faces a different challenge: its proposed universal basic income and farm loan waivers have failed to stir voters, who view the party as organisationally weak.

The analysis also highlights a structural issue: welfare programmes now cover over 90 per cent of rural households, leaving little room for further expansion. “The low-hanging fruit is gone,” said Krishnan. “Now it’s about quality, not quantity. A cash transfer that arrives late or a gas cylinder that costs more than the subsidy is a liability.” The report recommends that parties shift toward outcome-based metrics, such as linking cash transfers to children’s school attendance or health check-ups, a model that has shown promise in Brazil and Mexico.

Political reactions have been muted. The BJP’s chief spokesperson dismissed the study as “academic indulgence”, while the Congress cited it as proof that welfare needs systemic overhaul. Independent experts caution against over-interpreting the data, noting that welfare remains a significant factor in rural elections, particularly among women and lower-caste voters. However, the report’s bottom line is clear: in an India where development is no longer just a slogan but a measurable demand, welfare alone cannot win elections.