On the eve of the Assembly elections in West Bengal in 2021, when the BJP pulled out all stops to try and effect a regime change in the state, Mamata Banerjee’s masterstroke was Lakshmir Bhandar. Before the elections, she promised Rs 500 each month by direct bank transfer to almost half the voters in this state: the women. And a full 50 percent of the women who did vote that election is estimated to have voted enmasse for the Trinamool Congress and given Mamata Banerjee a thumping victory over BJP.
Today, Lakshmir Bhandar beneficiaries get Rs 1500 a month. There are over 2 crore of them, all sworn loyalists of Mamata Banerjee. Riding on its success as a vote catcher, on the eve of another Assembly election expected to be held in April, Mamata Banerjee has unveiled what could turn out to be Lakshmir Bhandar 2.0. This time it is the male youth voter who is being discretely targeted, with Yuvasathi, a direct-to-bank transfer scheme that puts Rs 1500 in bank accounts of all those who haven’t landed a job yet. The money will be paid for a maximum of 5 years. Anyone aged 21 to 40 can apply as long as they are class 10 pass. Men, women and the third gender are welcome. But if you are already a Lakshmi Bhandar beneficiary, you are ineligible.
Men are, therefore, expected to outnumber women beneficiaries for this scheme. The gender ratio of applicants is not known yet. But, at last count, 84 lakh people had signed up for Yuvasathi between 15 February and 10 March. Mamata Banerjee has claimed at least one crore have enrolled already. That it was aimed at reaping electoral benefits was as plain as pikestaff.
While announcing the scheme mid-February, Mamata Banerjee said it would come into effect from 15 August. Quite out of the blue, she revised that to 1 April and then, on the eve of Women’s Day, on 7 March, she declared the DBTs would begin from that day itself. The launch of Yuvashakti has triggered an old and familiar debate: is this genuine welfare or mere electoral populism? Is this fiscally sustainable or will it only increase the state’s debt?
Dole or safty net for jobless youth?
On the ground in West Bengal, as political parties prepare for electoral battle, Yuvasathi has become a punching bag in a political slugfest. When thousands of educated youth queued up at government booths in February to pick up forms for Yuvasathi, BJP called it a scheme for dole and said it was proof of a deepening employment crisis in the state that the government had failed to address. Indeed, whatever numbers the government claims, at least 84 lakh youth with master’s degrees mat math, physics, engineering and computer science did queue up for a Rs 1500 a month sop across West Bengal. All of them said they wanted a job but Rs 1500 a month was better than nothing.
The TMC argued the cash support is a safety net for youth forced to deal with a sluggish job market not just in West Bengal but across the country. Its main retort: what happened to the 2 crore jobs Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to create each year. The TMC also said the huge turnout was sign of the faith and trust the people had in Mamata Banerjee.
Hedging Bets
Yuvasathi, however, is anything but a knee-jerk, pre-poll sop that Mamata Banerjee dreamt up out of the blue. It is a well-planned scheme that could be a much-needed game changer for Mamata Banerjee as she faces anti-incumbency after 15 years in government and the uncertain impact of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as she tries to win a fourth term in office.
The TMC has been examining voting trends of the last few elections. They suggest that voters in urban centres are restive, particularly the youth which is a demographic with perhaps the strongest inclination to challenge the status quo. The youth or young adult category of voters in West Bengal is substantial. Some studies place the cohort at 44-45 percent of the state’s voters. The Yuvasathi scheme is directed to placate this young and restive segment who may just opt not to vote for TMC this time.
Yuvasathi or Lakshmir Bhandar, however, should not be viewed in isolation. Across the country, governments of every political shade are using direct transfers to keep voters in their pocket. Economist Rathin Roy has described this broader shift as the rise of a “compensatory state”, where governments increasingly use cash transfers to make up for gaps in employment, income growth and public services.
Can’t give jobs? Give cash – that seems to be the formula. Whether Yuvasathi, or the innumerable schemes like it, prove to be genuine welfare or electoral populism will depend on whether such transfers become a bridge to real opportunity rather than a substitute for it. Surely the lakhs of young adults who applied for Yuvasathi deserve more than a monthly allowance in place of the one thing they queued up for in the first place: a job.
(The author, Monideepa Banerjie is a political observer and writer. The views are personal)