BY MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
Samajwadi Party chief and former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav has once again trained his guns on the BJP, this time questioning its promises of financial assistance to women. His criticism goes beyond the proposed amount of money. He is essentially asking a simple political question: why are such promises being made now, after ten years in power, instead of being implemented earlier?
Yadav argues that the BJP is increasingly relying on money and welfare announcements to attract voters because, in his view, it has little else to offer in the coming elections. His strongest criticism is directed at the proposed annual assistance of ₹50,000 for women. He points out that, had such an amount been provided during the last ten years, a woman would have received ₹5 lakh in total. Against this backdrop, he describes the proposed ₹20,000 payment as far too little and too late.
His calculation that women would effectively be receiving only four per cent of the ₹5 lakh figure is clearly political rhetoric, rather than a legally established claim that every woman is entitled to ₹5 lakh. But the argument is aimed at creating a sense of lost opportunity: if the government had the resources and the intention to provide such assistance today, why was similar support not extended during the previous decade?
Yadav also raises a broader concern about welfare promises made during elections. Referring to other states, he alleges that women were promised financial assistance to secure electoral support, but that governments later hesitated to make payments or even sought the return of money. He further alleges that women unable to return the money faced police and legal action. These are serious allegations and, naturally, need to be examined against the actual policies and records of the respective state governments.
The political message behind his ₹4.8 lakh “outstanding” calculation is nevertheless easy to understand. Yadav is trying to turn the BJP’s own financial promise into a question of accountability. His argument is that voters should not simply ask what they are being offered today; they should also ask what was promised, what was delivered and what remained unfulfilled during the years of government.
At the same time, the Samajwadi Party is positioning itself with its own welfare proposal. Yadav has promised that, if his party forms the government in 2027, women would receive ₹40,000 annually, with the amount increasing every year. This is clearly an attempt to present the Samajwadi Party as a more dependable alternative in women-oriented welfare politics.
Ultimately, the emerging political battle in Uttar Pradesh may not be decided merely by the size of a promised payment. Women voters are likely to judge whether such promises are credible, affordable and capable of being delivered consistently. The real test for both parties will therefore be whether their welfare announcements can translate into meaningful and sustained support for women rather than becoming another round of election-season promises.
