In West Bengal today, politics is shaped not in grand rallies or ideological manifestos but in the quiet, predictable rhythm of money arriving in bank accounts. The monthly Lakshmir Bhandar credit, the Swasthya Sathi card flashed at private hospitals, the Rupashree payment at the time of a daughter’s marriage, the Duare Sarkar camp that fixes ration or caste certificates—these have become the daily touchpoints through which citizens experience the state. In a landscape marked by economic volatility and limited formal employment, these welfare schemes have transformed from administrative tools into the core political vocabulary of the state.

No single programme captures this transformation better than Lakshmir Bhandar, which reaches more than two crore women every month with ₹1,000–₹1,200 in direct income support. A study by the Pratichi Trust, founded by Amartya Sen, found that 85.6% of women felt “empowered” by the scheme—empowered not in rhetorical terms but through tangible shifts: reduced dependence on male earnings, greater say in household decisions, dignity in small expenditures, and improved ability to manage emergencies. For many families, the monthly transfer is the one reliable financial constant. The political effect of that reliability is neither surprising nor incidental.

West Bengal’s political ecosystem has adapted to this new reality. Welfare now sits at the centre of party positioning, public messaging and voter expectation. The ruling establishment frames Lakshmir Bhandar, Swasthya Sathi, Kanyashree and Krishak Bandhu as part of a long-term social contract with women, farmers and low-income families. These schemes are no longer promoted as episodic interventions but as the backbone of governance—programmes with both moral and electoral legitimacy.

In rural Bengal, particularly in SC, ST, OBC and minority-majority districts, the presence of welfare is even more pronounced. The state is often encountered first and most consistently through these schemes. When a woman receives her monthly DBT, or a family avoids a crushing hospital bill, or a girl stays in school because of Kanyashree, the political meaning of the scheme becomes inseparable from its economic effect. This convergence—where welfare becomes felt evidence of governance—explains why the upcoming 2026 election is poised to be shaped heavily by perceptions of delivery, regularity and fairness of these benefits.

That does not mean welfare exists in isolation from broader anxieties. For many young people, especially in urban and semi-urban areas, DBT schemes coexist with frustrations about job opportunities, industrial stagnation, and security of livelihood. These voters often welcome welfare but do not see it as a substitute for long-term economic mobility. This tension between short-term stability and long-term aspiration is likely to be one of Bengal’s core political debates in the coming year.

While West Bengal may be the most intense case of welfare-centric politics, it is not entirely alone. Across India, various state governments—whether in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra or Jharkhand—have introduced their own versions of direct transfer programmes aimed at women, farmers or vulnerable households. From Karnataka’s Gruha Lakshmi to Madhya Pradesh’s Ladli Behna, Maharashtra’s Ladki Bahin Yojana and Jharkhand’s expanded pension and girl-child schemes, or the recent policies for cash transfer to women in Bihar, the DBT model has become a widely accepted tool of governance. These examples show that Bengal is part of a broader national shift, even though the depth and emotional resonance of welfare here remain uniquely strong.

Yet Bengal’s welfare politics stands apart in one essential respect: the fusion of welfare with political identity. In many other states, DBT supplements political narratives; in Bengal, it shapes them. Here, welfare is not only an economic intervention but a political signal—a claim about the role of the state in protecting livelihoods, a demonstration of administrative presence at the grassroots, and a marker of what citizenship feels like in everyday life.

As 2026 approaches, it is clear that welfare will remain one of the central axes of political debate. Parties may differ on questions of fiscal discipline, leakages, implementation, or long-term sustainability, but none can ignore the fact that direct transfers have reshaped the social contract between the state and its citizens. The key challenge for Bengal is not whether these schemes matter—they evidently do—but how they will coexist with the parallel demands for job creation, transparent governance and economic renewal.

West Bengal’s political moment is, in essence, a welfare moment. It is a moment shaped not just by economic necessity but by a larger shift in how people understand the purpose of governance. Direct transfers have not replaced politics; they have redefined it. And as the state enters another electoral season, welfare will remain not just a theme of debate, but a lived reality that voters carry with them into the polling booth.

---