Buying Votes in Broad Daylight: Bihar’s Welfare Blitz Raises Questions Over Democracy and Intent

As Bihar stands on the brink of another high-stakes election, the BJP-JDU government has opened the floodgates of welfare schemes — from cash transfers to pension hikes to free electricity — all announced and executed with lightning speed in the month of September 2025, just weeks before the Model Code of Conduct is expected to come into force.

Among the most talked-about announcements is the ₹10,000 cash transfer to 75 lakh women under the “Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyami Yojana.” The scheme, on paper, is meant to promote women’s self-employment through Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and micro-enterprise support. On the surface, this is a legitimate and much-needed initiative, and yes — it is the government’s duty to uplift women economically and socially.

But critical questions remain unanswered. And the timing, as well as the process, casts a long shadow over its intent.

Did 75 Lakh Women Really Apply?

A scheme involving ₹7,500 crore of public funds — transferred directly into individual accounts — deserves serious scrutiny. Yet, basic details are missing:

These are not minor technicalities — they go to the heart of transparency and accountability. Without proper verification, the line between a welfare loan and a political gift becomes dangerously thin.

If this is a structured scheme, where is the evidence of due process? If it’s a gift timed with elections, then it’s a transaction — not governance.

A Pattern That Cannot Be Ignored

The ₹10,000 women’s scheme is not an isolated event. In the same month:

This frantic rollout raises one unavoidable question:
Why now?

Why were these schemes not launched steadily over the last five years?
Why is the government in such a hurry only weeks before elections?

Because this is not governance — this is last-minute political management, carefully crafted to appear like compassion, but smelling of desperation.

Democracy Is Being Undermined

Let’s be clear. No one is against welfare. No one is denying the need for economic support — especially for women, the poor, and marginalised.

But when public funds are used selectively at the most politically opportune moment, without transparency, without scrutiny, and without accountability — it is no longer policy.

It is influence-peddling.
It is vote baiting.
It is a slow death of democratic ethics.

Voters are not just being served — they are being targeted, influenced, and perhaps even misled.

The Silence of Institutions

Why is the Election Commission silent on mass transfers from the exchequer right before elections?
Why are independent institutions not investigating whether due process was followed in these high-value “loan” transfers?

When state institutions look away, it becomes easier for ruling parties to blur the line between governance and campaigning, between public service and personal power.

A Time to Ask Tough Questions

Yes, the “Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyami Yojana” may be a well-meaning scheme.
Yes, Bihar’s women deserve every opportunity to grow and lead.

But unless the government answers hard questions about implementation, eligibility, timing, and verification — it will look less like empowerment and more like a political bribe.

Are we to believe that 75 lakh women all completed paperwork, submitted business plans, cleared documentation, and got money — all in just a few days?

Or is this simply a disguised vote purchase, dressed up as women’s welfare?

Because if that is the case — and if voters fall for it — we may soon have free schemes, but no free elections.
We may have cash in our hands, but no say in how our country is run.

Buying Votes in Broad Daylight: Bihar’s Welfare Blitz Raises Questions Over Democracy and Intent

But critical questions remain unanswered. And the timing, as well as the process, casts a long shadow over its intent.

Did 75 Lakh Women Really Apply?

A scheme involving ₹7,500 crore of public funds — transferred directly into individual accounts — deserves serious scrutiny. Yet, basic details are missing:

Did all 75 lakh beneficiaries actually apply for the loan assistance?

Were SHG verifications, income assessments, and entrepreneurial plans properly reviewed?

Have banks and implementing agencies received and processed complete documentation?

Were women informed in advance about terms, repayments, usage conditions — or was this just a blanket cash deposit presented as support?

These are not minor technicalities — they go to the heart of transparency and accountability. Without proper verification, the line between a welfare loan and a political gift becomes dangerously thin.

If this is a structured scheme, where is the evidence of due process? If it’s a gift timed with elections, then it’s a transaction — not governance.

A Pattern That Cannot Be Ignored

The ₹10,000 women’s scheme is not an isolated event. In the same month:

Pension for 1 crore people was nearly tripled, without any prior budget announcement.

₹456 crore was distributed to 6.5 lakh flood-hit families — after years of delay — and suddenly, just before elections.

Free electricity up to 125 units was granted across households.

Tablets and smartphones for teachers, travel allowances for students, and multiple “youth” initiatives were cleared in back-to-back cabinet meetings — all in September.

This frantic rollout raises one unavoidable question:Why now?

Why were these schemes not launched steadily over the last five years?Why is the government in such a hurry only weeks before elections?

Because this is not governance — this is last-minute political management, carefully crafted to appear like compassion, but smelling of desperation.

Democracy Is Being Undermined

Let’s be clear. No one is against welfare. No one is denying the need for economic support — especially for women, the poor, and marginalised.

But when public funds are used selectively at the most politically opportune moment, without transparency, without scrutiny, and without accountability — it is no longer policy.

It is influence-peddling.It is vote baiting.It is a slow death of democratic ethics.

Voters are not just being served — they are being targeted, influenced, and perhaps even misled.

The Silence of Institutions

Why is the Election Commission silent on mass transfers from the exchequer right before elections?Why are independent institutions not investigating whether due process was followed in these high-value “loan” transfers?

When state institutions look away, it becomes easier for ruling parties to blur the line between governance and campaigning, between public service and personal power.

A Time to Ask Tough Questions

Yes, the “Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyami Yojana” may be a well-meaning scheme.Yes, Bihar’s women deserve every opportunity to grow and lead.

But unless the government answers hard questions about implementation, eligibility, timing, and verification — it will look less like empowerment and more like a political bribe.

Are we to believe that 75 lakh women all completed paperwork, submitted business plans, cleared documentation, and got money — all in just a few days?

Or is this simply a disguised vote purchase, dressed up as women’s welfare?

Because if that is the case — and if voters fall for it — we may soon have free schemes, but no free elections.We may have cash in our hands, but no say in how our country is run.

This frantic rollout raises one unavoidable question:
Why now?

Why were these schemes not launched steadily over the last five years?
Why is the government in such a hurry only weeks before elections?

It is influence-peddling.
It is vote baiting.
It is a slow death of democratic ethics.

Why is the Election Commission silent on mass transfers from the exchequer right before elections?
Why are independent institutions not investigating whether due process was followed in these high-value “loan” transfers?

Yes, the “Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyami Yojana” may be a well-meaning scheme.
Yes, Bihar’s women deserve every opportunity to grow and lead.

Because if that is the case — and if voters fall for it — we may soon have free schemes, but no free elections.
We may have cash in our hands, but no say in how our country is run.