Give An Account, Then Make Promises, Akhilesh - Avneesh Tyagi

Whenever the president of a political party makes a promise to the public that, if voted to power, he will undertake a particular task, he should first ask himself a question: “Did I fulfil the promises I made when I was previously in power?” This is a matter of basic political accountability, but when the promises concern women, its importance becomes even greater, because women-centric schemes often directly affect the most vulnerable and needy sections of society. Leaving such promises unfulfilled is not merely a policy failure; it can also be regarded as a betrayal of the trust of millions of families.

Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav has now made a new and major promise to the poor women of Uttar Pradesh that, if his party comes to power, poor women will be given Rs 40,000. Before assessing this new promise, it is important to take a look at the schemes launched in the name of women during his previous tenure and what became of them.

Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme: A Grand Beginning, an Early End

Soon after coming to power in 2012, the Akhilesh government launched the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme. Its objective was to provide financial assistance of Rs 400 per month to women heads of families living below the poverty line, to be paid in two half-yearly instalments. The scheme appeared, by its very name, to be focused on women and their empowerment. However, within just two years, in 2014, the same government discontinued the scheme and replaced it with the Samajwadi Pension Scheme. The justification was that the new scheme would have a wider reach and cover around 4 million poor families, while reports at the time indicated that nearly 2.5 million families were already benefiting from the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme. The question arises: when the scheme was already reaching millions of families, why was there a need to discontinue it midway?

Interestingly, the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme itself was not an original concept. It was essentially a renamed version of the Mahamaya Garib Arthik Madad Yojana of the previous Mayawati government. In other words, the practice of changing the names of schemes when governments change, and then discontinuing those schemes after a short period, has long been part of Uttar Pradesh politics, and the Akhilesh government too became part of this tradition. The fate of the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme serves as a warning in itself: even schemes created in the name of women can be altered or discontinued according to political convenience. But this was not the only example.

The Promise Could Not Move Forward: ‘Hamari Beti, Uska Kal’

Around the same period, another major promise in the interest of women and daughters was made in 2012, which appeared highly sensitive and necessary on paper. The scheme was called the ‘Hamari Beti, Uska Kal’ scheme. Its objective was to provide a one-time financial assistance of Rs 30,000 to poor girls from minority communities for further education after Class 10 or for marriage. For 2013-14, the government set a target of benefiting around 99,500 girls under the scheme and allocated a budget of Rs 298.50 crore for it. However, this ambitious scheme did not last long. ‘Hamari Beti, Uska Kal’ and the accompanying ‘Padhein Betiyan, Badhein Betiyan’ scheme continued for only one year. This was an example of the lack of priority and political will of the then government. Despite a budget running into hundreds of crores and a target involving nearly a lakh beneficiaries, the government was not serious about implementing the scheme or ensuring its continuity. The promise concerning the education and future of daughters remained confined to an initial announcement and figures.

The List of Promises vs Ground Reality

The question here is not merely about two schemes but about a pattern. Throughout its tenure, the Akhilesh Yadav government made high-profile announcements of women-centric schemes but repeatedly failed to sustain them over the long term and ensure that their benefits reached people on the ground. Whether it was the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme or Hamari Beti, Uska Kal, both schemes were launched with grand promises but ended midway without any substantial achievement. It is clear that the Samajwadi Party has often cited schemes such as laptop distribution during its tenure to project itself as a champion of technology and youth, but when it comes to long-term and structural schemes, the record shows that such initiatives often proved to be short-lived.

The Same Style, the Same Promises Again: ‘Stree Samman Samriddhi Yojana’

Now, as elections in Uttar Pradesh come into view, Akhilesh Yadav is promising to provide poor women Rs 40,000 through the ‘Stree Samman Samriddhi Yojana’. He is also assuring that girls who pass Class 12 will receive laptops in the future and that there will be no compromise whatsoever on women’s safety. This promise too has emerged in much the same manner as the announcements of the Rani Lakshmibai Pension Scheme and ‘Hamari Beti, Uska Kal’ in 2012: a large amount, an ambitious target, and a speech portraying deep concern for women. However, questions about the credibility of his new promises are natural. How financially viable is a promise to provide Rs 40,000? From which budget will it be funded? And will this scheme too be altered or discontinued after the elections, like previous schemes? There are currently no concrete answers to these questions.

Making populist promises before elections is nothing new in politics. But when the person making the promise has a record of leaving his own promises unfulfilled while in power, it becomes necessary for the public to assess whether this is genuinely a step taken in the interests of women or merely another electoral stunt that will be put on the back burner once the votes have been secured. In any case, the Samajwadi Party’s tenure has been associated with concerns over women’s security and atrocities against them, while daughters were reportedly afraid even to step outside their homes. In such circumstances, the bigger question is: to what extent can the party now be regarded as pro-women?

About the Author: Avneesh Tyagi is a Political Analyst and Senior Journalist. With extensive experience in news media, his work focuses on electoral dynamics, political strategy, and contemporary public affairs.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.