A section of the media has reported that the Uttar Pradesh government spent more on building the “Yogi brand” than the Union government spent on promoting the “Modi brand”. The claim is based on figures showing that Uttar Pradesh spent approximately ₹6,812 crore on advertising and publicity between 2017-18 and 2024-25, compared with nearly ₹6,000 crore reportedly spent by the Union government over a longer period.
Placed side by side, the two figures may appear to support a striking political conclusion. However, such a comparison overlooks what government advertising expenditure actually represents.
The ₹6,812 crore is the Uttar Pradesh government’s overall expenditure on advertising and public communication. It cannot automatically be described as money spent on promoting Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath or building a personal political brand. Government publicity has a much wider purpose: it informs people about welfare schemes, public services, entitlements, development projects, health campaigns, employment opportunities, investment policies, recruitment drives and emergency measures.
Equating the entire publicity budget with personal promotion therefore gives a misleading impression.
Informing People Is An Essential Responsibility
Announcing a welfare scheme is not enough. The intended beneficiaries must also know that the scheme exists, who is eligible, what benefits it offers and how to apply. Without effective communication, even a well-designed programme may fail to reach the people for whom it was created.
This is particularly important in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. The government must communicate with people living across 75 districts, including those in villages, small towns and communities where access to official information may be limited. Newspapers, television, radio, outdoor displays, digital platforms and local campaigns are used to take information to different sections of society.
Publicity expenditure may therefore cover communication about housing, healthcare, education, pensions, scholarships, agricultural assistance, women’s welfare, employment, infrastructure and many other government programmes. It may also include public health messages, disaster-related information, recruitment notices and appeals concerning citizens’ safety.
Such communication is a part of governance. It should not be casually reduced to the promotion of a single leader.
State Expenditure May Also Publicise Union Schemes
The comparison between the so-called “Yogi brand” and “Modi brand” becomes even more questionable because of the way India’s federal system functions. Numerous welfare programmes are launched or supported by the Union government but implemented on the ground by state governments.
The Uttar Pradesh government is responsible for identifying beneficiaries, coordinating with local authorities, implementing projects and informing people about many such programmes. It must therefore spend money publicising schemes that may carry the Prime Minister’s name or form part of the Union government’s national welfare agenda.
Take the example of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. If the Uttar Pradesh government publishes an advertisement informing residents about houses provided under the scheme, the cost may be recorded in the state government’s accounts. The advertisement may feature Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, along with the identities of both governments.
In such a case, describing the entire cost as expenditure on the “Yogi brand” would be plainly inaccurate. The money has been spent to communicate the implementation of a public welfare programme associated with both the Union and state governments.
The same principle applies to other centrally sponsored and jointly implemented schemes. Uttar Pradesh’s publicity expenditure may contribute to public awareness of the Union government’s programmes.
Two Different Sets Of Expenditure
The reported comparison with the Union government’s expenditure has a basic methodological weakness. A state government and the Union government have different responsibilities, communication systems and accounting practices. Their publicity figures do not necessarily cover identical activities or expenditure categories.
The periods cited are also different. Uttar Pradesh’s expenditure between 2017-18 and 2024-25 is being compared with a Union government figure reportedly covering a longer period. A meaningful financial comparison requires a common timeframe and comparable accounting heads.
Population alone also changes the context. Uttar Pradesh has more people than most countries and must communicate across a vast geographical and social landscape. The total amount, without information on annual spending, expenditure per person, the state’s overall budget and the nature of the campaigns, cannot produce a reliable comparison.
The Union government’s total advertising expenditure should likewise not be labelled “Modi brand” expenditure. It includes communication about national welfare schemes, infrastructure, health, public policies and government services. Such advertisements may increase the prime minister's public visibility, but that does not make their entire cost personal publicity. If this reasoning applies to the Union government, it must apply equally to Uttar Pradesh.
Public expenditure must, of course, be properly recorded, transparently allocated and directed towards legitimate public communication. Governments should ensure that advertisements give citizens useful information and help schemes reach their intended beneficiaries. But those principles do not justify turning an overall departmental expenditure figure into a claim about the personal branding of a chief minister.
The ₹6,812-crore figure tells us how much the Uttar Pradesh government reportedly spent under advertising and publicity-related heads during the stated period. It does not tell us that the entire amount – or even a specified part of it – was used to promote Yogi Adityanath personally.
To make that claim, one would need a detailed analysis separating public-service information, welfare communication, Union schemes, state programmes, statutory notices and explicitly leader-centred campaigns. No such breakdown is provided by the headline comparison.
The claim that the Uttar Pradesh government spent more on the “Yogi brand” than the Union government spent on the “Modi brand” therefore confuses government expenditure with personal expenditure. It reduces a broad programme of public communication to a contest between two political personalities.
The real purpose of government advertising is to connect citizens with schemes, services and opportunities. In a state as large and populous as Uttar Pradesh, communicating those benefits widely requires substantial outreach.
The debate should therefore focus on what the ₹6,812 crore actually represents. Unless detailed evidence establishes otherwise, it should be described as the Uttar Pradesh government’s expenditure on advertising and public communication – not as ₹6,812 crore spent on building the “Yogi brand”.
