The budget reflects an incumbent that is not campaigning, but governing on the assumption that its political foundations are secure
Instead of delivering a populist budget, this year Modi government has offered a Budget that risks taking voters for granted
For unemployed graduates and rural youth facing shrinking opportunities, the message may sound evasive.
The Union Budget presented by Nirmala Sitharaman this year is best read not as a catalogue of fiscal announcements but as a document of political self-confidence. It is a budget that assumes continuity—of power, of narrative, and of voter coalitions—and therefore avoids both anxiety-driven populism and dramatic course correction. Its political messaging lies as much in what it withholds as in what it offers.
At its core, the Budget doubles down on a familiar argument the government has been making for several years now: that economic growth, driven by public investment and private capital, is the most credible form of redistribution. The continued emphasis on capital expenditure, infrastructure building, and strategic sectors such as manufacturing, defence, digital systems, and emerging technologies is meant to signal seriousness—to markets, to global investors, and to India’s aspirational middle classes. Politically, this frames the BJP as a party of “delivery and direction,” not of short-term electoral inducements.
That intent is most visible in the budget’s treatment of the urban middle class. Despite sustained expectations of income tax relief, there are no headline concessions. This is not an oversight; it is a calculation. The government appears to view salaried taxpayers as a relatively secure constituency—ideologically aligned, socially anxious, and lacking a persuasive alternative. The message is blunt, if implicit: macroeconomic stability and national strength matter more than individual tax relief. The risk here is not immediate electoral backlash, but a slow accumulation of resentment that the opposition will seek to mobilise by arguing that the middle class pays disproportionately while receiving diminishing returns.
No dramatic outreach to rural India
For rural voters and farmers, the tone is one of calibrated reassurance rather than dramatic outreach. There is no grand farm package, no sweeping MSP reform, and no income guarantee. Instead, the budget relies on continuity—existing schemes, targeted crop interventions, rural infrastructure, and technological integration. Politically, this reflects a belief that welfare delivery and incremental support are sufficient to hold the rural coalition together, especially in the absence of sustained nationwide farm mobilisation. The state presents itself not as a patron offering largesse, but as a manager smoothing the edges of structural change.
The most unresolved political question raised by the budget concerns employment and youth. While the speech is rich in the language of skilling, startups, AI, and the “future economy,” it is notably thin on direct employment generation by the state. This reinforces a broader ideological position: that the government will enable jobs through growth, not create them directly. For sections of educated urban youth, this narrative still has appeal. But for unemployed graduates and rural youth facing shrinking opportunities, the message may sound evasive. Politically, this is a deferred wager—the costs will be felt not immediately, but if job creation fails to keep pace with aspiration.
Status quo for the labharthi
For the poorest households, the budget’s message is essentially one of status quo. There is no rollback of welfare, nor is there a dramatic expansion. Food, housing, and health schemes continue, quietly reinforcing the BJP’s claim that it does not abandon the vulnerable. This steady continuity is politically significant: it suggests confidence that the existing welfare architecture has generated durable loyalty and does not require constant renewal through fresh announcements.
Notably subdued is the budget’s engagement with women as a distinct political constituency. While existing programmes remain, there is no strong fiscal statement that foregrounds gender in a transformative way. This restraint suggests that the government believes its broader welfare framework, combined with symbolic politics and leadership narratives, is adequate to retain women voters—an assumption that may hold nationally but could be tested in closely fought state elections.
Where the budget is most unambiguous is in its messaging to business and financial markets. Fiscal discipline, policy predictability, and sectoral clarity are foregrounded. This is as much political communication as economic policy. By resisting populist pressure, the government reinforces its self-image as a competent steward of the economy—an image it routinely contrasts with what it portrays as the opposition’s fiscal recklessness.
Taken together, the budget reflects an incumbent that is not campaigning, but governing on the assumption that its political foundations are secure. It seeks to reassure rather than excite, to consolidate rather than expand. The underlying bet is clear: that welfare continuity will prevent erosion at the bottom, growth narratives will sustain aspiration in the middle, and the absence of a credible opposition will contain disaffection.
In that sense, this is not a budget designed to change the political weather. It is designed to signal that the government believes the weather is already in its favour. Whether that confidence proves justified will depend less on the fine print of the budget than on outcomes—jobs, prices, and delivery—in the months ahead.
