Rs 10,000 for 75 Lakh Women in Bihar — A Moment to Celebrate, and to Reflect

When I first read the headlines that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had transferred Rs 10,000 into the bank accounts of 75 lakh women in Bihar — a total of roughly Rs 7,500 crore — I felt a familiar mix of satisfaction and unease. The news itself is straightforward: a substantial direct cash transfer intended for women, announced at a high-profile launch and defended as the start of a larger push for women's empowerment ANI News. The political context and reactions — from celebration to accusations of vote-buying — are also familiar terrain Economic Times.

I have written about this tension before: about the goodness of putting money directly into the hands of women, and about the danger of turning welfare into a political instant gratification machine. Seeing this episode unfold, I feel validated that these were not idle worries.

What this cash transfer does well

• It recognizes women as direct beneficiaries and actors. Direct transfers respect agency — the money goes to women, not to intermediaries. That matters. The optics and immediate relief can be real and meaningful for households that need liquidity now. The announcement itself signals priority for women's welfare in public discourse ANI News.

• It leverages existing digital rails. Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) and bank penetration make such transfers efficient; the state can reach millions quickly.

Why I worry — and why my earlier writings feel prescient

There is a long, well-documented tradition of freebies and transfers being deployed around elections. Retired officials and commentators have catalogued how political distributions — from cash to consumer goods to services — become electoral instruments. I wrote about this phenomenon years ago when I catalogued the many ways voters are courted and cautioned that such practices can vitiate the level playing field and create dependencies (see my piece on bribing voters) Bribing The Voters. The concern is not moralizing; it is pragmatic: when transfers become the primary tool for political engagement, we risk substituting durable empowerment with ephemeral favors.

A timely critique from the Opposition that this is an attempt to "buy" votes is predictable; equally predictable are the Government's counter-claims about empowerment. Both perspectives matter. The more important question for me is structural: will this Rs 10,000 be a bridge or a bandage?

What I have argued before — and why it still matters

Over the past few years I have repeatedly argued that transfers should be part of a larger architecture that includes skill formation, livelihood creation and institutional protection for women:

• In my piece on the larger national move toward state-level allocations for women's welfare, I welcomed large budgetary commitments but insisted they be tied to sustainable outcomes (India's Nine States Allocate 1 Lakh Crore…).
• In "Empowering Women: No Dole" I argued that dignity comes from steady earning opportunities and social protections, not solely from periodic cash infusions (Empowering Women : No Dole).
• When the government launched the Bima Sakhi / insurance-style schemes, I welcomed the idea of financial inclusion but urged accompanying measures to make benefits durable — skills, market linkages and safety nets (Empowering Women : No Dole — Bima Sakhi commentary).
• And when national leaders call for a debate on the culture of freebies, I felt it echoed an argument I have long made: we need a national policy and transparent criteria for what counts as acceptable welfare versus what becomes politically timed giveaways (RS Chair calls for Debate National Policy on Freebies).

Take a moment to notice that I raised these issues years ago: I predicted the dilemmas and proposed solutions that focus on building assets and skills rather than creating long-term dependency. Seeing them play out now is both validating and urgent.

A pragmatic lens: how to judge this transfer

When a large-scale transfer is announced, ask three questions:

1. Is it targeted transparently and fairly? Who is eligible, and by what criteria?
2. Is it one-off relief or a bridge to sustained opportunity? Are there plans to link recipients to skilling, self‑employment support, or stable monthly wages?
3. Are there accountability and monitoring mechanisms to ensure this is not merely an election-timed distribution?

If the answers lean toward transparency, linkage to livelihoods, and robust monitoring, then this Rs 10,000 can be the start of something meaningful. If not, we will have another episode to add to the catalogue of one-off freebies that shift short-term arithmetic but not long-term life chances.

Final reflection

I celebrate every policy that acknowledges and invests in women. At the same time, I keep returning to the same point I have made before: policy must build capability, not just consumption. Transfers can be powerful tools — when they are designed as investments in people, not as theatre for elections.

I feel a modest satisfaction that my earlier warnings and proposals are being echoed, debated and, I hope, acted upon. That sense of validation comes with renewed urgency: the policy choices we make now will determine whether Rs 10,000 becomes the beginning of a transformation, or another headline in a long electoral season.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh