Assam’s Welfare Debate Needs Memory Check

Assam’s welfare debate today is not short on opinions—it is short on memory. Much of the criticism directed at the last two terms of the National Democratic Alliance government rests on a convenient assumption: that voter-oriented welfare is a recent distortion of governance. It is not. It never was.

To suggest otherwise is to overlook a long and uninterrupted pattern in Assam’s political history, where welfare has been as much a tool of governance as it has been an instrument of political legitimacy.

Across regimes—including those led by the Indian National Congress before 2016—welfare expansion formed the backbone of state policy. MGNREGA was not merely an employment scheme; in many districts, it was a lifeline. The Public Distribution System, despite inefficiencies, ensured that food security reached households that had little margin for economic shocks. In a flood-prone state with fragile rural incomes, these were not optional policies. They were essential.

That logic has not changed. What has changed is the manner in which it is executed.

Under the NDA, welfare delivery in Assam has become more targeted, more visible, and more politically communicable. The Orunodoi scheme—now reaching over 25 lakh women—is emblematic of this shift. It is direct, identifiable, and electorally resonant. But it is also part of a broader administrative transition towards Direct Benefit Transfers, enabled by digital infrastructure and financial inclusion.

Let us be clear: this is an evolution in delivery, not a reinvention of intent. In Assam, welfare has not changed direction—it has changed delivery.

And yet, the discourse surrounding it has taken a sharper, often selective turn. Welfare is now either projected as a transformative breakthrough unique to the present regime or dismissed outright as fiscal populism. Both positions flatten reality. Welfare has always operated in this dual space—serving immediate economic needs while strengthening political capital. That was true a decade ago; it remains true today.

The real question, then, is not why welfare exists, but why its critique has become so selective.

Part of the answer lies in the changing nature of political communication. Today’s schemes are not just implemented; they are branded, amplified, and directly linked to leadership. Visibility has increased—and with it, scrutiny. What earlier governments did with relative administrative quiet now unfolds in full public view.

But visibility alone does not explain the intensity of criticism. There is also a growing tendency in political discourse to treat continuity as an inconvenience. Acknowledging that welfare politics predates the current regime complicates easy narratives. It is simpler, and often more effective, to present it as a recent excess.

That simplification, however, comes at a cost. It reduces a complex governance continuum into a narrow political argument.

This is not to suggest that welfare policies should escape scrutiny. They must not. Assam continues to allocate a significant portion of its expenditure—often over one-third—to social and welfare sectors. In a fiscally constrained state, this raises legitimate questions about sustainability, efficiency, and long-term impact. Do these schemes create pathways out of vulnerability, or do they risk entrenching dependency? These are questions worth asking—and answering.

But those questions lose their force when framed selectively.

It is equally important to move beyond the assumption that welfare alone drives electoral outcomes. Assam’s voters are neither passive nor predictable. Their decisions reflect a layered understanding of governance—development, identity, infrastructure, leadership. Welfare matters, but it does not operate in isolation. It never has.

The problem, therefore, is not welfare politics. It is the way we choose to remember—and critique—it.

To isolate the present from the past is not just analytically weak; it is politically misleading. Welfare in Assam has evolved through phases—expanded, adapted, digitised. Each phase has built upon the previous one. Ignoring that continuity does not strengthen the debate; it diminishes it.

Assam does not need a louder argument over welfare. It needs a more honest one. One that acknowledges history, recognises evolution, and evaluates policy on outcomes rather than optics.

Because in the end, the real issue is not who gives welfare—but how well it works.