The Union Finance Minister declared in her July Budget speech, “For promoting women-led development, the budget carries an allocation of more than Rs 3 lakh crore for schemes benefiting women and girls.” Is this true? We discuss the allocations made for benefiting women in this article.
In her 2024–25 Interim Budget speech delivered on February 1, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman talked of giving “Momentum for Nari Shakti”. She stated: “The empowerment of women through entrepreneurship, ease of living, and dignity for them has gained momentum in these ten years”, and that “these measures are getting reflected in the increasing participation of women in workforce.”
The Economic Survey 2023–24, released a day before the July Budget, stated, “India is transitioning from women’s development to women-led development with the vision of a new India where women are equal partners in the story of growth and national progress.”
The Union Finance Minister followed this up by declaring in her July Budget speech, “For promoting women-led development, the budget carries an allocation of more than Rs 3 lakh crore for schemes benefiting women and girls. This signals our government’s commitment for enhancing women’s role in economic development.”
Before discussing the gender budget, let us analyse another important announcement made in her budget speech by the FM, which was also highlighted by some news media.
Creche facilities and Working Women’s Hostels
The FM stated: “We will facilitate higher participation of women in the workforce through setting up of working women hostels in collaboration with industry, and establishing creches.”
If this materialises, this is indeed welcome. But the problem with this initiative is, the Modi Government has put the entire responsibility of implementing this on industry. The Centre has announced no subsidy or financial incentive for the private sector to implement this proposal. Union budget allocation for setting up creches and working women hostels is pathetic. The latest data we have is for 2020–21 — the allocation for Working Women Hostel was a mere Rs 20 crore, in which not one hostel can be constructed, and the spending on National Creche Scheme was Rs 11.6 crore. From 2021–22 onwards, these schemes have been merged into an umbrella scheme called Samarthya, whose budget has been declining (more on this below).
This is not the first time the Modi Government has made such an announcement. It had incorporated a similar provision in the Maternity Benefit Amendment Act passed in 2017, which extended the duration of paid maternity leave from 12 to 26 weeks, and also mandated the establishment of crèche facilities in organisations with 50 or more employees in the formal sector. But the government did not allocate any funds to help the private sector implement these provisions; the entire onus of implementing this amendment was put on employers. While public sector corporations like banks and insurance companies implemented the Act, private sector companies avoided taking on this additional financial burden by retrenching women employees. According to a 2020 survey ‘Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act 2017: Revisiting the Impact’ conducted by the staffing firm TeamLease Services, five sectors — aviation, retail, tourism, real estate, and manufacturing — recorded a decline in the share of women in their workforce. It led to net job loss for women of between 13 to 18 lakhs in FY 2018–19 and around 9.1 to 13.6 lakhs in FY 2019–20.[1]
So, if the Finance Minister indeed seriously follows up on her announcement made in the 2024 budget speech and mounts pressure on private sector industry to establish creches and working women hostels, without the government giving any financial subsidy for this, it is only going to lead to yet more job losses for women and a further decline in female workforce participation, which is already among the lowest in the world.
Most importantly, all such announcements have no impact on the condition of 85% our working women who work in the unorganised sector. Whether it be the 2017 amendment made to the Maternity Benefit Act, or the latest announcement of the FM on creches, they only benefit women working in the formal sector. Women working in the unorganised sector will only benefit if the FM genuinely increases budget spending on public sector education and health facilities and old age pensions — but as we have seen in earlier articles of this budget analysis series, government spending in these sectors has declined during the Modi years.
The policy measure that will benefit women the most is increasing employment opportunities for them. This is of utmost importance to unlock the inherent potential of women. Once women become educated and step outside their home and take up a job, their participation in social production gives them a sense of being an important member of society, they engage with the world and learn to face its challenges, economic independence makes it possible for them to take their own decisions, develop their skills and tastes and develop an independent identity, and all this has a decisive impact on their personality. But as we have discussed in an earlier article, the employment schemes announced in the budget — that have been so much praised in the media — are all a farce.
2024–25 Gender Budget
Let us now analyse the gender budget.
The Gender Budget Statement (GBS) was first introduced in the Union Budget by the then UPA Government in 2005–06. Its purpose was to incorporate gender considerations into all stages of policy-making. Since then, the GBS has been a component of all Union Budgets. It compiles information submitted by the various ministries and departments on how much of their budgetary resources are targeted towards benefiting women.
Compared with last year, the gender budget for FY 2024–25 saw a substantial increase: from Rs 2.38 lakh crore in the BE and Rs 2.75 lakh crore in the RE, it has increased to Rs 3.27 lakh crore in 2024–25 BE — an increase of more than Rs 52,000 crore (Table 1).
Table 1: Gender Budget, 2023–24 RE and 2024–25 BE (Rs crore)
| Gender Budget | Part A | Part B | Part C | |
| 2023–24 RE | 2,75,095 | 83,260 (30.3%) | 1,76,836 (64.3%) | 15,000 (5.5%) |
| 2024–25 BE | 3,27,158 | 1,12,396 (34.4%) | 1,99,762 (61.1%) | 15,000 (4.6%) |
Figures in brackets are percentage of total Gender Budget.
However, a closer look at the GBS in the Union Budget papers of the past 10 years reveals that a large part of the allocations shown under it have actually nothing to do with welfare of women. Let us discuss this with reference to this year’s BE.
The gender budget is divided into three parts: Part A reflects schemes with 100% provision for women, Part B reflects schemes with at least 30% allocations for women, and Part C reflects schemes with allocations for women up to 30%.
Part A details schemes in which 100% provision is for women. The total budget for this is Rs 1.12 lakh crore this year, and constitutes 34% of the total gender budget (Table 1). On the face of it, this shows a serious commitment to women-led development. But if we analyse the details of Part A, we find that 85% of the total budget under Part A is accounted for by only 3 schemes — Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojana (PMAY) (rural and urban), and National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)-Aajevika (Table 2). Even if women are given joint ownership of houses built under PMAY (rural and urban), how is this a scheme that is exclusively meant to benefit women? Yet, 100% of the budget allocation for PMAY-Rural has been included in Part A (and it constitutes 48.5% of Part A).
Table 2: PMAY (Rural & Urban) and NRLM in Part A of Gender Budget (Rs crore)
| Part A of GBS | PMAY-Urban (1) | PMAY-Rural (2) | NRLM-Aajeevika (3) | (1+2+3) as % of Part A | |
| 2023–24 RE | 83,260 | 22,103 | 32,000 | 14,129 | 82% |
| 2024–25 BE | 1,12,396 | 26,171 | 54,500 | 15,047 | 85% |
Strangely, PMAY-Urban was earlier in Part B. In the 2022–23 BE, 82% (Rs 22,955 crore) of the total budget allocation of Rs 28,000 crore was included in GBS. Then, in 2023–24, it was shifted to Part A, and the revised estimate shows that 100% of the budget outlay of Rs 22,103 crore was included in GBS. In 2024–25 BE, it has remained in Part A of GBS, but now 87% of it has been included in GBS (Rs 26,171 crore out of Rs 30,171 crore) (see Table 3). All this reshuffling has been done, without any change in guidelines of the scheme. Even more strange is the case of NRLM-Aajevika. In 2022–23, this scheme was included in Part B, and only 50% of the total budget allocation was considered to be women-centric (Rs 6,668 crore out of Rs 13,336 crore). In 2023–24 BE, this scheme remained in Part B of GBS. Then, all of a sudden, in 2023–24 RE, without any change in its guidelines, this scheme was shifted to Part A of GBS, and now, 100% of its budget allocation was included in GBS (Rs 14,129 crore). In 2024–25 BE also, 100% of the budget allocation for this scheme has been included in Part A (Rs 15,047 crore) (see Table 3).
Table 3: PMAY-Urban and NRLM-Aajeevika in GBS
| 2022–23 BE | 2023–24 RE | 2024–25 BE | ||||
| Location in GBS | GBS allocation as % of total budget outlay of scheme | Location in GBS | GBS allocation as % of total budget outlay of scheme | Location in GBS | GBS allocation as % of total budget outlay of scheme | |
| PMAY-Urban | Part B | 82% | Part A | 100% | Part A | 87% |
| NRLM-Aajeevika | Part B | 50% | Part A | 100% | Part A | 100% |
Part B of GBS includes spending for those schemes where allocation for women constitutes at least 30% of the provision. The total budget for this part is nearly Rs 2 lakh crore this year (Table 1).
More than 75% of the allocation under Part B is accounted for by five departments, all of whom claim that 30–50% of their budget is exclusively meant to benefit women. The Department of Health and Family Welfare has claimed an allocation of Rs 36,725 crore for the Gender Budget, which is 42% of its total allocation of 87,657 crore; the Department of School Education and Literacy claims a gender-oriented allocation of Rs 24,946 crore (34% of total allocation); Department of Higher Education claims this to be Rs 15,671 crore (33% of total allocation); while the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation has stated this to be Rs 36,742 crore (47% of total allocation). The Department of Rural Development has already contributed substantially to Part A of GBS (both PMAY-Rural and NRLM-Ajeevika come under this department); additionally, it claims that another Rs 36,484 crore of its budget comes under Part B of GBS. But these are just claims; no ministry ever submits any report on how it has made these claims, how do its schemes benefit women exclusively, how many women have benefited from its women-oriented schemes, nor is any audit ever done to verify these claims.
Part B also includes allocations like an allocation of Rs 3,975 crore under the Reform Linked Distribution Scheme of the Ministry of Power. This scheme existed in earlier years too, but it never found mention in GBS. This year, for some reason, the Ministry of Power (or the FM?) decided that over 30% of the total allocation of this scheme can be considered an allocation for women.
By such accounting trickery, the total allocation under Part B of GBS has swollen to Rs 1,99,762 crore, and it constitutes 61% of the gender budget (Table 1).
Part C has only once scheme, PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, and the Ministry of Agriculture claims that Rs 15,000 crore of this fund is directed towards benefiting women (out of total allocation of Rs 60,000 crore). But no explanation is forthcoming as to how has this claim been made (like whether one-fourth of the fund is being given to women farmers)? Again, it is just a claim.
Therefore, the claim of our FM that “the budget carries an allocation of more than Rs 3 lakh crore for schemes benefitting women and girls” is humbug. Most of the gender budget, probably more than three-fourths, has actually nothing to do with benefiting women exclusively. It is only another Modi ‘jumla’.
Genuinely Women Oriented Schemes
Let us now take a look at the few schemes under Parts A and B of the GBS which are genuinely women-oriented schemes.
Ujjwala Gas Yojana (PMUY)
The scheme that has received the most publicity in recent times is the Ujjwala scheme to provide subsidised LPG cooking gas to poor women so as to enable them to transition from traditional cooking fuels such as firewood, coal, cow-dung cakes etc. to clean cooking fuel. This scheme comes under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
It is an excellent vote-catching scheme, and so the government initially did spend some money on it. At the same time, in keeping with its wont, it got the public sector oil companies to spend hundreds of crores of rupees on an aggressive advertising campaign involving putting up huge hoardings at airports, railway stations, petrol pumps to even bus-shelters across the country publicising the scheme.
According to a reply given in Parliament, as on 30 September 2023, a total of 9.59 crore free connections had been released since the inception of the scheme in May 2016.[2] The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in a press release claimed that because of the Ujjwala scheme, LPG coverage in the country had jumped to 104% as of January 2022, giving the impression that all households in the country now have LPG connections.[3]
For the poor to benefit from the scheme on a long term basis, what is important is not just provision of free LPG connections, but also LPG refills at affordable rates. Presently, under the scheme, the beneficiaries are provided a free LPG cooking stove and free first refill. For all subsequent refills (up to 12 refills per year), the government provides a subsidy. However, the price of LPG gas cylinders has soared. Therefore, despite the subsidy provided to PMUY beneficiaries, the rate of subsidised cylinders spiked by 82% between January 2018 and March 2023: it was Rs 496 in January 2018, by March 2023, it had zoomed to Rs 903. After that, due to electoral considerations, the Centre increased the subsidy, and brought down the cost of a refill per 14.2 kg LPG cylinder for PMUY beneficiaries to Rs 703 by August 2023 and Rs 603 in February 2024 (in Delhi).[4]
Paying Rs 600–800 for a LPG refill is unaffordable for most poor women. Consequently, as per data provided by the government in Parliament / RTI data provided by oil companies, as many as one in nine poor families did not take any refill in 2021–22 and 2022–23 (Table 4). And as we can see from Table 4, in 2021–22 6.37 crore families and in 2022–23 6.59 crore families took between zero and 4 refills.
Table 4: Number of PMUY Beneficiaries Taking 0–4 Refills in a Year (in lakh)[5]
| Financial Year | No refills | 1 refill | 2 refills | 3 refills | 4 refills | Total |
| 2021–22 | 92 | 161.5 | 148.74 | 130.89 | 103.62 | 636.75 |
| 2022–23 | 118 | 155.81 | 149.24 | 131.19 | 104.27 | 658.51 |
A family of 4–5 persons needs at least 7 to 8 cylinders a year. The total number of PMUY beneficiaries was around 9.34 crore in 2021–22,[6] and it increased to 9.59 crore in 2022–23. This means that at least 60–70% beneficiaries continue to use wood or coal for anywhere between 50 to 100 percent of their cooking needs.
The claim of the Modi Government that LPG coverage in the country has expanded to 104% therefore has little meaning. It is yet another Modi ‘jumla’.
Ministry of Women and Child Development
Most other genuinely and exclusively women-oriented schemes in Parts A and B come under Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD). Over the last eleven Modi budgets, the allocation for this ministry has increased only marginally, from Rs 18,539 crore in 2014–15 A to Rs 26,092 crore in 2024–25 BE, which works out to an annual growth rate of 3.5%.[7] This means that the budgetary allocation for this ministry has declined in real terms. This decline in spending is reflected in the budgetary allocation for MWCD as percentage of budget outlay, that we present in Chart 1 — it has come down by more than 50%.
Chart 1: Budget Allocation for Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2014–15 to 2024–25 (Rs crore)
As per GBS, the total allocation for women oriented schemes (in Parts A and B) in the spending of MWCD is Rs 20,513 crore. Within this allocation, 80% (Rs 16,351 crore) is for just one scheme, Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0, the umbrella scheme directed at providing health, education and nutrition to pregrant and lactating mothers and children. We have discussed this scheme earlier in our budget analysis of nutrition schemes — its budget has declined by more than 50% in the eleven Modi budgets.[8]
The allocation for the remaining genuine women oriented schemes in the budget of the MWCD (within the GBS) is therefore Rs 4,162 crore. Of this, the bulk of the allocation is for Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (we have discussed this scheme in an earlier article, while discussing budget provision for nutrition schemes [9]), and for Mission Vatsalya (a scheme for child protection and welfare). This means that the allocation for the remaining 10 to 15 genuine women oriented schemes is very small.
We give below the allocation for some of these schemes in the 2020–21 budget actuals, the last budget for which the actual spending on these schemes is known to us:
- Mahila Shakti Kendra – 14 cr;
- Swadhar Greh – 24 cr;
- Ujjawala – 8 cr;
- Beti Bachao Beti Padhao – 61 cr;
- Women Helpline – 13 cr;
- One Stop Centre – 160 cr;
- Mahila Police Volunteers – zero;
- Home for widows (constructed at Vrindavan, Mathura) – 1 cr;
- Gender budgeting and research etc. – 55 lakh.
The miniscule allocation for these schemes shows that the Modi Government is not really interested in implementing these schemes, they are basically for propaganda purposes only.
In the 2021–22 budget, to cover up the tiny allocation for these schemes, the FM merged all these schemes into 2 umbrella schemes, ‘Sambal’ and ‘Samarthya’. In the 2022–23 budget, she again reshuffled these schemes, and also added some more schemes to Sambal and Samarthya, such as ‘Nari Adalat’ that does not find mention in the earlier budget papers. So now we don’t know the amount being spent on Women’s Helpline, or Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, or any other scheme.
Such is the apathy of the Modi Government towards the condition of women that it is not serious about spending even this small budget outlay for these schemes. This is evident from Table 5. The revised estimates of 2023–24 show that spending on Sambal was 18% less than the budget estimates, and spending on Samarthya was 28% less.
Table 5: Budget Allocation for Women-Oriented Schemes,
2023–24 and 2024–25 (Rs crore)
| 2023–24 BE | 2023–24 RE | 2024–25 BE | |
| Sambal | 562 | 462 | 629 |
| Samarthya | 2,582 | 1,864 | 2,517 |
Let us take a closer look at one of the most hyped Central schemes for the girl child is Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP), whose advertisements adorn walls and bill-boards across the country. The declared aim of the scheme is to end discrimination against the girl child and educate her. The Prime Minister himself launched the scheme in January 2015.
The funds allocated and spent under the scheme in the 7 Modi budgets from 2014–15 to 2020–21 are given in Chart 2. (After that, the Modi government has clubbed the budget for BBBP scheme with some other schemes into SAMBAL, so data for BBBP scheme after this year is not available.) While the total allocation over these 7 budgets is just Rs 1,267 crore, actual spending is just around half (56%) of this, Rs 683 crore — an average of less than Rs 100 crore per year. But what is absolutely mind-blowing is that of the total amount spent, nearly 60% (Rs 401 crore) was spent on advertisements (Chart 2)!
Chart 2: Funds Sanctioned, Amount Spent, and Spending on Advertisements
Under Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Scheme (Rs crore) [10]
India is one of the world’s worst places to be a woman. Firstly, she may be killed even before being born, or as an infant or a little girl. If she survives that, there is every possibility that as she grows up, she may be molested/raped/tortured by her husband. In India, a crime against a woman is committed every 71 seconds: a woman is molested every 6 minutes, raped every 16 minutes, a case of cruelty committed by either the husband or his relatives occurs every 4 minutes, a woman is kidnapped every 6 minutes, and a dowry death occurs every 81 minutes (all figures for 2022).[11] The above figures are based on reported cases, the actual figures are obviously much more. And yet, our Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who is herself a woman, do not see it fit to provide a decent amount for schemes to provide assistance, support and rehabilitation to women affected by sexual violence. These include schemes like: Swadhar Greh, which is aimed at providing support and rehabilitation to women in difficult circumstances so that they could lead their life with dignity; Ujjawala scheme for rescuing and rehabilitating women victims of sexual trafficking; Women Helpline to provide 24-hour emergency response to women affected by violence; and One Stop Centre that aims to facilitate access to an integrated range of services including medical aid, police assistance, legal aid/case management, psychosocial counseling and temporary support services to women affected by violence. With little funding, most of these schemes are functioning only on paper. To give an example, while the Ministry of Women and Child Development claims that 752 One Stop Centres (OSCs) are operational in the country,[12] several newsreports that investigated these centres found most of the OSCs to be inaccessible, non-operational and largely unknown to the women they are intended to serve.[13]
Such are the efforts being made by the Modi Government for giving “momentum to Nari Shakti”!
India in the Global Gender Gap Report
Is it therefore any surprise that India ranks at 18th position from the bottom in the Global Gender Gap Index? The Global Gender Gap Index is published annually by the World Economic Forum; it quantifies the gaps between women and men in four key areas: health, education, economy, and politics. The 2024 edition of the Gender Gap Index places India at 129 out of the 146 countries surveyed by it. Within South Asia, India ranks behind Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, and is ahead of Pakistan. Small consolation.[14]
The Modi Government makes tall claims about India developing into an economic superpower. But how can a society develop if half its population is discriminated against and sidelined from this development? This had been pointed out by none other than Swami Vivekananda a hundred years ago; unfortunately, even seven decades after independence, his words still ring true:
There is no chance for the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved. It is not possible for a bird to fly on only one wing. . . .
In India there are two great evils. Trampling on the women, and grinding the poor through caste restrictions.[15]
An OECD research paper recently attempted to examine gender inequality from a very narrow economistic frame, and quantify the economic costs of gender discrimination. It came up with the staggering estimate that gender-based discrimination in social institutions costs up to $12 trillion for the global economy.[16]
Notes
1. “Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act 2017: 3 Years Later, Result Far from Satisfactory”, 3 November 2020, https://www.businesstoday.in.
2. Consumption Status Under PMUY, Rajya Sabha Starred Question No. – 76, Answered on 11.12.2023, https://sansad.in.
3. “Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY): LPG Coverage Improves to 104.1% in 2022”, 24 April 2022, https://static.pib.gov.in.
4. Cabinet Approves Continuation of Rs.300 Targeted Subsidy to PM Ujjwala Yojana Consumers, 7 March 2024, https://pib.gov.in; Maitri Porecha, “One in Four Ujjwala Yojana Beneficiaries Took Zero or One LPG Cylinder Refills Last Year Despite Rs 200 Subsidy, RTI Data Reveals”, 31 August 2023, https://www.thehindu.com.
5. For no refills, data from: Maitri Porecha, “One in Four Ujjwala Yojana Beneficiaries Took Zero or One LPG Cylinder Refills Last Year Despite Rs 200 Subsidy, RTI Data Reveals”, 31 August 2023, https://www.thehindu.com; “Ujjwala: Over 9 Million Beneficiaries Did Not Refill Cylinder Last Year, Centre Admits”, 3 August 2022, https://www.downtoearth.org.in. For 1–4 refills, data from: Consumption Status Under PMUY, Rajya Sabha Starred Question No. – 76, op. cit.
6. “Ujjwala: Over 9 Million Beneficiaries Did Not Refill Cylinder Last Year, Centre Admits”, 3 August 2022, https://www.downtoearth.org.in.
7. CAGR. Our calculation.
8. Neeraj Jain, “Analysing Budget 2024–25 from a People’s Perspective, Part 11: The Nutrition Budget”, 7 November 2024, https://countercurrents.org.
9. Ibid.
10. Data for 2014–15 to 2020–21: Based on figures given by Smriti Irani, Minister of Women and Child Development, in the Lok Sabha on 10 February 2023. [Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1511, To be Answered on 10.02.2023, https://sansad.in.] BE for 2021–22 and 2022–23 is not available, as the scheme has been subsumed under the umbrella scheme Sambal. The minister gives the revised estimates for spending under BBBP scheme for these two years in her reply. But advertising expenditure is not available. According to another reply given in the Lok Sabha by Shrimati Irani, for the years after 2020-21, “the component of Media Advocacy has been kept combined for all the sub schemes of Mission Shakti including BBBP.”[Budget Allocation For BBBP Scheme, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1762, To be Answered on 16.12.2022, https://sansad.in..]
11. Calculated by us from data given in: Crime in India 2022: Statistics, Volume 1, NCRB, https://www.ncrb.gov.in.
12. A Total of 752 One Stop Centres Operational in the Country Assisting 801062 Women, 6 December 2023, https://pib.gov.in.
13. “Failing Them Again: Beds Remain Empty as One-Stop Centres for Rape Survivors Under Nirbhaya Fund Remain Crippled with Low Referral, Official Apathy”, 18 June 2023, https://indianexpress.com; Srishti Mukherjee and Kumari Rajnandani, “Probing the Reality of India’s One Stop Centres for Women in Distress”, 28 April 2024, https://theprobe.in.
14. Ashwini Deshpande, “Cost of Inequality: What India’s 129 Rank in Global Gender Gap Index Means”, 20 June 2024, https://indianexpress.com.
15. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 6, Epistles—Second Series, LXXV, 1895, www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info.
16. Gaëlle Ferrant and Alexandre Kolev, “The Economic Cost of Gender-Based Discrimination in Social Institutions”, OECD Development Centre, June 2016, https://www.oecd.org.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(Neeraj Jain is a social–political activist with an activist group called Lokayat in Pune, and is also the Associate Editor of Janata Weekly, a weekly print magazine and blog published from Mumbai. He is the author of several books, including ‘Globalisation or Recolonisation?’ and ‘Education Under Globalisation: Burial of the Constitutional Dream’.)
