Indian Politics & Policy Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2020 | Page 63

Understanding Voting Patterns by Class in the 2019 Indian Election
ruption, etc.) were most important for
only 26 percent, while growth and development
mattered for 17 percent. One
cannot infer from the fact of economic
issues being the most important that
this indicates dissatisfaction with the
government’s performance; it is quite
possible that the mention of growth
and development is an indicator of satisfaction
with the government’s performance.
As many as 47 percent thought
that the Modi government should get
a second chance compared to 35 percent
against, with the Rich endorsing a
comeback by 55 percent and even the
Poor by 44 percent.
In terms of receipt of government
benefits, the findings are as follows. In
the past month (this was a post-election
survey), one-fifth of households
had received some government money
remarkably evenly across classes, with
only one-sixth of the poor receiving
money, and 37 percent crediting the
Centre and the state government. The
housing scheme (Awas Yojana) benefited
21 percent over the past five years,
fairly uniformly across classes, with the
Rich at 15 percent, with half crediting
the Centre and one-third the state government.
Again, 21 percent benefited
from the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MNREGA)
employment guarantee scheme (begun
by the Congress-led UPA government,
but continued by the NDA-II),
again uniformly across classes, except
for the Rich at a surprising 16 percent,
for which half credited the Centre and
one-third the state government. And 17
percent had benefited over the past five
years from free hospitalization, again
uniformly across classes, for which
over half credited the Centre and 30
percent the state government. Further,
25 percent had over the past five years
received old age, widows, or disabilities
pensions, again uniformly across
classes, for which under a third credited
the Centre and over half the state
government. As many as 44 percent had
benefited from the food subsidy (Public
Distribution System) over the past
five years, with the Rich at 31 percent
and the Poor at 50 percent, for which
57 percent across classes credited the
state government and 27 percent the
Centre; 13 percent had received benefits
from income support schemes for
farmers, with the Poor less at 10 percent
and the Rich at 16 percent, for which 44
percent across classes credited the Centre.
Moreover, 13 percent had benefited
from loan waivers with the Poor 10
percent and the Rich at 16 percent, with
half crediting the state government and
one-third the Centre. As many as 34
percent had benefited from the Ujjwala
Yojana, with roughly similar proportions
across classes, and with 71 percent
crediting the Centre. Finally, 22 percent
across classes benefited from the Jan
Dhan Yojana of bank accounts for the
unbanked, with 71 percent crediting
the Centre.
What is noteworthy is that onefifth
of households had received some
money over the past month, and that
the nine welfare programs above had
benefited 13–34 percent of the respondents,
with a large proportion in each
case crediting the Central government,
and hence the BJP or Modi personally;
of those who credited the state
59