12 September,2026 04:05 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Uddhav Thackeray. File Pic
The Shiv Sena (UBT) has criticised what it described as the growing use of election-time financial incentives by political parties, drawing a comparison between US President Donald Trump's proposed "Trump Dividend" and welfare schemes announced by political parties in India.
In an editorial published in the party mouthpiece Saamana on Saturday, the Uddhav Thackeray-led party alleged that the growing reliance on publicly funded handouts for electoral purposes was weakening democratic institutions and undermining public accountability.
The editorial compared Trump's reported proposal to provide USD 5,000 to eligible adult Americans if Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress with welfare schemes introduced by governments and political parties in India.
The editorial referred to schemes such as "Ladki Bahin" in India and similar welfare programmes announced by state governments, arguing that direct financial assistance can become an electoral instrument when announced close to elections.
"What Modi and Shah are doing in India, Trump is replicating in the United States -- using public money, distributing handouts and winning elections," the editorial claimed, adding that although the beneficiaries may differ, the underlying political approach remains the same.
The party argued that the proposed US payment represented a broader trend in which governments use direct financial benefits to attract or retain voter support.
According to the editorial, the proposal would carry a significant fiscal cost for the US government. It claimed that distributing USD 5,000 to every eligible adult could create a financial burden of more than USD 1 trillion on the US Treasury.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) also raised questions over the proposal's financial implications, citing the size of US government debt and the country's fiscal deficit.
The editorial claimed that the proposal had also generated concern within Trump's Republican Party over how it would be funded and implemented.
"Furthermore, distributing this handout will require congressional approval. The moment Trump announced the USD 5,000 payout, leaders and ministers within his own party were left bewildered. Vice President J.D. Vance expressed clear dismay, attempting to control the narrative by stating that the money would only be distributed following strict scrutiny and legal procedures, ensuring wealthy adults would not benefit. This reflects the same strategy used by the Indian government's grand announcements first, then delay execution using conditional clauses and bureaucratic fine print," claimed the editorial.
The party said the proposal demonstrated the challenges governments could face when electoral promises involving large-scale public expenditure are made without clarity on their implementation and funding.
Drawing a parallel with Indian politics, the editorial also referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 2014 electoral campaign and its claim regarding the recovery of black money and the possibility of depositing Rs 15 lakh in the bank account of every Indian.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) alleged that the promise remained unfulfilled and used it as an example of what it described as political promises that are difficult to implement.
The editorial also criticised welfare programmes announced by state governments, arguing that such schemes were increasingly being presented as electoral measures rather than as part of long-term social and economic policy.
The party argued that the focus on direct financial benefits could divert attention from broader economic challenges.
In India, the editorial cited unemployment, inflation and difficulties faced by farmers as issues that it said continued to require attention. It similarly argued that the US administration had been unable to resolve several domestic challenges despite Trump's focus on his political agenda.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) said political parties should instead focus on structural solutions to economic and social problems rather than relying on cash transfers and other benefits to influence voters.
The editorial characterised the use of government-funded benefits as a growing international phenomenon, arguing that political parties across countries were increasingly using such measures to appeal directly to voters.
It claimed that this approach could weaken public accountability by shifting political debate away from governance, economic performance and long-term policy.
The party maintained that welfare measures have a legitimate role in supporting vulnerable sections of society but argued that their timing and presentation become problematic when they are primarily used as electoral instruments.
The editorial concluded that "freebie politics", whether in India or the US, risked compromising democratic principles and diminishing accountability.
