Gifts, Votes and Everyday Politics:
By Devendra Budakoti
The seizure of liquor and unaccounted cash by police and excise officials during elections has become almost routine in India. Whether during national, state, or local (panchayat) elections, media reports often highlight these incidents as examples of how parties try to sway voters using material incentives. Over time, such practices have come to be seen as part of the “usual” election season toolkit.
This links to a common belief: that offering alcohol or money is a way to buy votes or influence electoral outcomes. It fits into the broader concern with clientelism, the idea that political support is exchanged for goods or favours. In public debates, these practices are often seen as signs of democratic decline or voter manipulation.
But what actually happens on the ground can be more complicated.
During the recent panchayat elections in Uttarakhand, some limited fieldwork suggested that while voters did accept distributed liquor, it didn’t necessarily change how they voted. In fact, many seemed to vote based on long-standing social ties such as family networks, community relationships, or caste loyalties, rather than just material inducements.
This suggests that voters aren’t just passive targets of manipulation. They often navigate these offers in their own way, accepting gifts without letting them dictate their choices. In this context, alcohol may function less as a tool of influence and more as part of the political ritual, a kind of informal celebration that has come to be expected during election time. It doesn’t necessarily override voter agency. Instead, it becomes part of the social performance of politics. Parties are expected to “show face” by offering something, and voters, in turn, navigate these performances with their own reasoning and loyalties.
This more grounded view challenges the assumption that every bottle of liquor handed out equals a vote bought. What it shows is that local politics is shaped as much by relationships and reputations as by resources. People aren’t just voting for a candidate who gave them something; they’re often choosing based on who they know, who they trust, or who they see as “one of us.”
It also reflects how elections are deeply embedded in everyday social life. Rather than being purely transactional events, they are spaces where political identities, group dynamics, and longstanding networks play out in visible ways. Material exchange is part of the story, but it’s not the whole story, and certainly not always the decisive one.
In that sense, understanding Indian elections means looking beyond headlines about seized liquor and unaccounted cash. It means paying attention to how political meaning is made in homes, courtyards, tea shops, and village meetings. These are the places where people talk, argue, remember past promises, and ultimately decide, in their own ways, how to vote.
(The author is a sociologist and an alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His research work is quoted in books of Nobel laureate Prof Amartya Sen)
