When the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) scheme was launched in January 2015, it was projected as a transformative intervention to address one of India’s most pressing social crises—the declining child sex ratio and the systemic discrimination against the girl child. Announced with strong political symbolism and mass outreach, the programme quickly became one of the most recognisable initiatives of the Modi government. However, a closer examination of official budgetary data and parliamentary disclosures reveals a troubling gap between intent and execution, especially in the scheme’s early years.
A Scheme Built on Awareness—but at What Cost?
BBBP was conceived as a multi-ministerial programme involving the Ministries of Women and Child Development, Health, and Education. Its core pillars included preventing gender-biased sex selection, ensuring survival and protection of the girl child, and promoting her education and empowerment. Importantly, the scheme was designed as a behavioural change initiative, where advocacy, communication, and community engagement played a central role.
Yet, data placed before Parliament over multiple years shows that a disproportionately large share of the scheme’s funds was spent on media and publicity, raising serious questions about whether awareness-building eclipsed on-ground action.
Between 2014–15 and 2018–19, the Union government allocated over ₹600 crore to the BBBP scheme. Parliamentary replies revealed that around 56% of this amount “over ₹360 crore” was spent on advertisements, publicity campaigns, and media advocacy, while less than one-fourth of the total allocation actually reached states and districts for implementation. Nearly one-fifth of the funds remained unreleased altogether.
This imbalance was further highlighted by reports of parliamentary standing committees, which noted that almost 79% of the funds released to states during certain years were used for media advocacy, not for grassroots interventions such as education incentives, health outreach, or enforcement of laws against sex-selective practices.
The “80% Advertising” Claim: Exaggeration or Reality?
The oft-cited claim that “80% of the BBBP budget was spent on advertisements” is not an official government figure, but it did not emerge in a vacuum. It is a rounded-up interpretation of cumulative data from the scheme’s early years, particularly when focusing on the funds actually released and utilised, rather than the total allocation. In several years, advertising and publicity clearly dominated expenditure patterns.
These revelations triggered criticism from civil society groups, policy analysts, and opposition parties, who argued that a programme meant to save and educate the girl child had been reduced to a branding exercise. The criticism was not merely political; it was grounded in the stark mismatch between spending priorities and measurable improvements in child sex ratio and female empowerment indicators in many districts.
Government Pushback and Changing Spending Patterns
In response to sustained criticism, the government has repeatedly defended the scheme, arguing that BBBP is fundamentally an awareness-driven programme, and that communication campaigns are essential to changing deep-rooted social attitudes. Officials also pointed out that outcomes such as shifts in mindset cannot always be measured through immediate physical outputs.
More importantly, recent parliamentary replies suggest a significant shift in spending patterns after 2020. According to official data placed in the Rajya Sabha, between 2020–21 and 2024–25, the total expenditure under BBBP was about ₹335 crore, out of which only around ₹7 crore (roughly 2%) was spent on media advocacy—and that too largely confined to one financial year.
The government has used this data to categorically reject the “80% advertising” allegation, stating that such claims are outdated and misleading when applied to the current phase of the scheme.
The Real Issue: Outcomes, Not Optics
While the reduction in advertising expenditure in recent years is noteworthy, it does not automatically settle the larger debate. The core concern remains whether BBBP has translated into sustained, measurable improvements on the ground.
India’s child sex ratio has shown marginal improvement at the national level, but progress remains uneven across states and districts. Moreover, BBBP does not function as a standalone welfare scheme with direct benefits; it relies heavily on convergence with existing health, education, and social welfare programmes. This design makes it harder to isolate outcomes directly attributable to BBBP spending.
Critics argue that without transparent district-wise reporting on how funds are used and what outcomes are achieved, it is difficult to assess whether the scheme has moved beyond symbolism. Awareness campaigns may create visibility, but without strong local enforcement, school retention efforts, healthcare access, and safety measures, their impact risks being superficial.
Lessons from a Decade of BBBP
The trajectory of Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao offers an important policy lesson. Large-scale social campaigns require a careful balance between communication and implementation. Excessive focus on visibility can undermine credibility, especially when ground realities fail to reflect the rhetoric.
At the same time, the government’s recent course correction—if sustained—suggests an acknowledgment that early spending priorities were skewed. Whether this shift will lead to better outcomes remains to be seen.
Final Take
BBBP remains a powerful idea with wide public resonance. However, its legacy is mixed. In its early years, the scheme became emblematic of governance driven more by messaging than measurable impact, with official data showing that advertising consumed a dominant share of resources. While spending patterns appear to have changed in recent years, the success of BBBP will ultimately be judged not by how loudly it was promoted, but by whether India’s daughters are safer, healthier, and better educated because of it.
For a programme meant to save and empower the girl child, the true test lies not in billboards or campaigns, but in classrooms, clinics, and communities across the country.
By Gautam Jha
Managing Editor
