‘Why Have Bahujan Entrepreneurs Been Kept Out Of Top Public Contracts?’
FILE PHOTO: Workers make pipes used for drilling, at a factory in an industrial area in Mumbai
Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has raised serious concerns over the absence of data tracking the participation of Dalit, Adivasi, and Other Backward Class (OBC) entrepreneurs in India’s public works and infrastructure contracts. His remarks have sparked a renewed debate on whether government spending truly reflects the principles of inclusive growth.
In a recent Facebook post, Gandhi highlighted what he described as a critical blind spot in the system. Despite thousands of crores being spent annually on public works, the government does not maintain records on how many contracts are awarded to businesses owned by Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and OBCs. “Last year, out of Rs 16,500 crore worth of public works contracts, how many went to Dalit, Adivasi and backward class businesses? The answer is deeply worrying — the government has no data,” he stated.
This issue traces back to a question Gandhi raised in the Lok Sabha (Unstarred Question No. 6264), where he sought detailed information from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. His query focused not only on the total number and value of contracts awarded over the past five years but also on a category-wise breakdown of beneficiaries based on social groups.
The response from the government revealed a significant gap. While aggregate figures on contracts are available, there is currently no mechanism to track the social identity of contractors. This effectively means that the government cannot assess whether marginalized communities are benefiting proportionately from public spending.
This lack of data is more than a technical oversight—it represents a systemic issue. Without proper tracking, it becomes nearly impossible to evaluate whether policies aimed at social justice and economic inclusion are being implemented effectively. Gandhi’s criticism underscores a broader concern: that growth figures alone do not capture the distribution of opportunities across different sections of society.
Policy Gaps and Government Response
Responding to Gandhi’s query, Union Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs, Tokhan Sahu, clarified the government’s position. He stated that while comprehensive data on public contracts is maintained, tracking the social category of contractors is not mandated in the case of construction and infrastructure projects. This, he explained, is why such data is currently unavailable.
However, Gandhi argued that this absence of mandatory tracking undermines existing policy commitments. He pointed out that government procurement rules already require that 25 percent of purchases be made from Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), with a sub-target of 4 percent specifically earmarked for SC/ST-owned businesses. Yet, according to him, these provisions are not effectively applied to large-scale public works contracts.
He further questioned whether the government had met its 4 percent procurement target for SC/ST enterprises and whether similar provisions were being considered for OBC-owned businesses. Due to the lack of category-wise data, these questions remain unanswered. “Rules exist on paper, but without data, there is no accountability,” Gandhi implied through his critique.
The scale of public spending adds urgency to the issue. Parliamentary data indicates that infrastructure and public works investments have grown steadily in recent years. In the financial year 2025–26 alone, 8,402 contracts worth Rs 16,587 crore were awarded. This makes public procurement a major driver of economic activity—and, potentially, a powerful tool for social inclusion.
Critics argue that without transparency, this tool cannot be used effectively. If the government does not know who is benefiting from these contracts, it cannot ensure equitable distribution. This concern is particularly significant in a country like India, where historical inequalities have long affected access to economic opportunities.
At the same time, the government’s stance suggests a different set of priorities. By focusing on aggregate growth and ease of doing business, policymakers may be aiming to streamline processes and avoid additional compliance burdens. However, this approach risks overlooking the need for targeted inclusion.
The controversy has therefore brought two competing perspectives into focus. On one hand, there is the argument for efficiency and simplicity in public procurement systems. On the other, there is a growing demand for transparency and social accountability, particularly in the allocation of large public resources.
Ultimately, Gandhi’s intervention has highlighted a fundamental question: can economic growth be considered truly inclusive if there is no data to prove it? His remarks suggest that without measurable indicators, claims of inclusivity remain difficult to verify.
As infrastructure spending continues to expand, the pressure on the government to address these concerns is likely to increase. Whether this leads to policy changes—such as mandatory data collection on contractor demographics—remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over transparency and equity in public procurement is far from over.
