Context

• India’s LPG crisis of March 2026, triggered by the war in West Asia and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, is often explained through import dependence, chokepoint vulnerability, and inadequate storage.
• While these explain the trigger, they fail to address why a major welfare programme could not shield its beneficiaries.
• The deeper issue lies in the welfare architecture, which amplified the crisis’s impact and the distinction between supply chain shock and structural weakness is crucial to understanding the severity of the disruption.

Gaps in India’s LPG Welfare Architecture and Its Impact

• Expansion Without Resilience
  • Over the past decade, the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) expanded LPG access to over 10 crore households, significantly improving clean cooking access.
  • This transition reduced reliance on biomass fuels, delivering measurable gains such as time savings, reduced drudgery, and improved health outcomes for women.
  • The programme represented a major step toward energy transition and social welfare expansion.
  • However, the model prioritised connections over continuity. While access increased, the system lacked safeguards to ensure uninterrupted supply during disruptions.
  • The absence of resilience planning meant that benefits remained conditional on stable market conditions, exposing households to external shocks.
• From State Provision to Market Dependence
  • A critical shift occurred when LPG replaced kerosene distributed through the Public Distribution System (PDS).
  • Despite inefficiencies, the PDS ensured state-controlled supply, physical stockholding, and predictable access.
  • The transition to LPG moved households into a market-based system dependent on global commodity flows.
  • India imports nearly 60% of its LPG, with about 90% routed through the Strait of Hormuz, creating a severe geopolitical risk.
  • Unlike crude oil, there is no dedicated strategic LPG reserve, and existing reserves remain limited.
  • This shift replaced a controlled but flawed system with an efficient yet fragile one, without building adequate supply security mechanisms.

The Illusion of Sovereign Guarantee

• PMUY projected a strong sovereign guarantee, reinforced through government branding, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), and political ownership.
• These elements created an expectation of state accountability and reliability.
• In practice, however, supply depended on global markets and vulnerable trade routes. The state retained symbolic control while lacking direct capacity to manage disruptions.
• This resulted in a misalignment between promise and delivery, where visible assurances were not supported by physical infrastructure or contingency systems.

The Crisis Impact: Unequal Burdens and Social Stratification

• Even in normal conditions, many beneficiaries struggled with affordability constraints, leading to low refill rates or partial reversion to traditional fuels.
• Rising prices and delays intensified this energy insecurity.
• Existing social inequalities further shape access. Scheduled Caste and tribal households face lower LPG usage due to gaps in distribution networks and entrenched hierarchies.
• During shortages, these disparities become sharper, reflecting structural exclusion within delivery systems.
• The gendered burden is equally significant. Although women are the formal beneficiaries, they lack control over supply and pricing.
• When LPG becomes inaccessible, women absorb the impact through increased labour, often reverting to biomass.
• This undermines gains in women’s empowerment, revealing a gap between formal entitlement and actual agency.

The Way Forward: Designing for Resilience

• Strengthening the system requires targeted reforms rather than complete overhaul.
• Establishing a strategic LPG buffer can protect against short-term shocks, while diversifying import routes can reduce reliance on a single maritime chokepoint.
• Clear crisis protocols are essential to ensure equitable distribution during shortages. Expanding alternatives such as community biogas, supported under initiatives like GOBARdhan, can provide localised energy solutions.
• Similarly, scaling up piped gas networks in urban areas can reduce dependence on cylinder-based supply.
• A resilient welfare system must incorporate redundancy, decentralised alternatives, and adaptive mechanisms to prevent disruptions from reaching households.

Conclusion

• The LPG crisis highlights a fundamental limitation in welfare design: success was measured in coverage expansion rather than reliability.
• While PMUY achieved large-scale inclusion, it did not ensure continuity under stress.
• A durable welfare system must go beyond access to guarantee supply stability, especially in times of crisis.
• True transformation requires embedding resilience, ensuring that benefits remain intact even under adverse conditions.
• Without this shift, welfare gains remain vulnerable, and the promise of inclusive development risks becoming contingent on fragile global systems.