Every year, when the Union Budget is presented, there are eye-catching headlines informing us of the lakhs of crores allocated across sectors. But one simple question rarely enters public debate: how much of this money is working to reduce inequality between women and men?Women constitute nearly half of India’s population. Yet public spending is not automatically gender neutral. Roads, transport systems, credit policies, healthcare, skill training and other aspects of ‘progress and development’ affect women and men differently. Recognising this reality, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government introduced the Gender Budget Statement) in 2005–06. The Gender Budget Statement was a structural reform, and not a mere slogan.The idea was simple but powerful. The Gender Budget Statement was not a separate “budget for women”. Instead, it required every ministry to disclose how its expenditure benefits women. Allocations were divided into two categories: Part A, which includes schemes 100% meant for women, and Part B, where at least 30% of spending benefits women. For the first time, the Union Budget was forced to answer a fundamental question: who really benefits from public money?This reform aligned India with global commitments following the 1995 Beijing Conference under the United Nations. More importantly, it reflected a deeper governance philosophy, which is that economic policy must actively correct structural inequality rather than assume neutrality.Why does this matter?Inequality is not abstract. Women in India continue to face lower workforce participation, higher unpaid care burdens, mobility and safety constraints and nutritional disadvantages. Without deliberate fiscal correction, these gaps deepen invisibly. Budgets shape whether a woman can access childcare, travel safely to work, receive maternal healthcare, or obtain skill training. In that sense, budgets are moral documents. They reveal whose lives are prioritised.The economic case is equally compelling. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly noted that closing gender gaps in labour force participation can significantly boost GDP. In fact, an IMF research suggests that closing India’s gender gap in labour force participation could raise GDP by nearly 27%. This would be a transformative expansion of national income. The Gender Budget Statement of the Congress-led UPA government recognised this economic potential nearly two decades ago, embedding gender equality within the architecture of growth policy rather than treating it as an afterthought. World Bank has shown that women reinvest a far higher proportion of their income into family welfare, improving nutrition, education and intergenerational outcomes.Also read: How the Draft Social Security Rules Weaken Maternity RightsIndia was once at the forefront of this conversation and was the first country in South Asia to adopt the Gender Budget Statement. In its early years, the Gender Budget Statement helped institutionalise gender accountability across ministries. Within a few years of its introduction, more than 50 Union government ministries and departments were reporting gender-disaggregated allocations, supported by dedicated Gender Budgeting Cells across government. These cells brought visibility to women-focused allocations.The fiscal commitment reflected this seriousness. In its first year in 2005–06, the Gender Budget Statement accounted for roughly Rs 24,000 crore. By 2013–14, allocations had risen to nearly Rs 1 lakh crore, signalling sustained expansion rather than symbolic intent. In recent years, the headline allocation has crossed Rs 2.23 lakh crore. This appears to be a substantial figure by any measure. Yet for much of the past decade, the gender budget has hovered around roughly 5 percent of total Union expenditure, even as overall spending expanded sharply. Moreover, a growing proportion of allocations has shifted toward Part B classifications, which are schemes that only partially benefit women, raising questions about whether scale has been matched by structural focus.Headline increases do not automatically translate into structural empowerment. Without stronger women-specific investments in childcare infrastructure, workforce participation, safety systems and outcome-based monitoring, the transformative promise of gender budgeting remains under-realised.The framework survives. The urgency appears diminished.Gender budgeting was introduced as an institutional commitment to equality. It recognised that markets alone do not correct structural imbalance. It was designed to make governments accountable, year after year, for measurable progress in women’s lives.Gender justice cannot be delivered through rhetoric alone. It must be written into the nation’s balance sheet and backed by sustained political will. Jeenal N. Gala is the national coordinator and communications in charge of Minority Department, All India Congress Committee (AICC).