The Supreme Court’s remark that the handouts announced liberally during elections could be creating “a class of parasites” was an unkind cut made while hearing a case about providing shelter to the homeless. The backdrop was the competitive populism practised by every political party in India today. Caught in the middle of populist politics and conservative economics are crores of Indians still in the throes of poverty, for whom the so-called freebies are a much-needed lifeline.
It’s true that political parties have been tripping over each other to offer newer ‘guarantees’ to grab votes—cash transfers, free foodgrains and farm subsidies among them. The central government runs one of the largest schemes, giving 81 crore people free grains under the PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, a Covid-era scheme extended till December 2028. All state governments offer welfare schemes of one shape or another. According to a recent report from a private bank, a fifth of India’s adult women are now eligible for the cash transfers offered by various state governments.
It’s also true that taxpayers’ money is at stake, which is spread thin to keep the schemes going and the politicians in business. However, a cash-for-votes model can dent both democracy and development. Such largesse is seen going against the belief in ambition, enterprise and competition, and fostering resentment against the ‘brother’s keeper’ philosophy. But in truth, hardly anyone turns down the opportunity to work and earn a dignified keep, as MGNREGA has proved. The Supreme Court had sought to know how long such freebies could be sustained and if jobs could be provided; it is soon due to hear related petitions.
Competitive populism may be endemic in an elections-only democracy, but it’s not sustainable. Voters must demand sound financial plans from populist politicians to avoid thrusting their future generations into tougher economic realities. How to fund development and welfare should be made clear first, and taxation cannot be the only way. Crores of Indians face various levels of poverty. So it’s the welfare state’s responsibility to explain how it will provide for all that has been promised.