Centre’s freebie is social welfare for states
The raging debate over freebie versus welfare schemes has gone beyond an exasperating squabble over semantics. The 15th Finance Commission, tasked to recommend measures to fortify cooperative federalism and enhance the quality of public spending, used the term ‘populist measure’. The new expression ‘revdi culture’, which likened the popular candy to freebies doled out by political parties in lieu of votes, has given fresh ammo to several Opposition-ruled states.
They have unequivocally asserted that New Delhi is trespassing into their territorial freedom. Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Palanivel Thiagarajan, who strode into the debate with clinical ease, reminded BJP that a social welfare scheme for women in TN a few years ago that provided half the cost of scooter was flagged off by none other than the PM, when its alliance partner AIADMK was in power. His riposte created a flutter and pushed the Centre into a hushed corner. The apex court’s entry into the space mostly carved out from the unconstitutional righteousness and its tenacity to set up a committee to separate the chaff have given the debate a lot more urgency. Several Opposition parties have impleaded themselves with intervention applications.
With the general elections around the corner, the Centre’s mission to end the freebie culture is nothing less than walking on the razor’s edge. The Opposition retort is high-pitched: the bulk of the Centre’s welfare measures like cutting corporate taxes and waiver of bank loans have benefited the large corporate houses and ultra-rich people. As the country stares at rising inflation, it’s not wrong to assume that New Delhi has rightly gauged its potential to sway voters.
Nobody can fault a government for splurging on welfare schemes when it runs a surplus budget. Of course, when the exchequer runs dry, doling out irrational freebies is hardly an option. But can one call all government facilities such as free education and healthcare freebies? Ensuring social justice is the primary job of a government, and welfare schemes indisputably prop up weaker sections. Reminding state governments of their debt levels and the need to cap expenditure is vital. But it may be imprudent to tell them how to spend their money. Instead, a debate on the efficacy and reach of the schemes will help.