freedom-from-freebies-a-step-towards-atmanirbharta

With the ideals of democracy as its basis, the Indian constitution makers dreamt of taking India from a welfare society to a self-sufficient one where people evolve to, if not completely, equal contributors towards individual and subsequently, national growth.

 

With this objective in mind, the constitution makers placed fundamental rights foremost, followed by Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and finally, duties.

 

However, with changing times, there has not been a bigger shift towards practicality. One of the major contributors to this stagnant mind set is the fact that our leaders want to feed off of the system that makes people dependent on them, ultimately fulfilling their own sinister motives. ‘Freebies’ are the biggest flag-bearers of this menace.

 

Referred to as the ‘rewari’ culture by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, currently it involves distributing everything from money to food subsidies but ‘rewaris’.

 

Today, the culture of free distribution of resources has become so vast that from state level to national level parties, all are including it in their manifestos to allure a large vote bank.

 

Every state has fallen prey to the concept because apparently, winning elections has become bigger than the need for greater social good for which the elections are fought.

 

However, if the states really have the power to use such tactics - is the bigger question here.

 

If yes, then how? India is a welfare state. That is, the state is bound to work for the welfare of its citizens and help them thrive through the odds of life eventually uplifting their standard of living (Article 47 of the Indian Constitution).

 

We thrive on the principles of ‘social democracy’ highlighting Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of "I understand democracy as something that gives the weak the same chance as the strong".

 

Also, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) of the Indian Constitution are looked up to as guiding principles to frame policies in the future which puts the burden on the shoulder of the government to provide its citizens with facilities and opportunities proportional to their need in life and the country’s economical, and social capacity.

 

While some policies already are in place - like mid-day meal and other health schemes under Ayushman Bharat, even as many have become redundant - yet most of these today are part of the pre-election manifesto promising free distribution of cash benefits and subsidies.

 

While on one hand, these manifestos help voters to choose their leaders based on what the party might offer if it comes to power, these attractions corrupt their brain to choose free over freedom.

 

This not only hampers the democratic ideals of accountability, freedom, equality et al, but also runs contrary to the ideals of a self-reliant and self-sufficient country where it is pertinent “not to give a man a fish day but to teach a man to fish a day”.

 

Giving freebies can be safely justified by creating a divide of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ - justifying uplifting of the ‘have-nots’ by trying to bring them equal to the ‘haves’, but the question remains - if this division has any nexus to the idea it is actually trying to achieve?

 

The resources belong to all. It is the State, which holds them as a bailee on the part of the citizens, then how does favouring one class over the other justify the change in the natural distribution of resources?

 

The latest Supreme Court ruling calling the idea as a breeding ground of ‘parasites’ completely justifies how the concept does more harm than good.

 

It not only creates an extra burden on the ex-chequer but also makes the beneficiaries dependent and non-functional, eventually leading to the downfall of the GDP of the country.

 

It takes away from people their fundamental right to work and carry on business, trade and profession and earn a livelihood.

 

If looked at closely, the target population is either the down-trodden or the women. While today women struggle to be a part of the mainstream, trying to enforce their right of equal pay for equal work, such actions and promises bring their struggles to a crash landing while simultaneously dragging them back into the category of ‘weaker’ sections which they have been trying to evade for centuries, thus encroaching upon their right to equality.

 

Making provisions for jobs, creating skilled labour, providing better work environment, setting up road maps of development is a better alternative to freebies.

 

Today, India is the world's fastest-growing major economy. The World Bank projects that India's economy will grow at 6.7 per cent in the next two fiscal years (FY26 and FY27).

 

With the culture of ‘giving a man fish a day’, our entire joint efforts to bring India ahead will go in vain.

 

The onus lies not just on those trying to entice the voters but on the voters themselves to choose wisely whether they merely want a ‘fish’ that might become rotten one day or want a permanent source from where they can catch a fish every day. The choice lies with the informed citizens.

 

Coming just a few weeks ahead of elections, the freebies themselves hint at the type of culture the offerer is trying to create.

 

The main purpose of human existence is ‘karma’. Freebies take away the very duty - both personal and towards the nation - that comes with the responsibility towards work and add to the growth and development of the nation.

 

With the future of freebies under legal consideration before the apex court, the obiter-dicta might surely help people think about the aftermath of this short-term gain.

 

By Lalima Gupta