Let’s talk about rights, not revdis

During the election season, the Indian voter is showered with an outpouring of promises from various political parties. Politicians suddenly remember the common man, the aam aadmi, and his pressing concerns. The urban poor, unemployed youth, minorities, slum-dwellers and tribals — neglected for the better part of five years — are suddenly at the centre of urgent, impassioned discussions. It’s a grand spectacle, an opera of promises where free electricity, food and material goods like TVs, bicycles and laptops, along with cash, become the currency of political persuasion.

Advertisement

In the recent past, a new term has entered our political lexicon: revdi culture. The Prime Minister’s critique of this so-called culture of freebies sparked a fresh debate, questioning the legitimacy of welfare measures and whether they are viable or merely fiscal irresponsibility dressed as generosity. The Supreme Court, too, has now weighed in on the matter, expressing concern that excessive handouts are creating dependency. A Bench recently remarked that free ration might be discouraging people from working, going so far as to suggest that such policies may be creating a class of parasites.

In the just-concluded Delhi elections, all major parties competed with each other in offering freebies — free power, water, travel, medical treatment and education, besides monthly cash subsidies to women and the youth. No wonder the SC reacted with strong words, which are worth pondering over.

The crux of the debate is wider: Are these sops a necessity for the welfare of the poor or a necessity for political parties in pursuit of electoral gains? There’s another issue: If the promise is for the poor, it’s a freebie; if for the rich, it’s an incentive. In this entire debate, economy takes a back seat.

Sops in India broadly fall into two categories: Those offered before the announcement of the elections and those promised afterwards, when the model code of conduct is in operation.

The first type are policy decisions taken by the ruling party — subsidies, price cuts, new welfare schemes timed conveniently before the model code kicks in to spoil the party. The second category appears through party manifestos — grand promises with no regard for fiscal consequences. Whether they promise free food, transport, cash transfers, the manifestos don’t attract the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) scrutiny. The Supreme Court, in a 2013 judgment, had ruled that such promises do not constitute “corrupt practices” under the Representation of the People Act, even though they undeniably “shake the roots of free and fair elections”. The court directed the ECI to frame guidelines in consultation with political parties.

These guidelines were indeed issued in 2013 to promote responsible election campaigning and to ensure that promises made in manifestos are realistic and do not unduly influence the electorate. However, what we see is flagrant violation with even cash being doled out, totalling lakhs of crores. If this is not bribery of voters, what is? And where does this money come from? Obviously your pocket or mine. Politicians win elections picking our pockets!

The hypocrisy in the freebie debate is glaring. While provisions for the poor — ration schemes, free electricity, social welfare benefits — are dismissed as revdis, massive tax cuts and financial incentives for the corporate elite are deemed ‘incentives’ essential for national growth. The numbers support this argument.

In 2019, the government slashed corporate tax rates for domestic manufacturers from 30 per cent to 22 per cent and for new manufacturing companies from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. The decision was implemented within 36 hours using special provisions that bypassed Cabinet scrutiny. This single move cost the exchequer Rs 1.5 lakh crore in revenue, significantly deepening the country’s fiscal deficit. Oxfam reports reveal that during the Covid-19 pandemic, as poverty soared and unemployment peaked at 15 per cent, the number of Indian billionaires surged by 39 per cent. The 10 richest Indians amassed wealth sufficient to fund education for every child in India for 25 years.

It’s a perpetual paradox. When the state gifts billionaires tax benefits, it is economic reform. When it provides relief to the poor, it is labelled fiscal recklessness.

The apex court’s recent remarks about freebies leading to dependency add a serious dimension to this debate. The concern, particularly in rural India, is that free ration and welfare schemes are discouraging labour participation. Justice BR Gavai noted that in Maharashtra, farmers are struggling to find labourers because workers prefer to rely on free ration instead of earning daily wages. This is a phenomenon visible in Punjab for years, ever since the MGNREGA scheme was introduced in various avatars. This feeds into the broader argument that welfare measures must be designed to empower people, not create permanent dependency.

The absence of affordable healthcare, quality education and stable employment opportunities are the real culprits behind dependency, not welfare programmes. If people have secure, well-paying jobs, they would not rely on free foodgrains given as charity.

Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a ceiling. It’s ironical that a country boasting of being the fifth largest economy in the world should be giving free ration as charity to over 80 crore people — nearly 60 per cent of its population.

A question arises: Are the poor easily swayed by freebies, especially when all parties dish out similar promises?

Historically, we have observed several advantages of freebies/welfare schemes. When then CM NT Rama Rao introduced ‘Re 1 per kilo rice’ scheme in Andhra Pradesh, he was ridiculed, but the result was that starvation deaths became a thing of the past. Free bicycles for schoolgirls by Nitish Kumar increased female enrolment and retention rates in Bihar. Employment guarantee schemes have provided a safety net for millions, even if they have created a domestic labour shortage for the urban elite.

The Indian debate should not be about whether we need welfare schemes, it should be about ensuring that they are well-designed and sustainable. Free healthcare, quality education and employment opportunities are not sops. They are rights in a democracy. Instead of revdis, we should be talking about rights and freedoms.