The promise of freebies to voters at election time was never considered morally palatable. But it is a game of one-upmanship that all political parties play; its morality was irrelevant. Recent discussion on freebies and the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the seriousness of their impact, however, have brought out other dimensions. Although the prime minister’s scathing remarks on this kind of political populism at a meet in Uttar Pradesh underlined how ‘dangerous’ it was for the development of the country, the Bharatiya Janata Party was not found wanting in promises of freebies during the state elections earlier. The chief concern in the ongoing discussion, however, is economic. Freebies are wasteful at a time of economic difficulty, apart from being unfair. Taxpayers have no say if their hard-earned money, meant for infrastructural and other improvements, is spent by a party to pick up votes. And if funds are wasted in this way instead of, say, on the building of roads or schools, all voters are cheated. The Supreme Court bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, reportedly directed that a panel be formed with representatives from organisations such as Niti Aayog, the Law Commission, the Reserve Bank of India, the Opposition and others to find a resolution to the problem. The court reportedly did not expect Parliament to find a solution since no party would be likely to argue against freebies. It mentioned that it would not have taken up the issue had the Election Commission resolved it earlier.

The issue is not straightforward. It has at its heart the relationship of the citizen with the State. While laptops and baking ovens may be identified easily as voter appeasement, it is not so easy when it comes to distinguishing freebies from necessary State support. The poor and downtrodden people mentioned by the court as being most hurt by the wastage caused by freebies are also the people who need support in their everyday lives — the public distribution system helps when accessible — as well as in education and health. The states are not equally developed either. What may be necessary support in one state may be unnecessary in another. The Supreme Court’s suggestion of regulating freebies may be placed in this context while the focus remains on rationalising expenditure to stop economic wastage.