FREEBIES: ARE THEY MORAL?
MEANING: Freebie culture refers to the practice where governments provide non-merit goods or services free of cost or at highly subsidized rates not to enhance long-term human capacity, but largely to gain short-term political advantage, especially around elections. It is distinct from welfare measures which focus on capability enhancement (health, education, skill formation).
Mahatma Gandhi: “Politics without morality is a sin.”
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: “Constitution is only as good as the people who implement it.”
Amartya Sen: true welfare should “expand human capabilities, not complacency.”
THE 2025 BIHAR ASSEMBLY ELECTION AND FREEBIES
-
- Political parties have unleashed promises worth over Rs 8 lakh crore annually — more than three times Bihar’s state budget.
- Nitish Kumarpromises 125 units of free power (Rs 12,000 crore), social security pensions tripled to Rs 1,100/month for 1.13 crore people, and 1 crore jobs over five years.
- Prime Minister transferred Rs 10,000 to 75 lakh women under a Rs 7,500 crore scheme — weeks before polling, using state funds as campaign currency.
- Tejashwi Yadav promises a Rs 2,500 monthly cash transfer for every woman (Rs 45,000 crore), 200 units of free electricity, and a fiscal impossibility: One government job per family — requiring 2.5 crore new posts at Rs 7.5 lakh crore annually.
ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
-
- 1950s–1970s: Early welfare state → subsidized food, education, public healthcare (aligned with Directive Principles, Arts. 38 & 39).
- Green Revolution: Subsidies on electricity, seeds, irrigation to secure food self-sufficiency.
- Coalition and Competitive Politics (1990s onward): Populist promises intensified, notably in Tamil Nadu, Punjab, UP, Andhra Pradesh. Tamil Nadu became a model of large-scale populist schemes (TVs, mixers, gold for marriage).
- 21st Century: Rights-based framework (RTE 2009, NFSA 2013, MGNREGA 2005) blurred boundary between legitimate welfare and politically motivated freebies.
| Leader | Period | Key Expansion |
|---|---|---|
| C. N. Annadurai (DMK) – Chief Minister (1967–1969) | From 1969 | In the 1967 assembly elections, Annadurai promised “Re 1 per kg rice” to the public. |
| M. G. Ramachandran (MGR, AIADMK) | 1977–1987 | Introduced the Nutritious Mid-Day Meal Scheme in 1982 for schoolchildren. This became a national model (later adopted nationally in 1995). |
| J. Jayalalithaa (AIADMK) | 1991 onwards | Introduced consumer good freebies (mixers, grinders, fans, laptops). |
PROS (ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR)
1. Mid-Day Meals
-
- Improved enrolment and retention especially among SC/ST and girls.
- Dreze & Goyal (2003) and ASER (Annual Survey of Education Report 2022) showed:
- Classroom hunger reduced.
- Enrolment of girls increased by 12–15% in several states.
2. PAHAL (DBT for LPG Subsidy)
-
- World Bank (2017) found ₹12,700 crore annual savings by eliminating duplicate/ghost beneficiaries.
- Not a freebie; better targeting of essential support.
3. Free COVID Vaccination (Public Good)
-
-
- Lancet (2022) estimated vaccination prevented ~4.2 million deaths in India.
- Universal access ensured equity in crisis, not populism.
Mid-Day Meal Scheme (1995)
- Increased school enrolment, particularly of girls.
- Pratichi Trust (Amartya Sen) study showed 30 to 40 percent improvement in attendance in rural schools.
- Contributed to reduction in child malnutrition and classroom hunger.
-
DISTINGUISHING FREEBIES FROM WELFARE
| Welfare (Legitimate) | Freebie (Problematic) |
|---|---|
| Improves capability (education, health, skill) | Creates dependency |
| Long-term empowerment | Short-term electoral attraction |
| Justified in public interest | Burdens state finances without structural benefits |
| When N T Rama Rao, as Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister in the 1980s, introduced Rs 2 per kilo rice, it eliminated starvation deaths. Bicycle schemes in Bihar increased girls’ school enrolment by over 30 per cent. MGNREGA provided rural employment security. | According to Oxfam India’s 2022 report, the richest 1 per cent own 51.5 per cent of national wealth while the bottom 60 per cent own just 5 per cent. India ranks 130th (2023) in the UN Human Development Index. Eighty-one crore people rely on free rations. |
CASE LAWS: WHETHER FREEBIES AMOUNT TO CORRUPTION
| CASE LAWS | EXPLANATION |
|---|---|
| S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu (2013) | “Promises in election manifestos cannot be construed as ‘corrupt practice’ under the Representation of People Act.” However, the Court noted: “Distribution of freebies shakes the root of free and fair elections.” |
| SC Bench led by CJI N.V. Ramana (2022 PIL: Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India) | The Court did not ban freebies, but expressed serious concern: “Freebies have a significant impact on the economic health of the country. A day will come when the economy of the country collapses due to populist measures.” It warned that: “Public money is not unlimited. The burden is ultimately on the taxpayer.” |
| SC on Need for Institutional Mechanism (2022) | The Court proposed formation of a Special Expert Committee (Economists + Finance Commission + NITI Aayog + ECI) to study how to differentiate welfare from freebies, stating: “There needs to be a debate on whether public funds are being used for productive or non-productive purposes.” |
| SC on Democracy and Voter Autonomy | “Targeted welfare is essential in a social welfare state, but irrational freebies are a concern for taxpayers and the economy.” “Voters must not be reduced to objects of political charity.” This directly supports ethical arguments that freebies treat citizens as means, not ends, and weaken democratic autonomy. |
ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN FREEBIE CULTURE
1. Conflict Between Populism and Responsible Governance: Leaders may use public funds for electoral advantageinstead of public welfare.
This shifts governance from policy-drivento vote-driven, undermining the ethics of public office (Nolan Principles: Integrity & Accountability).
2. Misuse of Public Money: Freebies are funded by taxpayer money.
If resources are diverted to non-essential giveaways, it violates fiduciary responsibilityof the state to use public funds for public good.
3. Violation of Intergenerational Equity: Public debt incurred for freebies becomes a future burden. This is unethicalbecause future citizens pay for benefits they never received.
Examples: State debt-to-GSDP > 35% in Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal (RBI, 2022).
4. Erosion of Democratic Ethics: When voters are influenced by giftsinstead of informed judgment, elections become transactional. This weakens democratic deliberation, making citizens passive beneficiaries instead of active participants.
5. Moral Hazard and Unfair Incentives: Loan waivers and free utilities encourage:
-
-
-
- Strategic default
- Wasteful consumption
- Avoidance of responsibility
-
-
This undermines discipline, honesty, and fairness.
6. Equity vs Equality Dilemma: Universal freebies often benefit those who don’t need them, while targeted welfare ensures justice to the weakest (Rawls’ Difference Principle). Thus, untargeted freebies violate social justice.
7. Freebies as Treating Humans as Means to Political Ends: Freebies, when used not for welfare but for electoral advantage, reduce citizens to instruments for political gainrather than ends in themselves. This violates the core ethical principle of Immanuel Kant, who held:
FREEBIES AS AN ACT OF CORRUPTION
In November 2023, the Supreme Court admitted a plea that pre-poll freebies should be treated as corrupt practices under RPA Section 123. Justice B V Nagarathna remarked: “Distribution of private goods to influence voters must be treated as a corrupt practice.”
WHAT THE RPA 1951 SAYS
Section 123 of RPA defines “corrupt practices” in India’s electoral law, which can invalidate an election
-
- It prohibits actions like bribing voters,
- making false statements about a candidate’s character or conduct, and
- appealing to religious or casteist feelings to influence the vote.
Under Section 123(1) of the RPA, offering a voter a cup of tea is bribery. Yet, promising Rs 2,500 per month to millions of voters is considered democracy.
Freebies now pose a systemic threat to India’s economic stability. The RBI’s ‘Report on State Finances 2022-23’ warned that heavily indebted states face “fiscal collapse” due to reckless populism.
Corruption is not only bribery for private gain, but also misuse of public funds for personal or political motives.
The UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) defines corruption as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”
When ruling actors use taxpayer money for vote-buying disguised as welfare:
1. Power is abused (public office used politically).
2. The gain is private (electoral advantage).
3. Public interest is compromised.
Thus, freebie-driven politics qualifies as political corruption.
WAY FORWARD
1. First, costed manifestos must become mandatory with penalties for false declarations — the Election Commission already mandates them, but compliance is voluntary.
2. Second, direct cash promises to specific voter groups must be treated as bribery under RPA Section 123.
3. Third, no new schemes designed to seduce the voters should be allowed within six months of election notification.
4. Fourth, parties must disclose whether schemes will be funded by new loans, existing or new taxes, or cuts to other programmes.
5. Fifth, welfare linked to education, jobs and skill-building should be incentivised over consumption subsidies.
6. Sixth, define freebies in law and constitute a neutral expert body (NITI Aayog + Finance Commission + ECI) as directed by the Supreme Court (2022) suggested
7. Seventh, conduct an independent subsidy audit like CAG can evaluate developmental impact vs fiscal cost.
CONCLUSION
Freebies are not inherently wrong. A mature welfare state must focus on empowerment, not appeasement; on capability, not dependence. Let us say it clearly: Elections are not auctions, and India is not for sale. Democracy cannot survive if votes can be purchased legally. There is nothing “pro-poor” about reckless freebies. It is theft from development, fraud on the future, and corruption of consent. “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.” Kant.
Spread the Word
