Is free also fair in Delhi elections?

The politics of freebies in Delhi elections

The allure of freebies in elections has become a defining feature of contemporary politics and nowhere is this trend more evident than in Delhi. Promises of free electricity, water, healthcare, education, monthly stipends to women/ girls, and even public transport often dominate the narrative during elections.

The three major political parties- the BJP, Congress, and AAP are racing to the top to outdo each other without realizing and raising an extremely critical question: Is free also fair? While these initiatives may appear generous and aimed at uplifting the underprivileged, the nation must not be shortsighted and myopic with respect to the economic, equity, and equality issues that will haunt Bharat forever.

Freebies undeniably offer immediate relief but to what end and for how long? For instance, subsidized utilities and free education can provide a lifeline to families struggling to make ends meet. They can help bridge socio-economic gaps and ensure access to necessities for marginalized communities. In Delhi, the AAP party has used such schemes successfully to garner widespread popularity and electoral success. This time, other parties are in competition to sweeten the pot. No one is thinking about long-term sustainability and community involvement; rather the focus is on short-term populist measures.

Anyone suggesting that the promise of “free” is sustainable is in denial of the reality. Such giveaways will strain public finances and divert resources from critical infrastructure projects and long-term investments. I argue that freebies make an average person greedy, less productive, and want to do nothing. Too much “free” in the name of public welfare is counterproductive and loses its value and significance in the eyes of the recipients. The reliance on freebies risks creating a culture of dependency, where citizens prioritize short-term benefits over systemic development.

Moreover, the ethics of using taxpayer money to fund populist schemes should come under scrutiny. Even if we subscribe to the philosophy of “Sanchit” (the Haves) to Vanchit” (the Have-nots), we are sending the wrong message to the latter. When parties compete over who can offer the most generous handouts, governance risks becoming a transactional relationship rather than one based on accountability and vision, is it fair to those who pay taxes to fund programs that sometimes lack transparency and measurable outcomes?

There is also the question of equity. While freebies may aim to address inequality, they often fail to consider the diverse needs of the population. A blanket promise of free electricity may benefit a certain section of urban households but do little for rural or semi-urban communities with erratic or nonexistent power supply. There are only finite resources left to the discretion of policymakers to spend frivolously for short-term electoral gains. It necessitates an equally furious public debate and attention from Bharat’s Election Commission and Judiciary at the highest level.

To ensure fairness, policymakers must focus on creating well-thought-out welfare programs rather than engaging in competitive populism. Let us learn from the excellent examples of countries like Japan and Singapore’s model of community-centered policymaking and efficient public spending. I recently read somewhere about the Japanese motto – Work for what you need or live without it. Why should not Bharat also promote, adopt, and implement such a motto to engage every citizen to be productive and earn what s/he needs?

Can any nation become and remain prosperous if people receive something for free without working for it and thus demotivating those who work hard to provide for the free benefits? Bharat’s policymakers must seriously ponder its dream of becoming a developed nation by 2047. Simply put, things given “free” to someone are taken away from others because no nation has infinite resources. In fact, during a recent visit to my rural settings, I can say with confidence and certainty that there are no “poor” people compared to what I saw growing up in the yesteryears. Today, families in villages are well and only a handful (in single digits) may be marginalized/ poor by any stretch of the imagination.

Let us bear in mind that the wealth of any nation cannot multiply by dividing it frivolously without the clear metrics of success and sustainability. The free services need to be targeted, efficient, and transparent with due emphasis on what is critical and valuable—quality healthcare, accessible education, and sustainable development. The equitable distribution of resources is a good social policy, but can Bharat afford to make the poor rich by making the rich poor during electioneering?

In conclusion, the debate on whether free is fair in the context of elections is complex and multifaceted. While freebies can provide short-term relief and address immediate needs, they should not overshadow the importance of sustainable governance and equitable development. A responsible electorate must weigh the cost of “free” and freedom against its long-term implications, ensuring that fairness, not just generosity, defines the future of Bharat’s democracy and development.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post Is free also fair in Delhi elections? appeared first on PGurus.