“Freebies” or Fear of Empowered Citizens?

The Question the Supreme Court Didn’t Ask

In a hearing before the Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice delivered a scathing critique of what he described as the “freebie culture.”

He asked:

  • What kind of culture are we developing?
  • Why give free food, gas, electricity?
  • Why would people work if everything is given?
  • Shouldn’t revenue surplus states build roads, hospitals, schools instead?
  • How long will this continue?

These are dramatic questions.

But they rest on a deeply flawed premise.

The premise is this:
That welfare weakens a nation.

That premise is wrong.

The Loaded Word: “Freebie”

The word “freebie” is not an economic term.

It is a political weapon.

It is used selectively.
Strategically.
And almost always downward.

When:

  • Food is subsidized for the poor — it is a “freebie.”
  • Bus travel for working women is funded — it is “appeasement.”
  • Cash transfers prevent rural collapse — it is “distortion.”

But when:

  • Corporate taxes are slashed,
  • Non-performing assets are quietly restructured,
  • Production-linked incentives are disbursed,
  • Land is allotted at concessional rates,

We call it “reform.”
We call it “stimulus.”
We call it “investment climate.”

Why is redistribution to citizens a freebie,
but redistribution upward an economic strategy?

That silence is not accidental.

The Employment Argument: Convenient and Simplistic

The CJI asked:

If you give free food, gas, electricity, cash — why would people work?

This assumes that welfare replaces income.

It does not.

No one in India lives comfortably because:

  • They receive subsidized rice.
  • They get ₹1000 a month.
  • They receive limited free electricity.

These are shock absorbers — not salary substitutes.

If employment generation is weak,
if informal wages are unstable,
if industrial policy is capital-heavy and labour-light,

that is a structural design issue.

Blaming welfare for employment weakness is like blaming bandages for the accident.

The False Choice: Roads or Rice?

We were told:

Revenue surplus states must spend on roads, hospitals, schools — not distribute largesse.

This is a false binary.

Human development spending is development.

Food security stabilizes labour productivity.
Free transport increases female workforce participation.
Cash transfers sustain consumption demand.
Public health reduces long-term fiscal burden.

An undernourished worker does not build roads.
An indebted household does not fuel growth.
A hungry child does not become skilled labour.

The obsession with asphalt over human capital is not economics.

It is optics.

The Tamil Nadu Discomfort

There is a visible discomfort when certain states demonstrate that:

  • Welfare and industrial growth can coexist.
  • Social redistribution can accompany fiscal prudence.
  • Human development indicators can outperform while maintaining growth momentum.

When a state shows that:

  • Welfare does not collapse productivity,
  • Revenue surplus can coexist with redistribution,
  • Social protection strengthens economic resilience,

The “freebie narrative” becomes harder to sell.

And that is inconvenient.

The Real Question: Who Gets to Define Responsibility?

Let us confront the brutal truth.

The debate is not about fiscal prudence.

It is about who defines prudence.

When governments:

  • Centralize taxation,
  • Limit state borrowing flexibility,
  • Tighten fiscal ceilings,
  • Then criticize states for welfare spending,

we are not witnessing neutral economic concern.

We are witnessing fiscal power politics.

States are told:

  • “Be responsible.”
  • “Do not overspend.”
  • “Do not distribute.”

But structural revenue control sits elsewhere.

Responsibility without autonomy is not federalism.

It is supervision.

Dignity Is Not Created by Withholding Support

The CJI invoked dignity and self-respect.

But dignity is not built by:

  • Removing food support,
  • Moralizing poverty,
  • Threatening welfare rollback.

Dignity is built when:

  • People are not one illness away from bankruptcy.
  • Women can travel safely to work.
  • Farmers are not trapped in informal debt.
  • Households are not rationing meals.

There is nothing dignified about forced vulnerability.

The Hypocrisy We Avoid Naming

Here is the question that was not asked:

Why is it that when the state supports capital, it is called nation-building,
but when it supports citizens, it is called dependency?

Why are we comfortable with:

  • Banking recapitalization,
  • Infrastructure concessions,
  • Strategic sector subsidies,

but uncomfortable with:

  • Food security,
  • Direct transfers,
  • Targeted welfare?

The answer is uncomfortable.

Because empowered citizens change political equations.

And dependency narratives justify control.

The Real Danger

The real danger to India’s development is not welfare.

It is:

  • Shrinking fiscal space for states.
  • Over-centralization of revenue.
  • Weak employment elasticity.
  • Financial concentration.
  • Rising inequality masked by headline growth.

Calling welfare “freebies” does not solve these.

It merely shifts the spotlight away.

The Brutal Truth

This is not a debate about rice, gas, or bus tickets.

It is a debate about power.

Who decides:

  • What counts as productive spending?
  • What counts as fiscal discipline?
  • What counts as national development?

If welfare strengthens bargaining power at the bottom,
those who prefer vertical control will call it distortion.

But social protection is not appeasement.

It is stabilization.

And in a fragile, unequal economy,
stability is not a luxury.

It is survival.