“Free electricity, free water, free... free... free.” Political speeches are riddled with promises of freebies. But are these schemes beneficial welfare measures or unsustainable electoral tactics? Let’s unpack the debate.
Welfare vs Freebies: Where’s the Line?
Welfare schemes aim to uplift society by providing essential services like free education, healthcare, and subsidised food. Bihar’s cycle scheme for girls in 2006 boosted education access, while the mid-day meal programme improved child nutrition. Similarly, the BJP’s scooter scheme for college girls and AAP’s mohalla clinics serve long-term development goals.
However, “freebies” like distributing liquor, cash, or non-essential items during elections risk depleting state finances without lasting societal benefits. The distinction lies in intent and execution—welfare builds, while frivolous freebies exploit.
The Financial Burden of ‘Free’
States like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh are reeling under heavy debt. Tamil Nadu’s debt-to-GDP ratio of 25.63% is a warning sign. Even BJP-ruled states like Madhya Pradesh offer cash handouts like the Ladli Behna Yojana, costing ₹1600 crore monthly. Yet, these states struggle with fiscal deficits.
The Way Forward
Cash transfer schemes can provide short-term relief, as shown by global studies linking them to improved health and reduced poverty. But unchecked promises without budget clarity hurt long-term growth. For example, India spends just 2.5% of its GDP on education, far from the recommended 6%. The healthcare budget fares no better, at less than 2%.
If welfare must work, it needs planning, transparency, and sustainability. Without these, freebies risk being expensive mistakes, not solutions. Citizens must question these promises—what’s free today may cost the nation dearly tomorrow.