The question of improving the lives of disadvantaged groups in society has been asked time and again. Various policies have tried to achieve effective resource allocation, but there often seems to be a conflict between the two methods of solving such problems.
One school of thought says that people must be empowered by providing them with certain basic amenities. Another says that such attempts amount to doles, the word that refers to the handouts and cash given to unemployed people by the government.
Idioms such as ‘Lending hands to someone is better than giving a dole’, or ‘Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime’ have often been invoked in this debate.
What relevance does it have to politics in India? We explain. Also, questions of economic and social development form an important part of the UPSC Civil Services Examination.
What doles mean, why they are given out
Doles have emerged as part of government policy, particularly from pro-working class parties in modern-day politics. While in times of low economic activity, they have been given out as direct cash handouts, it has come to include benefits such as insurance provided to employees by companies or the government.
In a more general sense, the philosophy behind such benefits is to empower people through some kind of material support. If the basic needs of a population are met in terms of food, shelter, medical care, schooling for their children, etc., they are firstly more healthy, capable of being more productive as citizens, and have money to spend in other areas of the economy. This can potentially have a positive, multiplier effect for all sectors.
By virtue of its role as a facilitating agent for society and the economy, it is also seen as the part of government’s responsibility to provide certain benefits. The Indian state is seen as a largely welfarist state, and Article 38 of the Constitution also says, “The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”
Why doles are criticised
However, it is also believed that assistance of this nature should slowly cease to be needed in society. It goes against the conventional wisdom, which says a man should be taught how to fish, meaning become productive, instead of having to be fed fish, that is have him depend on other people to meet his needs.
And so ideally, most people should become so well-equipped as to eventually achieve their aspirations, and should not need to rely on doles.
In 2022, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in Uttar Pradesh, after inaugurating the Bundelkhand Expressway, that “Today in our country, attempts are being made to collect votes by distributing free revdis (sweets). This revdi culture is very dangerous for the development of the country… People of revdi culture will not build expressways, airports or defence corridors for you.”
He added, “Away from the revdi culture, we are living up to the expectations of people by building roads and rail routes. For the poor, we are building new houses, completing irrigation schemes, building dams, setting up electricity units so that the lives of the poor and farmers improve…”
His is not the only criticism of what is seen as unnecessary freebies. The argument here is that the freebies that political parties promise during elections, such as free electricity and water up to a certain limit of usage, are not welfaristic in nature. They are seen as enticements to voters.
Fulfilling such promises after coming to power means more expenditure from the government’s side and the potential ‘waste’ of taxpayers’ money. This can have long-term financial implications for the government, particularly if such benefits do not yield returns in terms of the productivity of a population.
The debate over freebies
The PM also mentioned the building of new houses. This is done under the PM Awas Yojana, which provides for house ownership to eligible people through low-interest home loans and financial aid. It includes people under a certain annual income, differently-abled persons, senior citizens, SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, single women, transgender people, etc.
But what about measures such as free bus rides, as implemented in states like Karnataka? Is it necessary in a culture where women have low participation in the formal economy? Do free smartphones offered to women, such as by the previous Ashok Gehlot government in Rajasthan, qualify as a necessary welfare measure in the 21st century or a dole? And so, the clarity expressed by the two idioms does not hold in this debate.
There are arguments on both sides here. Ashok Gulati, Distinguished Professor at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, argues in this article why certain measures can lead to “long-term damage to India’s development.”
“If the hearts of political parties bleed for the poor, let them give income or investment support within budgetary constraints… Investments are always better than income support, but investments take time to fructify while political parties need quick quid pro quo for the doles in terms of votes,” he writes.
On the other hand, former Chief Election Commissioner of India SY Quraishi weighs in hereby highlighting the deep inequality that continues in Indian society today: “The so-called “freebie” promises like cheap foodgrains and free items of utility have actually done considerable good to further the dream of democracy. Starvation deaths haven’t occurred since Rs 1-2 kg rice was introduced.”