As elections approach, whether it is the ruling party or the opposition, all of them roll out a “sale.” On the lines of selling goods cheaply to attract customers, grand promises are made to lure voters. The practice of distributing “freebies” began years ago in southern Indian states and has now spread to almost every state. Concerns are now being raised that if this continues, one day the states may go bankrupt. When a person becomes accustomed to receiving things for free, laziness can become a habit. There is never any shortage of people willing to consume something free—even if it were poison.
The public, too, eagerly awaits announcements of freebies. When elections were approaching in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, free schemes were announced there as well. In the Maharashtra elections, the Ladli Behan scheme was heavily emphasized. Beyond state elections, at the national level, schemes such as free food grain distribution, free gas connections, and several other welfare programs have played a significant role in the BJP’s electoral victories. In such a situation, how can opposition-ruled states afford to lag behind?
The Supreme Court has once again expressed strong displeasure over political parties announcing freebies just before elections. It clearly stated that distributing free facilities to everyone without distinguishing between the needy and the capable amounts to appeasement and could damage the country’s economy. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant raised a bitter but practical question: if the government provides everything for free and directly transfers money into bank accounts, why would people work hard? The Chief Justice said that providing employment opportunities is more important so that people can live with dignity. Getting used to free ration, gas, and electricity may take away people’s motivation to work, which is not a good sign for any country’s future.
During the hearing, questions were raised about the Tamil Nadu government’s policy of paying electricity bills for everyone. The Court asked whether it truly serves the public interest for the government to bear the burden even for those who are capable of paying their bills. The judges clarified that while it is the duty of a welfare state to support poor children’s education and help the sick, it is essential to recover costs from those who can afford to pay for the sake of nation-building.
The Supreme Court also expressed concern about the financial condition of states running in deficit. Just before the budget, a Reserve Bank report painted a worrying picture: most states and Union Territories are burdened with debt. The report indicates that their financial needs are increasing, and they are becoming increasingly dependent on market borrowings. Around 76 percent of the total fiscal deficit of states is expected to be financed through borrowing. According to the data, states’ total debt had reduced to 28.1 percent of GDP in March 2024, but it is estimated to rise to about 29.2 percent by March 2026. In several states, debt exceeds 30 percent of their respective state GDP. Currently, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are leading in market borrowings, while states such as Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka are also witnessing rapidly rising debt levels.
The report further states that states with a larger youth population are borrowing less, while those with a higher elderly population face increasing economic challenges. If states lack funds for building schools, hospitals, and roads—or have to borrow from the market for development projects—then where does the money for free schemes come from? When people receive benefits without effort, their efficiency and productivity may decline, which ultimately hampers economic growth and threatens social stability.
Now, almost every state is announcing the distribution of laptops, mobile phones, scooters, bicycles, and even direct cash transfers into bank accounts. With elections approaching in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the race to announce freebies is likely to intensify. Tamil Nadu is already heavily indebted. Economists repeatedly warn against such policies. Economic experts point out that the United States has a debt of 36 trillion dollars, and about 22 percent of its revenue goes toward interest payments. In contrast, India’s debt stands at approximately ₹180 lakh crore, and about 40 percent of its revenue goes toward interest payments—almost double that of the U.S.
A culture of dependency on freebies can lead to economic disaster. However, it would be incorrect to say that all free schemes are harmful to society. Some schemes genuinely help the poor and needy—such as those related to education, healthcare services, and employment guarantee programs. Their objective is to benefit the weaker sections of society. But distributing goods for electoral gains and spending resources without any long-term planning cannot be a sustainable policy.
The debate over freebies continues: are electoral promises meant for public welfare, or are they merely an attempt to secure votes? The country already faces a crisis of unemployment. People need jobs, not handouts. It would be better if political parties focused more on vocational training and skill development instead of free schemes, so that people can stand on their own feet. Political parties must reconsider and move away from such policies.
