If sarcasm could generate electricity, India would not need to promise it for free before every election.
Last week, the Supreme Court once again did what political parties have refused to do for years — speak uncomfortable truths. Pulling up states for announcing free electricity ahead of elections — particularly in the context of Tamil Nadu — the Court warned that even revenue-deficit states are recklessly distributing largesse. It questioned the economic wisdom of governments that are financially gasping for breath yet behave like lottery winners on polling eve.
And then came the killer line: “We have been here before.” Indeed, we have.
For years, pre-poll freebies have been the most reliable electoral currency. Television sets yesterday. Mixers and grinders tomorrow. Free power, free bus rides, free cash transfers, free food, free this, free that. The manifesto has quietly morphed into a supermarket brochure.
The Court, while cautious about stepping into the legislative domain, observed the grey area that allows such promises to flourish unchecked. That grey area, let us be honest, is political convenience. Nobody wants to be the first to say, “Enough.”
Here is the uncomfortable question: Are political parties truly interested in welfare — or merely in winning?
And before this becomes a partisan slugfest, let me be clear. This is not about one party or one ideology. The culture of competitive populism cuts across the spectrum — from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu to the self-proclaimed “party with a difference” at the Centre, the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Yes, even the latter must introspect.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is widely acknowledged — even by critics — as a leader who has pushed India toward becoming the world’s fourth-largest economy and a rising military power. He has faced stiff opposition, relentless criticism, and yet delivered on several macro indicators. But leadership is also about moral consistency.
During COVID-19, the Centre introduced free rations under emergency conditions. It was necessary. It was humane. It was justified.
But the pandemic is over. The existential health crisis has passed. Then why does the free ration scheme continue for 40–50 crore beneficiaries? If the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s promise of free electricity before elections is textbook populism, how is perpetual free food distribution different? Is it heresy to ask this?
Some bureaucrats, quietly and responsibly, have flagged concerns about fiscal sustainability. Yet the political calculus prevails. After all, who wants to risk alienating a beneficiary base the size of Europe’s population?
This is precisely what the Supreme Court flagged. The bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant did not mince words. If you provide free food morning to evening, free cycles, free electricity — what happens to work culture? What incentive remains to produce, to strive, to innovate?
Welfare is not the villain here. No serious analyst argues against supporting the genuinely poor. A welfare state must protect the vulnerable. Subsidised electricity for those below the poverty line? Absolutely. Food support during economic distress? Certainly.
But universal freebies — irrespective of income — are not welfare. They are electoral bribes disguised as compassion.
The Court rightly asked: where is the distinction between those who can pay and those who cannot? Why must a financially stable middle-class household enjoy the same subsidy as a daily wage labourer? Is this social justice — or lazy governance?
Most states in India are revenue-deficit states. They borrow to pay salaries. They borrow to fund infrastructure. And now, increasingly, they borrow to fund electoral promises. Development expenditure shrinks while revenue expenditure balloons. Capital creation takes a back seat; consumption theatrics take centre stage.
And then we wonder why job creation lags.
Instead of creating conditions for dignified employment — higher wages, skill development, affordable credit for small enterprises, controlled inflation in essential commodities — we are training generations to expect handouts. It is politically expedient but economically corrosive.
Free electricity may light a bulb today. But mounting debt will darken tomorrow.
The irony is brutal. Political parties accuse each other of fiscal irresponsibility while drafting their own “innovative” freebies. One promises cash transfers. Another counters with loan waivers. A third adds guaranteed income schemes. Manifestos increasingly resemble auction catalogues — the highest bidder for public affection wins.
Where does it stop?
The Supreme Court has nudged, warned, and hinted. But it has also admitted institutional hesitation. The grey zone remains because neither Parliament nor the Election Commission has drawn a clear red line. And why would they? Every party hopes to use the same playbook someday.
Ultimately, this is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and political one.
If parties genuinely believe in national welfare, they must ask themselves: Are we empowering citizens or pacifying them? Are we building productivity or subsidising complacency? Are we strengthening the economy or mortgaging the future for five more years in office?
Leadership demands difficult decisions. It requires telling voters what they need to hear — not merely what they want to hear.
Until that courage emerges, the cycle will continue. Freebies will multiply. Fiscal stress will deepen. Work culture will erode. And every election season, democracy will be reduced to a clearance sale.
Perhaps the Court is right. We have been here before.
The real question is — do we have the courage to leave?
