Why is the burden always on the elderly and ordinary families? When are the leaders?
Whenever the government talks about fiscal discipline, budget balance, or reducing expenditure, social pension schemes are often the first targets. Old-age pensions, in particular, have repeatedly faced discussions about reviewing, cutting, and tightening eligibility criteria. Recent rhetoric has once again raised the fundamental question: why is the burden of economic reforms always placed on the most vulnerable sections of society—the elderly, farmers, and working families?
Old-age pensions are not a government favor or concession. They are part of a social contract in which the state acknowledges that citizens who have dedicated their entire lives to the nation’s economy deserve a minimum of respect and security in their old age. Farmers who toil in the fields, laborers in brick kilns and factories, and workers in the unorganized sector—most of them have neither pension funds nor permanent savings. Therefore, old-age pensions provide them with the means to pay for medicine, rations, and other daily necessities.
Yet, whenever the government treasury faces pressure, the easiest option is to cut the pensions of the elderly. Sometimes citing crop failures, sometimes land acreage, sometimes family income, and sometimes technical flaws in bank accounts—thousands of eligible elderly people are denied pensions. This process appears less administrative and more inhumane.
The biggest question is: why are these strict criteria for crops, land, and income applied only to ordinary citizens? Do these same standards also apply to the pensions of MLAs and MPs? Is there ever an investigation into the actual financial situation of public representatives and whether they even need a pension?
The reality is that the pensions and benefits provided to public representatives are distributed to a class that is already relatively financially secure. Many MLAs and MPs, after being elected multiple times, become entitled to multiple pensions. In addition, they receive salaries, allowances, government accommodation, vehicles, security, and other privileges. Despite this, there are no clear limits on these pensions, nor is there serious public debate about them.
This situation also violates democratic values. The fundamental principle of democracy is equality—policies and laws should be the same for everyone. If ordinary citizens can be asked to account for their meager income, why not public representatives? If an elderly farmer’s pension can be withheld based on two acres of land, why aren’t the pensions of politicians with assets worth crores questioned?
The government often argues that social programs enroll ineligible people, making stricter enforcement necessary. This argument may be partially true, but the solution cannot be to exclude the needy from the system. Punishing deserving people under the guise of ineligibility is in no way justified.
If the government truly wants to make the pension system transparent and sustainable, it should first focus on areas where expenses and benefits are the highest. Setting clear limits on the pensions of MLAs and MPs, eliminating the practice of providing differential pensions for repeated election victories, and implementing a uniform pension policy could be concrete steps in this direction.
It’s also important to understand that social pension spending isn’t a burden, but an investment. A little financial security in the hands of the elderly not only provides them with a dignified life but also boosts the local economy. This money goes directly into the market—spending on pharmacies, grocery stores, and local services. In contrast, the social and economic impact of pension discontinuation is far more negative.
In a democracy, policies should aim to strengthen the weak, not further weaken the powerless. When the elderly are deprived of even their last financial support, it becomes not just an economic decision but a serious moral question. Can a civilized society abandon its elderly in such helplessness?
Ultimately, the question isn’t just about pensions, but about policy priorities. Is the government’s focus on the most vulnerable citizens or the most privileged? Until this question is honestly answered, the issue of pension cuts will remain a symbol of social injustice, rather than an economic debate.
