In his 1845 novel Sybil, or the Two Nations (the rich and the poor), Benjamin Disraeli writes: “Power has only one duty — to secure the social welfare of the people.”
Promises by political parties in the recent Delhi elections saw them try to outdo each other in offering “freebies”. Earlier, the BJP’s 2024 manifesto declared that there had been 10 years of good governance and “vikas”, claiming inclusive growth but highlighting freebie schemes: “80 crore-plus citizens have been receiving free rations since 2020 through the PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana”; “citizens got Rs 34 lakh crore directly in their accounts”; “46 crore-plus loans worth Rs 27 lakh crore have been given under the PM Mudra Yojana”; “63 lakh street vendors got easy credit under the PM SVANidhi Scheme”, etc.
Are these welfare measures or inducements for votes? Are political parties bankrupt in terms of ideas for development? These are so far-fetched and widespread that instead of contributing to employment generation and real growth, they may prevent both. Will they take Indians from being hard-working and self-reliant to being lazy and dependent?
States are heavily indebted. Maharashtra was recently forced to admit funding issues for the Ladki Bahin scheme. Even “vibrant” Gujarat is unable to fund education properly, with serious shortages of teachers, buildings and classrooms in government schools. Meanwhile, the government claims that “25 crore citizens have come out of poverty” and “17 crore jobs have been created” in the past 10 years. If so, why the freebies?
Disraeli is also claimed to have said, “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
The Constituent Assembly debates reflect the framers’ thoughts on the future of India. On November 15, 1948, a motion to declare India a socialist state was debated and rejected. K T Shah, who moved the amendment, argued, “The term ‘socialist’ is, I know, frightening to several people…By the term ‘socialist’ I may assure my friends here that what is implied or conveyed by this amendment is a state in which equal justice and equal opportunity for everybody is assured, in which everyone is expected to contribute by his labour, by his intelligence, and by his work all that he can to the maximum capacity, and everyone would be assured of getting all that he needs and all that he wants for maintaining a decent civilised standard of existence.”
B R Ambedkar opposed the motion: “The Constitution… is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the state. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the state, and how the society should be organised on its social and economic side, are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.”
Discussing Article 30 (now Article 38), ‘State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people’, Damodar Swarup Seth on November 19, 1948, argued that the draft article, “does not convey any clear indication as to the economic nature of the social order to be established”. He said, “We all know that the society in which we now live is of a capitalistic order or character and in this society, we see the exploiter and exploited classes both existing side by side; and the exploiting class is naturally the top dog and the exploited class the under-dog. In such a society we clearly see that the real welfare of the masses, the toiling millions, can neither be secured nor protected, unless the society is made clear of the exploiter class, and that can only be possible when we establish a socialist democratic order…”
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur said, “Inevitably there would be parties in the country which seek election to Parliament and these political parties have different and distinctive ideas, ideals, ideologies, programmes and principles… And when a particular party is returned in a majority and is entitled to form the government, the people and the electorate have got a right to expect the implementation of those programmes and principles.”
Ambedkar responded, “While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic democracy… The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government… There are various ways in which people believe that economic democracy can be brought about; there are those who believe in individualism as the best form of economic democracy.”
J B Kripalani, speaking on October 17, 1949, defined democracy thus: “I wish Sir, that the whole country should understand the moral, the spiritual and the mystic implication of the word ‘democracy’ …Politically, we are a democratic people but economically we are divided into such classes that the barriers cannot be crossed. If we have got to be democratic, we have got to be economically so too.”
A welfare state protects and promotes the economic and social wellbeing of its citizens based on the principles of equal opportunities, the equitable distribution of wealth and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. With abject poverty, large-scale unemployment, the vast gap between the rich and the poor and failing healthcare, is India a model welfare state?
Sadly, the Supreme Court in S Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu justified freebies.
It might do well to recall E M Forster’s words: “So two cheers for democracy. One because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.But two cheers are quite enough. There is no occasion to give three.”
India needs to wake up and introspect.
The writer is a senior advocate and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association
A welfare state protects and promotes the economic and social wellbeing of its citizens based on the principles of equal opportunities, the equitable distribution of wealth and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. 
Share
