Opinion The gifts and the givers

The debate is quite old. Sceptics were raising questions as far back as the 1960s,when the then chief minister,K. Kamaraj,introduced a scheme to provide free lunches for schoolchildren to stop them from dropping out. The mid-day meal scheme was enhanced by AIADMK founder M.G. Ramachandran when he became CM,and is now a model across the country of a tool to address the basic issue of hunger that affected the schooling — and thus the future — of thousands of children from poor families. However,this initiative was not as political as the ones that followed it.

One of the first political,or rather electoral,form of such measures was the “one rupee for one padi rice” promise that was one of the main planks of the then nascent DMK’s campaign ahead of the 1969 assembly elections. In a state where thousands went to bed on an empty stomach,the idea of cheaper foodgrain resonated loudly enough to displace Kamaraj’s Congress with Annadurai’s DMK. That the government could not quite fulfil the promise exposed its inherent flaw: unsustainability.

Today’s discussions about freebies have two dimensions: of the politics behind giving the gifts,and of the culture behind accepting it.

Tamil Nadu is not alone in seeing tall promises before every election; the manifestos of political parties across the country are in reality a document of dreams,separated by sections,sub-headings and columns. What makes this state different is its track record of fulfilling these promises,however tall they may look when announced.

The public perception about freebies was transformed forever when the DMK came out with a manifesto in 2006 — together with all its allies,including the Congress,the Left parties and others more minor — which promised a colour TV for every poor household,as well as gas connections and stoves,free power for farmers and a debt write-off for farmers and weavers. Incredible,said some. In the words of none other than the then Union finance minister,P. Chidambaram,the manifesto was the real hero of that election,which helped install the DMK regime in the state.

However,to bestow complete credit for the victory on promises of TVs and so on is over-simplification. It leaves out several crucial factors: caste and community mobilisation,shrewd political alliances which had parties of all hues and colours in both fronts,dissatisfaction over the incumbent administration,the emergence of the DMDK among other components. In effect,the voting public received gifts for a decision they would probably have taken regardless.

Nevertheless,the wide coverage given to the free TVs made even an ardent opponent of the practice like Jayalalithaa join the fray,even lead the pack. From a critic,who compared them to opium to subjugate and enslave the people,she emerged victorious in a battle of one-upmanship over promises during the last campaign. The Chinese proverb about the value of teaching a man to fish,which she used to repeat ever so often,is perhaps Greek to her now.

Even in her victory,while the freebies on offer may have acted as an incentive for the voters,it is evident that the wave was created by other,more basic,reasons — administration,governance,and law and order,political alliances and the mobilisation of various groups.

Now,as CM,Jaya launched the distribution of free laptops to students,free milch cows to the poor,mixers,grinders and fans (or convection stoves in hill areas on Anna’s birth anniversary. It was the duty of any welfare government to provide essential items and services to the poor free of charge,she said in justification.

Beyond the claim of altruism,these promises are political — electoral politics,to be precise. But the question of the culture of accepting them cannot be defined that easily.

Those who support the initiatives to provide “basic” services and products to all say the term “freebie” is largely elitist,mainly used by those who don’t require the material on offer. The same people who avail of large tax benefits,use subsidised LPG,and run their expensive vehicles on subsidised fuel.

While the intention behind distributing TVs for free could be questioned,it is difficult to find fault with the urge to collect a consumer good with such aspirational value. And this urge was not limited to those who didn’t have one: standing in line,along with the poor,were those who collected TVs and left — chauffeur-driven. (As an ironical subtext,some say that the common man collected TVs from Karunanidhi and learned all about his party’s corruption by watching it. This,however,is unlikely as the large majority are almost always tuned into the Sun group’s channels,which stopped airing most such reports after the Maran brothers patched up with the Karunanidhis.)

Household equipment like mixers and grinders have enhanced the lives of thousands of families,particularly of women. Laptops would add value to the skill and education of poor students who can’t afford it,bridging a serious gap between children from different classes. Like the computers,livestock,too,are investments to transform and uplift poor families. To the needy,a freebie is a helping hand; to the rest,it is just a gimmick.

According to those who believe that the state has a proactive role to play in the everyday lives of its citizens,especially those who needs its support,it is simply cruel to argue that the free or cheap rice distributed to the poor has made them lazy. (Similar complaints are raised about NREGA as well.) Despite the posturing by India and Tamil Nadu,there still exist pockets where abject poverty and starvation force people to hunt rats. The availability of cheap foodgrain offers reasonable comfort to the poor in this era of explosion of prices,and it also helps to reduce their migration to urban slums.

Kantian morality says an act should be judged by the intention of the doer. But in this context,it should perhaps be viewed from the receiver’s point of view. Because he’s the one without any choices.

gopu.mohan@expressindia.com