“Nyay” or nay? Why we must say no to Congress’s jumla

Is my sop better than yours? No. Actually, all sops are bad for the system. They make a virtue out of government “giving,” masking bad governance with the fake varnish of charity. The government does not own the wealth of the nation, let alone create it. By virtue of the power we vest in it, which comes from the social contract between citizens those we elect to administer it, governments spend money on our behalf for the general welfare of the nation. Their principal task ought to be to create and manage infrastructure, including electricity, water, roads, and maintain defence and essential services. In addition, governments also spend on education, healthcare, and employment generation.

So far so good. But when governments start doling out money to the needy, they are not only overstepping their role, but also dangerously tampering with the notion of citizens’ responsibility. Redistributing money in this manner is the worst example of a nanny state; it encourages citizens to become passive and dependent. In a word, it is against every conceivable idea of Swaraj. That resonant word, not only redeployed by Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo, but earlier by Lokmanya Tilak and Dadabhai Naoroji, provided not just the blueprint of independent India, but the vision of a just and virtuous society. The latter would be made up of highly evolved, self-regulating, and compassionate individuals. Such a society would not need an obsessively interfering government, whether of the mai-baap or of the big brother variety. Its informed and self-reliant citizenry would take care not only of their own and their family’s problems, but also the problems of their neighbourhood, village, even of the state and nation. 

A government which overtaxes its populace, then justifies its incompetence or profligacy by handing out concessions, allowances, and benefits to some section or the other is nothing short of despotic if not corrupt. No government can usurp the citizens’ right to their own charitable dispositions by determining how or whom to benefit. “Nyay,” the latest of such ideas may go by the wonderfully noble sounding “minimum income” or “universal basic income” scheme but is only disguised socialism which will prove disastrous to India.

Does this mean that the poorest of the poor should not have a safety net or that governments must do nothing to ameliorate their lives? Not at all. But the basic guarantee should be not to income but to work: any able bodied person who is willing to labour for a living should not lack in the basic necessities of life. In other words, no work, no pay.

Instead, if the poor receive cash injections each month, we are going to see not a drastic reduction but a drastic rise in their numbers. Mainlining doles in this fashion will produce a nation of allowance addicts. Everyone, no matter how well-off, wants state benefits in India. Let’s not forget how the wealthy and powerful Farooq Abdullah, National Conference leader, refused to give up his LPG subsidy. Given how difficult it is to determine who is really poor and how easily certificates may be obtained, such a scheme is sure to be misused from its very inception. This will lead to a growing burden on the exchequer and progressive worsening of our economy, what with our growing population and shrinking employment. Government will end up printing notes, leading to rising inflation ballooning deficits, and decline of the real purchasing power of the very money handed out. It will also encourage poverty-mongering among high reproduction low income groups, leading to reverse eugenics. Incentivizing neediness and parasitism, in turn, will foment social division and resentment among hardworking sections of the populace. 

But the worst effects of the proposed “Nyay” would be to send the wrong message to Indians. The universal belief among the Chinese is that if you don’t work you don’t eat. This is mostly true for all ages and climes — rich or poor, young or old, free or imprisoned. No one is exempt from this work ethic. 

Even in extremely rich countries like Singapore, where the government has enough surpluses to feed the entire population for years even if they stopped working, this “Oriental” norm of earning one’s daily bread persists.

In India, on the other hand, a sizeable number of us are not only habitual, but conniving shirkers of work. It is not because we are born lazy, but because we have been spoiled by externally imposed notions of deprivation and entitlement. The BJP’s own PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi scheme teeters dangerously on the edge of giving out free money. But “Nyay” throws fiscal and moral caution entirely to the winds. It is likely to ruin the nation if it is allowed to be implemented.

Author is Director, IIAS, Shimla Views are personal