Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime — Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu.
Over the last few years we have been hearing extremely shrill voices for and against ‘freebies’ and not enough mention of the welfare state, a concept we have now been made to believe is akin to ‘communism light’ or a ‘creeping pink’ ideology. However, the Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution reflect that India is a welfare state. More specifically, Article 38 in the Constitution says that:
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life; and
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Establishment of a welfare state is a conscious policy which entails the outflow of public resources for improving the quality of life for all citizens, including those who are unable to avail themselves of the bare necessities of life.
The expenditure is a longterm investment in developing human capital and building an egalitarian society. In economic terms, the State is expected to secure the distribution of ownership, and control of material resources of the nation to sub-serve the good of all, and to ensure that economic policies do not result in concentration of wealth and means of production with a few, to the common detriment of the community.
The problem with the idea of a welfare state is twofold. One, it runs afoul of the economic model of liberalisation and neo-capitalism, since the results on investment in human development and social equity cannot be measured in terms of popular economic indicators. Concepts of workers’ rights, equitable distribution of wealth and public ownership of the nation’s resources also militate against a model which believes in the trickledown theory and measuring development only in terms of indicators like GDP. Second, and perhaps more importantly in a democratic system, the returns on investment in a welfare state model do not materialise over a five-year election period cycle and the party in power reaps few electoral dividends.
To add further to the problem, the welfare state model, by denying the cornering of wealth, makes it difficult for political parties to raise funds for their election programs. The convenient and favoured option therefore is to offer freebies. Unlike universal education, skill development, assured work on community projects, subsidies on food, agricultural inputs, health and transportation which strengthen the economy, freebies do not support any economic activity.
They dehumanise large sections of the population which loses its will to strive and improve their living standards. Take away a man’s self-respect by making him incapable of looking after himself and his family and you have putty in your hands.
Throw in large doses of obscurantism and irrational claims of a hoary past and the faculties of seeking truth are further eroded. A gullible people can be taught to blame others; the religious, regional, linguistic and cultural others, for their miserable existence and conditioned to accept the freebies as a favour from the rulers.
It is like taming a wild, but free, horse by making it dependent on assured food and shelter. This is the antithesis of intellectual growth and human development. So when did we lose the ideal of a welfare state and start dismantling it in favour of freebies? It started with our embracing of the liberalisation of our economy. It started with the canard that there was corruption and sloth in the public sector, whereas the corporate world was more innovative, efficient and trustworthy.
We were carpet bombed with this narrative. Public perception management was so effective that people blindly supported measures for strengthening the corporates and tearing down the public sector. One by one sectors which were the backbone of the welfare state were handed over to private players, who wanted to operate them for profit. World class economists placed in positions of authority destroyed the economic ideology of the founding fathers of this nation and created grounds for concentration of wealth with a handful of people.
These wise men, sold to the idea of the ‘trickle-down theory’, used sterile indices like GDP and promoted massive sledge hammer activity on public institutions. They went on to defang the regulatory infrastructure and helped in the transfer of unthinkable amounts of national wealth to a few hands. Ideologically committed to dismantling the peoples’ control on public resources, they neutered the organised working class by slowly disenfranchising trade union activity.
Regular jobs were replaced with contractual labour, the most exploitative system of employment, which kills all sense of security and belonging. For years, the public sector, working in tandem with the welfare state, looked upon housing, education, training, health care and even recreation of the workers as an integral part of their corporate model. Overnight, these came to be viewed as avoidable expenses. The people had lost out.
A welfare state gives hope to the people, it gives them opportunities for improving their social standing and the assurance that they are not beholden to anyone’s mercies. The institutional support gives people the muscle to work without fear, and the voice to demand their due. Across the globe, we see this voice getting throttled by freebies.
The horse has been substantially tamed. Having been a part of the government, I sometimes wonder why senior bureaucrats fell in line, without a murmur of protest, when the government pushed them to sleep with big-money, something which was anathema till the 1990s. Why were they hell bent on destroying the public sector ~ which had given them their education, health care, social standing and professional satisfaction, nay their honour and pride?
Yet, they betrayed their oath of office. Some of them might have been on the take and others might have been softened with promises of sending their kids abroad to expensive colleges. Or was is it because their kids were no longer making it to the senior government services? So, if my boy was going to work in the corporate world, why should I care to strengthen the public institutions?
My question to all bureaucrats who were helming Ministries and Departments when disinvestment and privatization were being ushered in with great gusto is ~ “if you were so enamoured of the private sector, why didn’t you quit your jobs and join the corporate world?
If you were doing it under duress, more shame on you because you were destroying the prospects of young officers who would fill up your shoes in the future. You had Constitutional safeguards to work fearlessly as public servants, to watch over the interests of the common man, yet you ceded space to the private sector which happily stepped in and demolished the regulatory and compliance mechanisms”.
Do we have any figures on how many of these worthies took employment in the corporate world post their retirement, or in more sophisticated manoeuvres, allowed themselves to sit on the boards of some notable corporates in the country ~ with substantial perks? “Why was the security of government servants taken away by demolishing the assured pension scheme?”
Courts have time and again held that pension is not a bounty but is earned by dint of long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Did any of the gentlemen, who signed off on schemes to replace the financial security of their future colleagues with the vagaries of an uncertain capital market, give up their assured pensions?
Why are an increasing number of post-2004 officers seeking voluntary retirement after less than twenty years of service to join the corporate world, or some multilateral institutions? Have we ushered in the familiar private sector ethos of job hopping for bettering personal prospects?
What about commitment to serve the citizenry, which they had professed so sincerely, in their interviews for appointment to the coveted All India and Central Services. Several young officers confronted with this question have confided that they believe that an assured pension was a major factor that gave spine to the bureaucracy By failing to protect public institutions, the bureaucracy failed in its duty and weakened the key instruments of a welfare state.
The innocent people are paying the price for this dereliction of responsibility and are compelled to show their gratitude to our leaders for offering them freebies. They have had to give up their rights under a welfare state for the freebies thrown their way. But we can’t blame them.
(The writer is a former Chairman of the Union Public Services Commission)