The Paradox of Parasitism: A Critique of the Supreme Court's Freebie Judgment

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ignited a contentious debate by questioning the distribution of freebies by political parties, suggesting that it might be fostering a "class of parasites" among the populace. This commentary, however, raises questions about the selectivity of such critiques, particularly when juxtaposed against the backdrop of loan write-offs for the elite, which seem to escape similar scrutiny.

The Essence of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's observations were made in the context of a case concerning shelter for the homeless, where it was argued that freebies, like free rations and monetary benefits, might disincentivize people from seeking work. Justice BR Gavai posed a thought-provoking question: "Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of the society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?" This statement has sparked a nationwide debate on welfare policies and their impact on work ethics.

Critique and Double Standards

However, this critique seems to highlight a glaring inconsistency in how societal contributions and benefits are viewed. While the Court points out the potential negative effects of welfare benefits on the lower socio-economic groups, there is a noticeable silence on the financial indulgences granted to the elite, particularly through loan write-offs.

• Selective Parasitism: The term 'parasite' is used in this context to describe those who benefit from welfare without contributing to the economy through labor. Yet, the same label isn't applied to the wealthy who benefit from public money through debt forgiveness. For instance, corporate loan waivers or write-offs, often running into thousands of crores, are justified under various economic rationales like preventing bankruptcies or supporting business growth,without a similar moral or ethical critique.Some Stats:  Welfare Dependency: According to the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), around 22.8% of households receive benefits from public distribution system (PDS) for food security. Corporate Loan Write-offs: Data from the Reserve Bank of India's Financial Stability Report (December 2023) shows that public sector banks wrote off loans amounting to INR 2.09 lakh crore in FY 2022-23, while private sector banks wrote off INR 1.02 lakh crore, indicating significant financial support to corporations. 
• Economic Equity: The argument that welfare benefits create dependency could be seen as overlooking the structural inequalities that necessitate such welfare in the first place. In contrast, elite loan write-offs, which are essentially government-funded cushions for the rich, do not face the same level of public or judicial scrutiny, suggesting a disparity in how welfare for different classes is perceived. Some Stats: Income Inequality: The World Inequality Report 2022 reveals that the top 10% of Indians take home 57% of the national income, with the bottom 50% earning just 13%.
  Poverty and Welfare: The Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 2023 by UNDP indicates that 16.4% of India's population is multi-dimensionally poor, underscoring the ongoing need for welfare support.
• Moral and Ethical Consistency: If the concern is about creating a culture of dependency, then surely the same lens should be applied to all forms of financial aid from public funds. The moral question then arises: Why is it that a farmer receiving free seeds or a laborer getting free rations is seen as a societal burden, but a business magnate whose loans are written off is not? Some Stats: Tax Evasion: Recent estimates by the Central Board of Direct Taxes suggest that tax evasion could still be costing India around INR 5 lakh crore annually, impacting public welfare funding.

Affluenza and Political Cronyism

The discussion cannot overlook the broader socio-economic issues like 'affluenza' among the elite, where a sense of entitlement leads to taking public resources for granted while giving little back to society. Politicians and their cronies exacerbate this by destroying harmony and equitable access to resources, focusing development in favor of a select few. This not only hampers national growth but also erodes public trust and social cohesion, leading to a scenario where wealth and power remain concentrated, stifling innovation and equitable development.

Some Stats 

📍The Oxfam India Inequality Report 2023 states that in the post-COVID era, the wealth of India's richest 1% grew by 63%, while the bottom half of the population saw their wealth only rise by 3%.

📍In the 2023 Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International, India ranks 93 out of 180 countries, indicating persistent governance issues that could foster cronyism

A Call for Holistic Evaluation

The Supreme Court's judgment opens up a broader discussion on what constitutes a fair and equitable distribution of public resources. Here are some points to consider:

• Equal Scrutiny: There should be an equitable examination of all forms of public financial aid. If freebies for the poor are to be questioned, so should subsidies or financial aid for the affluent.
• Systemic Reform: Rather than blaming individuals for dependency, perhaps the focus should shift towards systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty and unemployment, ensuring that welfare does not equate to dependency but rather empowerment.
• Public Discourse: This judgment should spur a national conversation not just about the morality of freebies but about the broader implications of economic policies that favor one class over another, promoting a more balanced approach to the critique of public welfare.

The Supreme Court's remarks on freebies and the potential creation of a "class of parasites" deserve introspection but also demand a broader critique. If we are to truly address dependency, we must look at all forms of public financial aid with the same critical eye, questioning not just the welfare for the poor but also the financial privileges extended to the rich. Only through such equitable scrutiny can we hope to foster a society where every citizen's contribution is valued, and support is provided where it's most needed, without the stigma of parasitism. Moreover, tackling affluenza among the elite and curbing political cronyism are vital for restoring harmony and ensuring equitable access to resources and national development.