Dissension persists over freebies

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has enhanced her largesse to each of the Durga Puja organising committees by Rs 10,000 to Rs 60,000 at a time when the Supreme Court is seized with the matter of government freebies.

The taxpayers’ money to be spent thus, in Bengal, is estimated to be over Rs 250 crore. This year too, several cases have been filed in the Calcutta High Court against the move, like the last two years when the court allowed it on condition that the money would be spent on providing masks and sanitisers.

A large number of these pujas spend significant money, and none except insiders ever come to know how it is spent. The lack of proper auditing makes way for a carnival economy that many believe involves huge unaccounted gains for many. When this remains a private affair, we can ignore it as no one ever comes forward demanding transparent auditing.

But when taxpayers’ money is used, the question is whether such wasteful expenditure to please a section of voters is legal. Till now, there is no law to stop freebies not aimed at economic or social development. According to the RBI’s June report, such freebies are financially risky.

Also Read | Expense for Durga Puja festivities concerns experts as Bengal faces continued financial crunch

However, as the central bank noted, there is no precise definition of freebies.

Still, the RBI categorised the provision of free electricity, free water, free public transportation, waiver of pending utility bills and farm loan waivers as freebies. However, some of these could be seen as social development expenditures if efficiently targeted to the poorest. After the RBI, Prime Minister Narendra Modi flagged the issue of freebies. The Supreme Court is also hearing a petition but is constrained by different opinions on the definition of freebies.

Two decades ago, when the SC mandated the midday meal scheme, it was criticised for providing freebies. That criticism originated from insensitive economism that dominated our elite’s minds in those days. The scenario has changed, but the definition remains elusive.

However, if we follow Mahatma Gandhi’s idea that there is enough on earth for everybody’s needs but not enough for everybody’s greed, we may get a comprehensive guideline for defining freebies. The principle could cover a minimal package of necessary food, clothing, shelter, health and education expenditure. The state must guarantee this package for all.

Unfortunately, 75 years after Independence, we have failed to provide this minimum package. For example, in Bengal, a retired teacher recently died of suicide after failing to get a pension three years after his superannuation.

The Supreme Court, while deciding on freebies, must take note of the Bengal government’s generosity to Puja committees and such schemes as the Delhi government’s free transport of devotees from Delhi to Ayodhya.

Many middle-class women in Bengal are beneficiaries of the Rs 500 monthly government grant. When giving such grants, or free power or water or bus fare, the moral obligation of a government is to ensure it is targeted to provide relief to the poorest of the poor. In conclusion, we may wonder whether not taxing wealthy farmers is not a freebie. It is, however, too hot a topic to touch.

(The writer is a Kolkata-based journalist)