Abstract

The issue of freebies is a recurrent theme in India's political landscape, resurfacing last year in the first week of August when the Supreme Court of India suggested forming an expert committee to examine the matter. Currently, there is a dispute between the central government and the states regarding the practice of promising handouts during election periods. The distinction between freebies and other forms of welfare spending, such as free electricity, water, and education, is subtle yet significant. The post-liberalization era in India, characterized by the adoption of the 'trickle-down' economic model, along with imbalanced tax structures and an unsustainable fiscal federal framework, has exacerbated income and wealth inequality. Even successful welfare measures are sometimes criticized dismissively. While business incentives like corporate tax cuts are often seen as positive economic measures, assistance for the poor is viewed as draining public funds. This disparity in perception persists, regardless of whether irrational freebies impose a substantial burden on the public treasury. Implicitly, this situation underscores the prevalence of competitive populism, particularly in an environment where cooperative federalism is impractical and discordant. Populism, in any form, invariably asserts to represent the 'genuine' or 'pure' population – a commonplace spectacle in contemporary India. In this context, populism manifests as a clash between two opposing political narratives. On one side, there are parties that advocate limiting assistance provision, which could yield electoral advantages for their opponents. On the other side, some parties view freebies as affirmative policy measures to improve overall livelihoods. This paper endeavors to examine and analyse how populist politics intersects with the broader public discourse surrounding the dichotomy of freebies versus welfare spending.