Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas
The arrival of New Year 2026 is not just a ceremonial turning of the calendar; it is a critical moment for governments across the world to pause, introspect, and correct course. In democratic systems, the true strength of governance lies not merely in winning elections or retaining power, but in the willingness to acknowledge shortcomings and transform governance from political self-congratulation to public accountability. Today, India—like many democracies globally—stands at a crossroads where welfare policies, relief measures, and the rising culture of “freebies” demand serious scrutiny.
Across the globe, governments are increasingly questioned on a fundamental issue: are welfare schemes genuinely reaching the deserving, or are they being diluted and distorted by political competition? In India, as well as in several developing and developed democracies, subsidies, free utilities, cash transfers, and concessions have shifted from being instruments of social justice to tools of electoral strategy. Relief, in many cases, has become politics by other means.
In the competitive political environment of the present era, welfare promises dominate public discourse. While such schemes are often justified in the name of social security and inclusion, ground realities tell a more complex story. Numerous reports, social audits, and field studies indicate that a significant portion of government relief is being cornered by ineligible beneficiaries. At the same time, the truly needy either receive partial benefits or are excluded altogether. This dual leakage—of resources and trust—raises serious questions about governance ethics, fiscal prudence, and long-term economic stability.
Globally, institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have repeatedly highlighted that welfare leakages are among the most pressing challenges for developing economies. India is no exception. Subsidies in electricity, water, healthcare, education, and transport are intended to bridge inequality, yet disparities between urban and rural populations, rich and poor households, and organized and unorganized sectors persist stubbornly.
International experience offers important lessons. In OECD countries, Scandinavian nations, and several East Asian economies, governance reform has focused less on announcing new schemes and more on reviewing outcomes, correcting policy drift, and ensuring transparency. Europe, for instance, follows a model of universal basic services where affordability is ensured, but services are rarely free. Citizens pay, but within a regulated and equitable framework that guarantees quality and continuity. In contrast, India often announces free services without adequately ensuring service quality, sustainability, or equitable access.
The expansion of the so-called “freebie culture” has also transformed welfare into populism. Free electricity, free water, free travel, and unconditional cash transfers may deliver short-term political dividends, but global experience—particularly from parts of Latin America, Africa, and South Asia—shows that unchecked populist welfare can create long-term fiscal stress and economic imbalance. The critical question, therefore, is not whether welfare is necessary, but whether it is well-targeted, accountable, and sustainable.
A core principle of any welfare state is targeted delivery. Yet, in practice, this principle is weakening. Many ineligible individuals benefit from multiple schemes simultaneously, while deserving citizens struggle with documentation hurdles and administrative apathy. This not only wastes public resources but also violates the very idea of social justice. In the new year 2026, this reality calls for comprehensive, impartial, and technology-driven audits of public schemes.
India already possesses powerful tools for reform—Aadhaar-based identification, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), and robust digital public infrastructure. If ineligible beneficiaries continue to exploit the system despite these mechanisms, it reflects not a lack of technology, but a lack of administrative will. Globally, real-time data integration, outcome audits, and performance-based reviews have significantly improved welfare efficiency. India must move decisively in this direction.
The role of oversight institutions is equally crucial. Bodies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and state audit mechanisms must be further empowered to conduct transparent social and performance audits. Accountability should not be episodic or political; it must be institutional and continuous.
Another sensitive yet necessary area of introspection relates to government privileges. In several departments, including the railways and public utilities, employees continue to receive free or heavily subsidized services as part of historical service conditions. While these practices may have been justified in earlier eras, they merit review in a changing socio-economic context. When ordinary citizens pay for every service, unlimited concessions to government employees risk creating perceptions of inequality and social imbalance. Many developed countries address this issue by offering competitive salaries rather than extensive non-monetary privileges.
From a global perspective, successful democracies demonstrate that free facilities alone do not build strong societies. Countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea balance the user-pays principle with strong social security nets. This approach promotes responsible citizenship, fiscal discipline, and long-term self-reliance. India, aspiring to be a globally exemplary democracy, must seriously reflect on whether it wants a state driven by short-term popularity or one committed to sustainable development and accountable governance.
Political parties, too, must exercise restraint. Election manifestos should prioritize education, skills, healthcare, employment, and productivity over competitive giveaways. The culture of freebies may win votes, but it weakens democratic maturity and undermines institutional credibility.
In conclusion, New Year 2026 should mark a transition—from introspection to reform. Central and state governments must acknowledge policy deviations, curb ineligible beneficiaries, rationalize welfare delivery, and review entrenched privileges. Only through such honest self-criticism can India move toward balanced, just, and accountable governance. This path will not only strengthen the economy but also position India as a democracy that leads by example on the global stage.
