Can India move beyond ‘free’ to flourish?

As I reflect on the recent elections in Karnataka and Telangana, I can't help but notice a troubling trend: The heavy reliance on subsidies as a campaign promise. Here, in these states where many people belong to lower-income groups, politicians are making bold pledges of free electricity, water, and even cash handouts to win votes. At first glance, these welfare promises seem compassionate and necessary, but I find myself worried about the cycle they create—a cycle that can diminish the desire for work and self-sufficiency among those who benefit from them.

When individuals receive subsidies, especially for their essential needs, I see how their motivation to seek employment begins to fade. I can already perceive the early signs of a labour shortage in some of India’s most densely populated areas. This strategy may help politicians secure votes in the short term, but I fear it ultimately weakens the economy, leading to a workforce increasingly reliant on government assistance rather than contributing to economic productivity. Moreover, I’ve noticed that skill development programs struggle to take off in this environment, as the lack of motivation to work makes it difficult for people to engage in training and education that could enhance their employability.

I realize that this issue isn't unique to India. Throughout history, there have been examples where centralized, authoritarian governments have successfully driven growth in developing nations by avoiding the pitfalls of populist spending that democracies often face. I think back to South Korea in the 1960s, a nation ravaged by war and poverty. Under Park Chung-hee, South Korea was far from a democratic state, yet the government maintained a laser focus on industrialization, exports, and education. There were no distractions from short-term promises; instead, there was a commitment to long-term goals. This approach resulted in job creation, nurtured self-reliance, and built a strong economic foundation in just a few decades.

Singapore also comes to mind. Under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, the government prioritized productivity, housing, and education, significantly raising the standard of living across the country. Unlike Karnataka and Telangana, where subsidies can sometimes stifle the motivation to work, South Korea and Singapore focused on sustainable growth, creating a society where welfare became unnecessary for those capable of working. These nations forged a path to economic strength not through subsidies but by providing opportunities for individuals to improve their lives through their own efforts.

Yet, I believe that as a nation matures economically, democracy becomes vital. I look to South Korea’s transition to democracy in the 1980s as a powerful example. Once the economy stabilized and a middle class emerged, the demand for political representation and accountability surged. Democracy was not merely an option; it became essential, allowing citizens to have a say in governance as they gained education and economic stability. Taiwan followed a similar journey, moving from centralized rule under Chiang Kai-shek to a vibrant democracy as its economy flourished.

As I consider the future of rapidly growing regions like India, I feel strongly that governance should focus on building a robust and productive economy before implementing widespread welfare programs. While democracy remains the ultimate goal, I believe it functions best when grounded in a solid economic foundation that doesn’t depend on subsidies. This way, people can stay motivated to work and actively contribute to societal progress, ensuring that democracy, when it arrives, stands on a stable and self-sustaining base that benefits everyone.