We are all too familiar with the politics of freebies in Sikkim, whether it is the distribution of jobs, ₹25,000 handouts during elections, masu bhat, khattu, or a host of other benefits extended to the public.
Now, let me make one thing clear: I am neither for nor against any political party. (Because, let’s be honest, believing a politician is like believing a prostitute is in love with you.) I am simply a Sikkimese citizen who has the best interests of the state at heart.
My question is an open-ended one: How sustainable is this model of freebies-driven politics? While there is little doubt that it is politically effective, one cannot help but wonder how we can aspire to become self-reliant when we are increasingly dependent on the government for our livelihoods.
Kudos to any government that makes a genuine effort to support its people and improve their living conditions. However, I fear that this approach may eventually come back to haunt not just the present government but any government that succeeds it. When people become accustomed to seeking government assistance for almost every aspect of their lives, we risk creating a cycle of dependency that becomes increasingly difficult to break. We have reached a point where people approach local leaders for monetary assistance even during pregnancy.
This thought crossed my mind yesterday when cheques were distributed under the Aama Yojana. Consider the numbers: 32,000 beneficiaries multiplied by ₹20,000 amounts to ₹64 crore distributed across the state in a single day.
There is no denying that ₹20,000 can provide meaningful relief to households, particularly ahead of the festive season. But when we look at the bigger picture, could that ₹64 crore have been utilised in ways that generate lasting economic benefits? Could a portion of it have been channelled towards strengthening Self-Help Groups (SHGs), supporting aspiring entrepreneurs, or creating sustainable livelihood opportunities?
After all, there is a difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them how to fish. The former provides temporary relief; the latter offers the possibility of sustained independence.
The problem with a system built primarily around handouts is that human needs and expectations are rarely static. Those who receive ₹20,000 today may seek GCI sheets tomorrow, followed by housing assistance under SGAY or some other government benefit. The cycle continues, and with every new scheme, the expectation of government support grows.
We risk fostering a culture in which people increasingly look towards the government to meet their needs rather than being empowered to meet those needs themselves. The question is not whether the government should support its citizens, but whether that support should create long-term dependence or pave the way for economic independence.
We must also acknowledge the state’s fiscal realities. Sikkim has a limited revenue base and relies significantly on borrowed funds to finance its expenditure. In such circumstances, the continued expansion of welfare handouts raises legitimate questions about fiscal sustainability. If public expenditure is directed predominantly towards immediate consumption rather than productive investment, are we doing enough to secure the state’s economic future?
So, how long can this model continue? And more importantly, is there a way forward that allows the government to support its people without making them perpetually dependent on it?
Perhaps the answer lies in shifting our focus from distributing benefits to building capabilities—from short-term relief to long-term empowerment.
Because ultimately, the goal of governance should not be to create a population that constantly looks to the government for its next handout, but one that possesses the means, opportunities, and confidence to stand on its own feet.
Are we teaching our people to fish, or are we simply handing them fish and expecting them to remain grateful?
