Not necessarily. If we make people see where the money is going, or how better use of resources is going to improve their lives, they will accept it. That’s why decentralisation is critical. If you preach to a smoker to stop smoking, but transfer the money which is saved to a higher authority who will decide what to do with it, obviously the smoker will reject the argument. But if the family has the power to choose how the money will be spent, then he is more likely to make rational choices. I am firmly of the view that school education and healthcare must primarily be the responsibility of the state. There is also a case to subsidise urban housing and employment generation until the products become competitive but consumption subsidies that do not enhance productivity or income-earning capacity are a drain on the exchequer and serve only to perpetuate poverty. The fact that the UPA has now lost public support despite unprecedented freebies shows that people eventually wake up to this reality, but it requires great leadership and innovation to come out of this freebie culture.