JESUS & FREEBIES

Reflections on the Seventeenth Sunday in Ordinary Time (2 Kgs 4:42-44, Eph 4:1-6, Jn 6:1-15)

One of the interesting talking points of the recent Indian General Elections was the notion and culture of freebies. In fact, there is nothing radically new about the topic for the issue resurfaces promptly and magically every time there is an election around the corner. Only this time, the debate mustered wider attention in the wake of the unfortunate comment by the Prime Minister made on 16th July 2022 on the danger of ‘revadi’ to the country's development.

Questions that have echoed since then from election campaigns and national TV debates to our neighbourhood tea shops include: why make people lazy by handing out things for free? What is the difference between freebies and welfare? Is handing out free things sustainable and beneficial for the Indian economy in the long run? Are political parties, robbing Indians of their self-reliance and empowerment by promising them freebies?

And the classic: “Why give a man fish when you should be teaching him to fish?” In what could only be described as an ironic coincidence, Jesus is handing out ‘free’ fish and bread in today’s gospel to 5000 men with merely five barley loaves and two fish. Is Jesus then promoting the freebie culture? Searching for a solution to the debate on freebies from the Gospel is neither appropriate nor helpful. However, what the liturgy provides us today is a different take on the question, a possible angle of approach, and a neglected perspective.

It is interesting to note that the entire Gospel episode begins with Jesus' initiative. It is the Lord who notices something that manages to escape the attention of his disciples. He realises that the large crowd gathered to listen to him on the mountain is hungry. No one complained, reported anything, or demanded Jesus anything. However, he takes it upon himself to feed the huge crowd. He asks Philip, “where can we buy enough food for them to eat?”

What makes this astute observation and daring initiative possible is the pastoral closeness that characterises Jesus’ ministry. This closeness that we discern also in the first reading with Elisha is perhaps found wanting in some of our criticisms of welfare schemes. When decrying welfare policies, don’t we run the risk of adopting an elitist perspective that does not realise or appreciate the welfare impact of these programmes on the lives of the poor and the marginalised?

Flawed as they may be, the welfare schemes at least seem to take notice of the urgent needs of those who don’t always find their voice in our budget sessions. During a Supreme Court hearing on the issue, the then Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana remarked, “A shaving kit for a barber, a bicycle for a student, equipment for a toddy tapper, or an iron for a washerman, can change their lifestyle and uplift them”. 

A free bicycle, bus ride or meal in the school could seem like a political stunt to some and a flawed policy to others but for a child in a remote rural village, it could guarantee access to education. Jesus’ model teaches us that closeness to the life realities of people enables us to pay closer attention to the immediate and actual needs of those around us. The need to hand out free water, electricity, TV, laptops, free rations, or midday meals in this day and age may feel embarrassing but perhaps it is only a symptom of a greater embarrassment: the neglect of the voiceless and the ever-increasing divide between the rich and the poor, villages and cities, haves and the have-nots.

Secondly, there is the question of practicality and sustainability. When Jesus speaks about feeding the hungry crowd, Philip is understandably startled and he immediately goes about listing the practical difficulties in addressing Jesus’ demand. 200 days' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little. Philip’s objection is indeed logical and well-informed. It is precisely the kind of argument that our learned economies would employ themselves.

Jesus’ approach is different. To him, intention matters. Means will follow. As John mentions, “He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do”. Doesn’t the world have enough for everyone’s need if not for our greed? (Gandhi) Are our welfare ‘hand-outs’ more harmful than the loan waivers that aim at empowering the already empowered Adanis and Ambanis? When did public spending on education, healthcare, sanitation, and basic amenities fall under the freebies category? Perhaps, there is a way when and where there is a will. 

And finally, there is the issue of intention. The bread and fish that Jesus ‘hands over’ to the crowd are not intended to gather popularity, fuel political aspirations, or consolidate vote banks. In fact, at the end of the episode, when people want to come and get him off to make him king, Jesus withdraws ‘again’ to the mountain. Politicians who promise impractical and extravagant freebies or abuse welfare policies to gather votes aren’t motivated by compassion but by their passion for power. Maybe what needs to be deplored is the abuse and not the need for welfare. Let us ask Jesus for the gift of pastoral closeness and compassion that can help us become sensitive to the needs of those in the peripheries.