The Supreme Court’s ‘Parasites’ Remark for Homeless Is an Injustice Beyond Measure
A Statement That Shames the Nation
In a recent hearing regarding night shelters, the Supreme Court of India made a statement that has left many shocked and outraged. The court, while discussing the government’s responsibility toward the homeless, remarked that providing them with freebies turns them into ‘parasites.’ This statement, brutal and dehumanizing, reflects an insensitivity that is intolerable in a country where millions struggle daily to survive.
The idea that free food and night shelters make the homeless dependent is not just misguided but deeply detached from reality. The Supreme Court, the very institution meant to uphold justice and protect the vulnerable, has instead chosen to shame them. The remark raises serious concerns about how the judiciary perceives economically marginalized populations and whether it truly understands the depth of their struggles.
The Harsh Reality of Homeless Shelters: Alienation and Mental Health Struggles
Having worked in a homeless shelter, I can attest that the experience is shattering. The people living there are not ‘parasites’; they are victims of a system that has failed them at every turn. There exists a deep alienation within these shelters—a sense of being abandoned by society, of being reduced to mere numbers rather than human beings with dignity and aspirations.
The psychological toll of homelessness is immense. Many individuals suffer from severe depression, anxiety, and trauma due to years of neglect and hardship. A life of uncertainty, hunger, and rejection from mainstream society often leads to deteriorating mental health. Rather than acknowledging this reality, the Supreme Court’s statement further stigmatizes an already vulnerable population, reinforcing the idea that they are undeserving of compassion or support.
Many individuals I met were desperate to earn money, not because they were unwilling to work, but because work was scarce and exploitative. Some were even willing to sell their kidneys just to get by. Others took on any labor work they could find, despite being paid minimal wages. The Supreme Court’s claim that freebies prevent these individuals from working ignores this harsh reality. It paints them as lazy and unmotivated when, in truth, they are among the hardest-working people in our society, struggling to survive under unimaginable conditions.
A Flawed Understanding of Poverty
The Supreme Court’s statement echoes a common belief among many privileged individuals—that giving money or food to the poor makes them dependent. I have heard countless laypeople say, “Don’t give them money; they will just spend it on alcohol.” Now, the highest court in the country is making a similar argument, only magnified in its cruelty by referring to these people as ‘parasites.’
This flawed perspective fails to recognize that the homeless are not in their situation by choice. They are victims of systemic inequalities, economic downturns, and policy failures. Instead of questioning why people need these ‘freebies’ in the first place, the court has chosen to degrade them, shifting the blame onto the poor rather than addressing the structural issues that perpetuate homelessness.
Selective Outrage: Why Are Industrialists Not Called ‘Parasites’?
While the Supreme Court condemns the homeless for relying on minimal government assistance, it remains silent when it comes to wealthy industrialists and capitalists who have exploited public resources and evaded accountability. Industrialists are granted debt waivers worth thousands of crores. Business tycoons flee the country after taking massive loans from Indian banks, and yet, no one dares to call them ‘parasites.’ Instead, they are celebrated as entrepreneurs, even as they drain national resources and leave taxpayers to bear the burden of their unpaid debts.
Government policies often favor the wealthy, offering tax cuts, land grants, and financial incentives under the guise of ‘economic growth.’ These same industrialists lobby for policies that suppress workers’ rights, keeping wages low while accumulating enormous wealth. Meanwhile, the homeless—who receive nothing more than the bare minimum for survival—are vilified for supposedly draining national resources.
But when a destitute person eats low-quality food at a night shelter—food that no one would consume willingly—they are suddenly labeled a parasite? This hypocrisy is disgraceful.
The Absurdity of the ‘Mainstreaming’ Argument
The Supreme Court’s argument that homeless individuals should be brought into the mainstream of society is, on the surface, correct. But what is the proposed road map for achieving this? Is the court suggesting that taking away free food will miraculously integrate them into the workforce? If so, this is not just naïve but deeply irresponsible.
These individuals already work—most of them as daily wage laborers, earning meager amounts that barely sustain them. Some days they find work; other days they don’t. Many send whatever little they earn to their families. The court suggests that the government should focus on giving them jobs, but is this a joke? The government has failed to provide employment even to educated university graduates. How, then, can we expect it to suddenly provide stable jobs to the homeless?
Ignoring the Systemic Causes of Homelessness
No government, regardless of its political affiliation, truly cares about the homeless. They exist in the blind spots of society, ignored until election time when politicians suddenly remember them as potential voters. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness—lack of affordable housing, inadequate wages, and insufficient social security—governments offer temporary relief in the form of night shelters and food programs. And even these minimal services are now being condemned as ‘freebies.’
It is not the homeless who are parasites; it is the system that has parasitically fed on their labor while offering nothing in return. The real question should not be whether these individuals deserve free food but why they need it in the first place.
What Can the Supreme Court Do?
Rather than shaming the homeless, the Supreme Court should use its power to force the government to take real action.
- Can the court demand an increase in funding for organizations that provide shelter and rehabilitation?
- Can it push for stronger labor protections to ensure fair wages for daily workers?
- Can it call for an investigation into why government schemes meant for the poor are often riddled with corruption and inefficiency?
- Can it demand that tax benefits and debt waivers for industrialists be scrutinized with the same intensity as welfare programs for the poor?
The judiciary has immense power to influence policy and hold the government accountable. But instead of advocating for real change, it has chosen to degrade the most vulnerable members of our society.
A Call for Dignity and Justice
The Supreme Court’s statement is not just an insult; it is a reflection of a broader societal indifference toward the poor. Homelessness is not a moral failing or a sign of laziness—it is a crisis born out of economic inequality and systemic neglect. Instead of shaming those who are already suffering, we must work toward restoring their dignity and providing them with real opportunities to rebuild their lives.
Justice is not just about punishing criminals; it is also about protecting the marginalized. If the Supreme Court cannot recognize this fundamental truth, then what hope do we have for a just and equitable society?
Learn More
War, Power, and the Wounded Psyche: The Truth Behind Global Conflicts
When we look at wars and conflicts throughout history, they often seem like a material phenomenon—powerful nations and their leaders waging war to conquer lands, control natural resources, and establish economic supremacy. The long history of colonization, imperialism, and military invasions appears to be driven by greed, the hunger for money, land, and assets. However, to see war only as a battle for material gain is to tell only half the story. The truth is far deeper, rooted not just in politics and economics but in human psychology, particularly in the psyche of the leaders who drive these wars.
The Hidden Motivations of Conflict
While external factors such as resources, territory, and political ideologies provide the justification for war, they are often a facade that masks the true internal conflicts of leaders. Many wars have been fueled by an obsessive pursuit of honor, respect, and dignity—concepts that override everything else, even logic and morality. History has witnessed countless treacherous leaders who have inflicted devastation on the world not merely because of economic ambitions, but because of deeply rooted psychological wounds.
Treacherous leaders are not born; they are made. They are shaped in environments where love, emotional security, and a sense of self-worth are absent. In the absence of these fundamental emotional needs, such individuals develop a desperate need to compensate. They begin to seek validation in dominance, power, and control. This psychological void, what psychoanalysts often refer to as the ‘narcissistic wound,’ pushes them toward extreme actions—actions that rewrite history in blood and destruction.
From the conquest-driven madness of Alexander the Great and the imperial ambitions of Napoleon Bonaparte to the genocidal reigns of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, history is rife with leaders who compensated for their internal wounds through war and destruction. Each of these leaders justified their actions as being for the greater good, but their true motivations lay elsewhere.
More recent manifestations of such psychological compensation can be seen in figures like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former U.S. President Donald Trump. Their political decisions often go beyond strategic governance, driven by personal insecurities, wounded egos, and a deep need to assert dominance. Netanyahu’s relentless military aggression and Trump’s erratic foreign policies are not merely political maneuvers; they are extensions of their psychological need to compensate for personal inadequacies, using entire nations as tools for their own validation.
Obedience and the Machinery of War
The question then arises: If war is often driven by the wounded psyche of a few leaders, why do masses follow them? Why do soldiers obey orders to kill, destroy, and sacrifice their own humanity? The answer lies in obedience and the structure of military institutions. Psychological research, particularly Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience, has shown that humans are wired to follow authority figures, even when it goes against their moral compass. The hierarchy within military structures reinforces this obedience, ensuring that individuals become mere cogs in the machine of war.
But obedience is not the only factor. There are soldiers who genuinely find pleasure in killing, who channel their own psychological wounds into the act of war. War, for them, is not just duty—it is a form of personal compensation, a way to reclaim a sense of power they never had in their personal lives. Just as leaders seek validation through conquest, some soldiers seek it through bloodshed.
The Role of Historians: Changing the Narrative
When wars and conflicts are analyzed, history books often focus on tangible causes—resource control, strategic military advantages, or ideological differences. But by doing so, we are doing a great disservice to ourselves. The history of war needs to be rewritten with a psychological lens, one that turns inward and exposes the deeply personal motivations of those who wield power. Until we begin to recognize that war is not merely about land, oil, and political ideologies but about mental illness and psychological compensation, we will continue to be trapped in an endless cycle of destruction.
Understanding war through this perspective does not justify the actions of these leaders, but it does allow us to anticipate and counteract future conflicts. Perhaps the most dangerous thing about treacherous leaders is not their ambition, but their ability to articulate and justify their actions in a way that manipulates the masses. The most powerful leaders are not just warriors; they are skilled storytellers, capable of making destruction seem noble.
In the end, war is not just a failure of diplomacy or economics—it is a failure of human psychology. Until we address the wounded psyches that drive leaders to war, the world will continue to pay the price for their unhealed scars.
Learn More