When Monuments Compete with Medicine: Why SC's Ruling Resonates
I read the Supreme Court's admonition — "Don't use public money to construct statues" — and felt a quiet, almost relief-tinged validation. The judgment reported by the Times of India makes a sharp point about the limits of public expenditure on symbolic projects when competing needs — health, sanitation, safety, public transport — remain urgent Don't use public money to construct statues: SC. The story circulated widely, including an automated feed on Reddit IN - Don't use public money to construct statues: SC and a social post linking coverage from Bengaluru Post (X/Twitter) Bengaluru Post link.
What the ruling means to me — in plain language
I believe public funds should be used where they produce the most tangible public good. A statue can inspire pride. But a functioning hospital saves lives; clean public toilets prevent disease; reliable buses and safer stations prevent stampedes and daily tragedies. The Court's direction is a reminder that symbolism cannot replace services.
This is not theoretical for me. Over the years I've written and lobbied about how government budgets can be better deployed to protect and serve large populations — whether it was planning for the Maha Kumbh Real and Present Danger at Maha Kumbh or urging GPS, CCTV and safety improvements for bus networks Digitization of Transport — Public or Private?. I've argued that when a state spends crores on spectacle, it must first ask: does this protect people, create livelihoods or prevent foreseeable harm? My long essay on the scale and hazards of mass pilgrimages — "The Greatest Show on Earth: Kumbh Mela" — laid out concrete alternatives for crowd safety and tourist infrastructure that would have far greater public-return-per-rupee than many monuments The Greatest Show on Earth : Kumbh Mela.
The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up similar thoughts years ago: I had predicted that as crowds and public-service demands grew, funds would be better spent on safety, sanitation and infrastructure, and I proposed concrete solutions at the time. Seeing today's conversation and the Court's position, I feel both validated and urgent — those earlier ideas remain highly relevant and should be revisited and implemented now.
Why this matters beyond appearances
Priorities shape outcomes. When budgets are finite, choices mean trade-offs. Every rupee spent on an ornamental project is a rupee not spent on primary health centres, ambulances, toilets, water pumps, life-guards at ghats, or safety upgrades at railway stations.
Symbolism without substance risks public trust. Citizens rightly cheer monuments that celebrate shared history — but the public loses trust when commemoration comes at the cost of basic services.
There are better ways to honor leaders. Plaques, museums, digital archives, scholarships, and community programmes can memorialize values while delivering direct public benefit.
Practical instincts I keep returning to
From my experience and prior writings, three practical instincts guide me when I see debates like this:
Prioritize human safety and dignity first. For events that gather millions, invest in toilets, waste management, medical triage, tracking and emergency transport. (See my Kumbh safety proposals in Real and Present Danger at Maha Kumbh and The Greatest Show on Earth.)
Digitize and monitor to prevent avoidable harm. GPS-linked buses, CCTV, ICCC integration and crowd-monitoring save lives; they are not luxuries but public goods (Digitization of Transport — Public or Private?).
Convert civic pride into civic utility. If leaders want to leave legacies, ensure they fund endowments for schools, hospitals, or tourism infrastructure that produce economic returns and social resilience (as I discussed when urging tourism thinking that converts idle assets into livelihoods Aditya Thackerayji — How to revive tourism).
A personal ask to policymakers and fellow citizens
I respect the impulse to honor great people. I also respect the Court's nudge to be fiscally and morally responsible. My ask is simple: align symbolism with social returns. Where public money is involved, insist that commemorative programmes also fund measurable, long-term public benefits — health, safety, education, or livelihoods.
When I proposed safer, smarter investments for mass events and transport, it was because I believed public expenditure should protect and empower people first. The Supreme Court's direction today is a legal articulation of the same public ethic. Let's let that ethic guide how we budget, build, and remember.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
