Introduction
India’s digital welfare state promises scale and efficiency, but risks bypassing core democratic norms, citizen agency, and political accountability. Algorithmic governance, if unchecked, may dehumanise welfare delivery and weaken constitutional safeguards.
- From Rights-Based Welfare to Technocratic Targeting: India’s transition from a rights-based welfare model to a technocratic calculus is marked by the dominance of Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT), Aadhaar, and algorithmic targeting. With 1,206 schemes integrated into DBT and over a billion Aadhaar enrollments, the focus has shifted from deliberating who needs support and why to how to eliminate leakage. This shift, while improving coverage and reducing ghost beneficiaries, risks undermining contextual discretion and lived realities, especially for marginalised communities.
- Loss of Political Accountability through Algorithmic Insulation: Digital systems such as the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) flatten federal hierarchies into ticket-based systems. While lakhs of complaints were “disposed of” in 2022–24, responsibility remains diffused. Algorithmic insulation renders citizens visible as data but obscures the pathways of accountability — echoing Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s 2018 Aadhaar dissent on “datafication without empathy”. This detachment dilutes the democratic ethic of responsiveness and political answerability.
- Ethical Dilemma of Computable Suffering: Technocratic governance converts citizen suffering into computable metrics — who is visible, who can complain, and whose deprivation is measurable. Drawing from Giorgio Agamben’s “homo sacer” and Jacques Rancière’s critique of democracy, the danger lies in stripping welfare of deliberation and dignity, reducing the citizen to a passive, auditable beneficiary. For instance, e-Shram and PM-KISAN operate through standardised eligibility filters with minimal room for appeals or human error correction.
- Federal Disempowerment and the Fragility of Uniform Systems: Hyper-centralised platforms often undermine state-level discretion, ignoring region-specific welfare needs. Taleb’s theory of “fragile, hyper-integrated systems” becomes relevant here: overly standardised digital regimes can fail catastrophically under local stress, as seen in DBT-linked ration denials in Jharkhand’s starvation deaths (2017–18). States must have the autonomy to adapt systems to their socio-economic realities.
- Declining Welfare Commitment Amid Digital Expansion: Despite the data-driven expansion, India’s social sector spending has declined to 17% of total expenditure in 2024–25, from a decade average of 21%. Crucial schemes for minorities, nutrition, and social security have seen disproportionate cuts. This points to a hollowing out of welfare intent, where digital delivery replaces deeper social investment.
- Institutional Erosion: The RTI Crisis: Political accountability is further eroded by the dysfunctional Right to Information (RTI) architecture. As of June 2024, over 4 lakh RTI appeals remain pending across 29 commissions, with 8 Chief posts vacant (CIC Annual Report). Digital opacity in welfare systems combined with weak transparency mechanisms severely hampers citizen oversight.
The Need for Democratic Antifragility
Instead of a brittle, technocratic regime, India must aim for democratic antifragility — systems that become more accountable under stress. This includes:
- Statutory bias audits and appeals mechanisms (UN digital governance principles),
- Community-driven impact audits (UN Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty),
- Platform cooperatives (like Kerala’s Kudumbashree),
- Offline fallback systems for grievance redress.
Conclusion
India’s digital welfare must evolve from mere efficiency to democratic inclusion. True transformation lies in restoring citizen agency, embedding safeguards, and nurturing participatory systems that complement—not replace—constitutional values.
