Why in News: India’s welfare model has witnessed a deep shift — from rights-based entitlements to a technocratic, data-driven governance system. While this has improved efficiency and coverage, it raises concerns around democratic accountability, citizen agency, and equity.
Key Features of the Emerging Digital Welfare State
Massive Integration of Schemes:
- Over 1,206 welfare schemes integrated with Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
- More than 1 billion Aadhaar enrollments.
Digital Monitoring Infrastructure:
- 36 grievance redressal portals.
- Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) flattens federal hierarchies into ticket-based complaint resolution.
- Schemes like E-SHRAM & PM-KISAN: Exemplify a uni-directional, auditable, and algorithmic logic in welfare.
Major Concerns
1. Post-Rights Based Regime
- Focus has shifted from “who deserves support and why?” to “how to reduce leakage and maximise coverage?”
- Citizens are reduced to beneficiaries, rather than rights-bearing individuals.
2. Depoliticisation & Algorithmic Governance
- Welfare governance is increasingly data-centric, ignoring local complexities and constitutional values.
- Inspired by Habermas’s ‘technocratic consciousness’ and Foucault’s ‘governmentality’, decisions are now more technical than political.
3. Decline in Social Spending
- Social sector expenditure has declined to 17% in 2024-25, down from an average of 21% (2014-24).
- Welfare for minorities, labour, nutrition, and social security fell from 11% pre-COVID to 3% post-COVID.
4. RTI in Crisis
- Over 4 lakh pending cases in Information Commissions.
- 8 CIC posts vacant (as of June 30, 2024).
- Indicates weakening of transparency and accountability mechanisms.
5. Algorithmic Insulation
- Systems like CPGRAMS centralise grievance tracking but may centralise visibility without real accountability.
Philosophical Critiques Referenced
Agamben’s Homo Sacer: Citizens are stripped of political agency.
Rancière: Democracy depends on whose suffering is visible, not just computable.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s Aadhaar dissent (2018): Warned against de-contextualised, machinic identities.
Jürgen Habermas – Technocratic Consciousness: Governance reduced to technical decisions, ignoring democratic dialogue.
Michel Foucault – Governmentality: State exerts power through bureaucratic surveillance.
Way Forward
1. Democratic Antifragility
- Welfare systems must be resilient and adaptable, not just perfect in design.
2. Context-Sensitive Federalism
- Empower States to create localised, pluralistic welfare systems.
3. Community Accountability
Institutionalise community-driven audits via:
- Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan
- Gram Panchayat Development Plans
- SHGs and Platform Cooperatives (e.g., Kudumbashree in Kerala)
4. Strengthen Democratic Mechanisms
- Codify offline fallback options, right to appeal, and bias audits in digital governance.
- Strengthen civil society, legal aid, and grassroots political education.
Conclusion
A welfare state that prioritises data over deliberation may function efficiently but risks excluding the very people it seeks to help. A Viksit Bharat must reimagine digital governance through democratic, participatory, and anti-fragile frameworks, ensuring that citizens are partners, not just datapoints.
UPSC Relevance
General Studies Paper 2 – Governance, Polity
- Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors
General Studies Paper 3 – Technology & Development
- E-governance and technology in service delivery
Mains Practice Question
Q. “Technocratic efficiency in welfare delivery should not come at the cost of democratic participation and rights.” Discuss with examples.