Introduction: Efficiency vs. Ethics in Digital Welfare

At first glance, the digitisation of welfare delivery appears to be a boon — offering increased efficiency, broader reach, and the elimination of leakages like ghost beneficiaries.
The state champions these outcomes as markers of enhanced targeting and improved coverage.

However, this transformation prompts deeper concerns about the true purpose of welfare, raising questions about whether democratic principles are being overshadowed by algorithmic efficiency and managerial logic.

The rise of data-centric governance may be reconfiguring welfare not as a moral right but as a calculable administrative task.

Political Polarisation and the Technocratic Turn

Emerging research in political theory and game theory reveals that technocratic governance tends to flourish in environments of high political polarisation.

In such scenarios, democratically elected leaders—regardless of their ideological leanings—often delegate complex and unpopular policy decisions to data-driven systems.

This shift reframes public discourse:

Instead of asking, “Who deserves support, and why?”, the emphasis is placed on “How can we optimise coverage while minimising leakages?”

Though this seems rational and efficient, it often sidesteps constitutional nuances and the lived realities of vulnerable populations.

Theoretical Frameworks: Habermas, Foucault, and Agamben

This shift toward technocracy can be critically examined through several influential theoretical lenses:

• Jürgen Habermas’s idea of technocratic consciousness and Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality highlight how state systems become increasingly measurable, auditable, and resistant to political challenge.
• Flagship schemes such as E-SHRAM and PM-KISAN embody this shift, privileging innovation and auditability over democratic ambiguity or pluralism.
• Participatory methods — like community feedback loops and deliberative planning — which have historically anchored democratic welfare, are now in decline.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Giorgio Agamben’s concept of homo sacer finds resonance in this context.
The citizen is transformed into a mere data point — an auditable beneficiary without political agency or meaningful voice, whose recognition by the state is entirely conditional on algorithmic visibility.

Democratic Erosion and Shrinking Social Investment

The consequences of data-driven welfare are not abstract — they are materially visible in budgetary trends and institutional decline:

• In 2024–25, India’s social sector spending fell to 17%, down from an average of 21% over the previous decade.
• The most affected are programmes for minorities, labour welfare, nutrition, and social security, which saw a steep drop in their share of spending—from 11% before COVID-19 to just 3% post-pandemic.

These numbers represent real deprivation for the most vulnerable populations.

Meanwhile, the Right to Information (RTI) framework, once a cornerstone of transparency, is in crisis:

• Over 400,000 RTI cases remain pending across state and central commissions.
• Key leadership roles remain unfilled, and the RTI system’s efficacy has sharply declined.

This erosion of transparency mechanisms further deepens the democratic deficit within welfare governance.

Algorithmic Centralisation and Accountability Gaps

The Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System is emblematic of the technocratic state’s strengths and weaknesses.

While it streamlines complaint registration and tracking, it also concentrates visibility without ensuring corresponding accountability.

The reliance on algorithmic processes creates a buffer that insulates power, making it harder for citizens to demand explanations or enforce accountability.

This technocratic insulation undermines one of the key pillars of democracy: the ability to hold institutions and leaders answerable to the public.

Reimagining Welfare: Toward Democratic and Antifragile Systems

Acknowledging these issues should not imply a rejection of digital innovation. Rather, it calls for a reimagining of welfare governance that embraces both efficiency and democratic resilience.

What is needed is a bottom-up approach that empowers:

• Local knowledge systems
• Participatory bodies like gram sabhas
• Frontline workers with discretion and reflexive judgment

Promising avenues for reform include:

• Community-based social audits
• Support for platform cooperatives
• Well-designed offline fallback systems

Additionally, embedding legal rights to explanation and appeal within digital systems is critical to combating the opaqueness and rigidity that plague current automated structures.

Drawing on successful models like Kerala’s Kudumbashree and global best practices, a pluralistic and citizen-centred welfare state is well within reach.

Re-Centring the Citizen: From Data Point to Decision-Maker

At the heart of this challenge lies a simple but profound idea: a welfare system that works efficiently but ignores democratic deliberation ends up excluding those it is meant to serve.

For India to realise the vision of a Viksit Bharat, digitisation must evolve beyond managerialism.
The goal should be to re-centre the citizen — transforming people from ledger entries into active participants in governance.

Only then can digital governance truly reflect democratic values and serve the public good.

Conclusion: Technology as a Democratic Ally, Not a Substitute

India now stands at a turning point where the pursuit of technological efficiency must be balanced against the imperatives of justice, agency, and democratic accountability.

The challenge is not to slow innovation, but to guide it — ensuring that technological tools reinforce, rather than replace, participatory governance.

The goal must be to deepen democracy, expand civic involvement, and secure the dignity and rights of every citizen in the digital age.