Daily Editorial Analysis 7 November 2025

Redraw Welfare Architecture, Place a Universal Basic Income in the Centre

Context

• As India’s wealth gap widens and technology outpaces policy, the nation faces converging crises, automation-led job losses, gig economy precarity, and climate-driven displacement.
• Amid this turbulence, Universal Basic Income (UBI), once deemed utopian, now demands serious policy attention.
• The idea offers not just an economic cushion but a way to restore dignity, stability, and citizenship in a rapidly changing society.
• Therefore, it is important to analyse how the argument for UBI in India unfolds through economic, moral, administrative, and political dimensions, positioning it as a foundation for a renewed social contract in the 21st century.

Economic Inequality and the Moral Imperative

• India’s widening wealth inequality underscores the moral urgency of UBI.
• While official narratives celebrate 4% GDP growth (2023–24), the benefits remain concentrated at the top, the richest 1% own 40% of national wealth, and the top 10% control 77%.
• As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz warns, GDP alone cannot measure equity, sustainability, or well-being. India’s 126th rank in the 2023 World Happiness Report reveals the disconnect between economic output and social health.
• Against this backdrop, UBI is framed as both an economic stabiliser and a moral response.
• It ensures a basic income floor for all citizens, empowering them with autonomy and security.
• By simplifying welfare into a direct, unconditional transfer, UBI bypasses the leakages and exclusions that plague India’s targeted schemes.
• The measure not only redistributes income but also recognises unpaid care work, especially by women, which sustains the formal economy yet remains invisible in national statistics.

Universality as Administrative and Philosophical Strength

• The essay identifies universality as UBI’s greatest strength. Unlike traditional means-tested welfare systems, a UBI ties entitlement to citizenship, not poverty.
• This eliminates stigma, bureaucracy, and corruption, making welfare delivery efficient and inclusive.
• Philosophically, universality transforms UBI into a rights-based guarantee, not a political favour.
• It aligns with the vision of a modern welfare state, ensuring that social protection is streamlined, unconditional, and resilient to shocks such as automation and climate change.
• By anchoring welfare in citizenship, UBI redefines inclusion, making every citizen a rightful stakeholder in the national economy.

Economic Rationale and Practical Evidence

• Empirical evidence strengthens the case. The SEWA-led pilot in Madhya Pradesh (2011–13) showed that unconditional cash transfers led to better nutrition, school attendance, and productivity.
• Similar trials in Finland, Kenya, and Iran found improvements in mental health, food security, and economic stability, disproving fears that UBI discourages work.
• With automation threatening up to 800 million jobs globally by 2030, India’s informal and semi-skilled workforce is especially at risk.
• UBI provides a transition buffer, allowing workers to upskill and adapt. Thus, it is not a welfare expense but a strategic investment in resilience and human capital.

Reconstructing the Citizen–State Relationship

• Beyond economics, UBI carries a profound philosophical and political significance.
• It challenges India’s transactional welfare politics, where parties exchange short-term freebies for votes.
• By decoupling income security from political patronage, UBI empowers citizens to evaluate governments on systemic outcomes, education, health, justice, and sustainability, rather than material handouts.
• This marks a shift from consumer-as-voter to citizenship-based democracy.
• UBI transforms the citizen–state relationship from one of dependency to one of rights and accountability.
• When income security is guaranteed, voters can demand good governance instead of negotiating for subsidies.
• Thus, UBI becomes a tool of democratic renewal, replacing the politics of paternalism with a rights-based social contract.

Funding and Implementation Challenges

• The biggest challenge is UBI’s fiscal and logistical challenges. A modest income of ₹7,620 per person annually, roughly the poverty line, would cost about 5% of India’s GDP.
• Financing such a scheme demands tax reform, subsidy rationalisation, or phased rollout. Yet the essay reframes the debate: the question is not Can India afford UBI? but Can it afford the cost of mass insecurity?
• A phased introduction offers a realistic path, starting with vulnerable groups like women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
• As India’s digital infrastructure (Aadhaar, DBT, Jan Dhan) matures, these systems can facilitate seamless delivery.
• However, gaps in digital literacy and access, especially in remote areas, must be bridged to ensure true universality.
• Crucially, UBI should complement, not replace, existing safety nets like PDS and MGNREGA, particularly in the early stages of implementation.

Conclusion

• UBI is more than a fiscal proposal, it is a vision for equitable citizenship in an age of automation and inequality.
• It embeds dignity, autonomy, and security at the heart of welfare policy, offering India a new social contract for the 21st century.
• By ensuring a minimum level of income for all, UBI promotes both economic stability and democratic vitality. It reframes welfare from charity to citizenship, from transaction to trust.
• The true question is no longer whether India can afford a UBI, but whether it can afford the democratic cost of leaving millions behind.

Redraw Welfare Architecture, Place a Universal Basic Income in the Centre FAQs

 Q1. What is the central argument around Universal Basic Income?
Ans. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is essential for India to address rising inequality, automation-related job losses, and social insecurity while redefining the relationship between citizens and the state.

Q2. What is the moral significance of UBI?
Ans. UBI can be perceived as a moral response to inequality, recognising unpaid care work and ensuring every citizen a basic level of dignity and autonomy.

Q3. What evidence supports the effectiveness of UBI?
Ans. Pilot studies in Madhya Pradesh and international trials in Finland, Kenya, and Iran, all showing improvements in nutrition, education, and mental health without reducing people’s willingness to work.

Q4. How can UBI change the nature of Indian politics?
Ans. UBI can reduce dependency on political handouts, shifting welfare from populist freebies to a rights-based model that empowers citizens to demand better governance and accountability.

Q5. What challenges must India overcome to implement UBI successfully?
Ans. India must address funding constraints, digital access gaps, and gradual rollout logistics, ensuring UBI complements existing welfare schemes like PDS and MGNREGA.

Source: The Hindu

As the Next Phase of SIR Rolls On, The Case of Assam

Context

• As the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducts a new phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several states, Opposition parties have accused it of attempting a “backdoor NRC”, drawing parallels with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise carried out in Assam.
• The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) clarified that the second phase of the SIR would exclude Assam, which faces elections next year.
• He stated that citizenship verification in Assam, being conducted under Supreme Court supervision as per the Citizenship Act, 1955, is nearing completion.
• The situation raises questions about the ECI’s jurisdiction and overlap with citizenship determination, a process typically beyond the poll body’s constitutional mandate.
• This article highlights the controversy surrounding the ECI’s SIR of electoral rolls and the jurisdictional concerns it raises, particularly in Assam—a state with a unique legal and historical framework on citizenship under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

ECI’s Jurisdiction Questioned in Citizenship Verification

• A major criticism of the SIR in Bihar was that the ECI allegedly sought citizenship proof from individuals not on the 2003 electoral rolls, using limited documentation.
• This move conflicted with the ECI’s own guidelines, which require that cases of doubtful citizenship be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, rather than being decided by the Commission itself.
• Assam’s Exception and the Legal Dilemma
  • In excluding Assam from the current SIR, the ECI cited that citizenship ascertainment there was “about to be completed.”
  • However, critics argue this reasoning conceals a jurisdictional issue:
    • any fresh verification in Assam would overlap with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), already prepared under Supreme Court supervision.
    • This would require re-evaluating citizenship in a state where that process has legally concluded.
  • NRC in Assam: A Completed Legal Exercise
    • The final NRC in Assam was published on August 31, 2019, after five years of work under the Supreme Court’s direct monitoring.
      • Total Applicants:30 crore (through 68.38 lakh applications)
      • Included in NRC: 3,11,21,004 people
      • Excluded: 19,06,657 people
    • The process was a constitutionally valid, large-scale verification of citizenship, making Assam the only Indian state to have completed such an exercise post-Independence.
  • Why the CEC’s Justification Falls Short
    • The Chief Election Commissioner’s claim that Assam’s citizenship verification is still underway is misleading, as the NRC process concluded in 2019.
    • Reopening the issue risks duplicating an already settled legal process and would exceed the ECI’s constitutional jurisdiction, effectively turning it into a parallel citizenship tribunal, which the law does not permit.
    • Subjecting Assam’s residents to another round of scrutiny would erode public trust, strain administrative resources, and disturb the fragile social fabric of the state.
    • The ECI should limit itself to its constitutional mandate — ensuring free and fair elections — rather than engaging in citizenship determination, a function that lies solely with authorities empowered under the Citizenship Act.

Section 6A: Assam’s Distinct Citizenship Framework Upheld by Supreme Court

• At the core of Assam’s citizenship debate lies Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, introduced in 1985 under the Assam Accord.
• This provision established a special legal regime for Assam, setting unique cut-off dates for identifying and deporting foreigners — separate from the rest of India.
• In October 2024, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, upheld its constitutional validity, recognising it as a special measure tailored for Assam’s historical and demographic realities.
• The Court held that Section 6A aligns with the constitutional value of fraternity and affirmed that Assam’s citizenship issues must be treated with distinct legal and political sensitivity, not through a uniform national approach.

Why ECI Must Tread Carefully in Assam’s Citizenship-Linked Voter Revision

• Assam’s citizenship and migration issues have long been legally distinct from the rest of India, shaped by decades of court rulings and the unique framework under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
• Given this exceptional legal context, any Special Intensive Revision (SIR) by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Assam that touches upon citizenship verification must proceed with extreme caution.
• While some argue that the NRC data—finalised in August 2019 under Supreme Court supervision after extensive stakeholder consultations—could be used to expedite the process, the ECI faces a complex dilemma.
• Using or disregarding the NRC could risk inconsistencies between the NRC and the voters’ list, potentially excluding eligible citizens and undermining public trust in electoral and institutional integrity.

As the Next Phase of SIR Rolls On, The Case of Assam FAQs

Q1. What is the controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

Ans. Opposition parties accuse the ECI of conducting a “backdoor NRC” during the SIR, questioning its jurisdiction in verifying citizenship, which lies outside its constitutional mandate.

Q2. Why was Assam excluded from the second phase of the SIR?

Ans. The Chief Election Commissioner said Assam was excluded since citizenship verification there, under Supreme Court monitoring, was “nearing completion” as part of the NRC process.

Q3. What was the outcome of the NRC exercise in Assam?

Ans. The final NRC, published on August 31, 2019, verified 3.11 crore citizens and excluded 19.06 lakh applicants, marking India’s only full-scale citizenship verification under court supervision.

Q4. What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and why is it important?

Ans. Section 6A, added via the Assam Accord (1985), creates a special legal regime for Assam’s citizenship, upheld as constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in 2024.

Q5. Why must the ECI act cautiously in Assam?

Ans. Any new verification risks contradicting the NRC and may exclude eligible voters, threatening social harmony and undermining confidence in democratic institutions in Assam.

 Source: TH

‹ ›