A universal income floor, they argue, would bypass middlemen, empower individuals directly, and ensure that no citizen falls below a minimum standard of living. In a country where millions still struggle with basic necessities, such unconditional support could provide dignity and economic security.

UBI also offers a solution to the growing threat of job displacement. As technology and automation reshape industries, low-skilled workers are at risk of losing livelihoods at an unprecedented pace. A guaranteed income could act as a buffer, allowing workers to retrain, relocate, or pursue new opportunities without immediate financial distress. For women— especially those engaged in unpaid domestic labour—a UBI could offer financial independence and strengthen their bargaining power within households.

However, the idea is not without serious challenges. The biggest hurdle is fiscal: Can India afford UBI? To provide even a modest income to its 1.4 billion citizens would require enormous public spending. The Economic Survey of 2016–17 acknowledged the appeal of UBI but warned that implementing it would require withdrawing many existing subsidies and schemes—a politically and socially sensitive move. If not carefully designed, UBI could strain India’s finances, increase inflation, or reduce the government’s ability to invest in essential sectors like health, education, and infrastructure.

Another concern is whether unconditional cash transfers might reduce incentives to work. While studies from countries experimenting with UBI show mixed results, critics in India argue that guaranteed income may lead some people to rely solely on government support. In a labour-abundant nation where productivity is already a challenge, this risk cannot be ignored. UBI must ensure that it does not unintentionally weaken the work ethic or undermine the value of employment.

There are also questions of equity. Should the richest Indians receive the same amount as the poorest? Universal programmes avoid exclusion errors, but they also direct public money to people who do not need it. Some economists argue that a targeted basic income—or a “quasi UBI” focused on the bottom 40%—might deliver similar benefits at a sustainable cost. Others propose a phased approach, beginning with vulnerable groups such as farmers, informal workers, or women.

Despite these challenges, the UBI debate highlights a deeper truth: India needs a more efficient and humane social security system. Whether or not UBI is the final answer, the conversation it has sparked is valuable. It forces policymakers to confront gaps in the existing welfare architecture, acknowledge the realities of economic inequality, and explore new models for inclusive growth.

The way forward may lie in experimentation. Pilot programs in states like Sikkim and proposals in various policy documents show that India is not far from real-world testing. If designed thoughtfully—complemented by strong public services and funded through rationalised subsidies—UBI could become a transformative tool.

Should India adopt a Universal Basic Income? Perhaps not immediately, and certainly not without careful planning. But as the economy evolves and traditional jobs decline, the idea may shift from a utopian dream to an urgent necessity. What India needs today is not a rushed implementation, but a serious commitment to studying, testing, and preparing for a future where economic security is a right, not a privilege.