Part 1 · The Invisible Barrier

Why do eligible families stay invisible to welfare?

Project Nagrik examined exclusion across alleys, worksites, and market fronts in Maharashtra. What we found wasn’t just failure; it was fragmentation.

About the Method

Between May 10–30, 2025 we conducted 102 surveys and 12 ethnographic interviews across urban and rural districts. Participation was voluntary and unpaid.

102Surveys
12In-depth interviews
3Districts
Sample skews male (78/102), reflecting local informal labour dynamics. We’ll focus on women’s experiences in Part 3.

Who we spoke to

78 men, 24 women
Majority educated beyond 10th
Domestic workers, drivers, cooks, vendors, day-wage labour
Migrants from Bihar, UP, Odisha now living in Mumbai

Gender distribution (n=102)

Bar chart showing 78 male and 24 female respondents 78 · Male 24 · Female

The silent 43

43/102 had never applied for any welfare scheme despite being eligible-signalling inaccessibility, distrust, and a system that feels closed.

Applied to any scheme?

Bar chart showing 59 yes and 43 no 59 · Yes 43 · No

Invisible barriers

Not screens, but trust, belonging, and thresholds determined access.

“It’s a waste of time. Nothing comes out of it.”

Auto driver, Mumbai

“Back home we knew where to go. In Mumbai, I don’t know where to begin.”

Cook from Samastipur
Takeaway: Offices that feel unwelcoming depress attempts even among qualified, literate citizens. Portability breaks with migration; income cut-offs miss urban cost realities.

Monthly salary among non-applicants

Donut: 93% above ₹12k, 7% in 7–12k band 93% > ₹12k / month

Gendered exclusion

Only 24 of 102 respondents were women. Roughly half had never applied for schemes meant for them.

“Where to go, how to fill forms—I don’t know. I get anxious.”

Vegetable seller & single mother of three
Barrier profile: mobility constraints, time poverty, and low institutional confidence overshadow literacy.

Caste & perception

Two sides of the same story: OBCs formed the largest share of non-applicants and reported the highest perception of unfairness in distribution.

“After submitting forms, we get no response. It feels like we’re not even human to them.”

Domestic help, Mumbai

Discussion

Digitisation alone cannot overcome pre-digital barriers of trust, portability, and thresholds. Policy should prioritise:

  • Inter-state benefit portability (ID-linked, SMS-first status messaging).
  • Transparent, auditable status (receipt + timeline + appeals).
  • Urban-indexed income criteria to reflect real costs of living.

Ethics & limitations

  • Voluntary, informed, unpaid participation; minimal PII; stored securely.
  • Male-skewed sample; not population-representative.
  • Self-reported data may under/over-estimate application attempts.

Data & availability

De-identified summary tables and the instrument are available on request. For pilots or collaboration, email modyparth7@gmail.com.

References

  1. Background on portability and administrative burden.
  2. Urban poverty measurement and threshold design.
Parth Mody
Engineer & Data Scientist — Building AI for Governance
Next → Part 2