India has become so accustomed to the convenience of Unified Payments Interface (UPI) that many of us have forgotten what life was like before instant digital payments became part of everyday life. Yet, whenever there is a discussion about charges associated with digital transactions, some of the criticism seems disproportionate. The larger question is simple: why oppose UPI itself because a payment ecosystem may eventually need a sustainable revenue model?
Consider how willingly we pay convenience and processing charges elsewhere.
When we book movie tickets online, platforms such as BookMyShow may add a processing or convenience fee. A ₹200 ticket can therefore cost substantially more than its face value. We generally accept it because the platform provides a service: we can select our seats, make the payment from home and walk into the theatre without standing in a queue.
Railway ticketing provides another familiar example. Millions of passengers use IRCTC every month and pay applicable service or convenience charges for online transactions. The convenience is rarely questioned with the same intensity with which digital-payment charges are debated.
Card payments offer an even more obvious comparison. Visa and Mastercard operate global payment networks through which banks and merchants incur various costs. India’s RuPay has provided an important domestic alternative and helped reduce dependence on international card networks. Yet consumers have long accepted that payment infrastructure cannot necessarily operate without costs.
So why should UPI be treated as fundamentally different?
UPI has transformed the way Bharat pays. A roadside vendor, taxi driver, domestic worker, small shopkeeper or large retailer can receive money instantly through a mobile phone. There is no need to maintain change, wait for a cheque to clear or depend on banking hours. A transaction that once required cash, paperwork or a visit to a bank can now be completed within seconds.
The transformation is perhaps best understood by remembering what we have left behind.
There was a time when people stood in long queues to pay electricity and water bills, recharge telephones, deposit money or conduct routine banking transactions. Government offices and banks operated according to working hours, and the familiar response at many counters was: “It is lunchtime; come back later.”
Today, much of that inconvenience has disappeared.
Technology has not merely made payments faster; it has saved millions of hours of human effort. That convenience has an economic value.
This does not mean consumers should blindly accept every proposed charge. Transparency matters. Competition matters. Small merchants and low-value transactions deserve protection where necessary. Policymakers must ensure that digital payments remain accessible and that charges do not undermine financial inclusion.
But there is a difference between questioning the pricing model of a payment system and opposing the payment system itself.
UPI’s success has created an expectation that digital services should remain free indefinitely. That expectation may not always be realistic. Infrastructure requires investment. Cybersecurity requires continuous expenditure. Banks, technology companies, networks and other participants incur operational costs.
The real debate, therefore, should be about who should bear those costs, how much they should be, and how transparently they should be imposed—not about turning UPI into the villain.
India has built one of the world’s most remarkable digital-payment ecosystems. Instead of taking that achievement for granted, we should recognise the enormous convenience it has brought into ordinary lives.
Criticism is essential in a democracy and a functioning economy. But criticism becomes less meaningful when every inconvenience, every charge or every policy discussion is treated as a reason to reject an entire system.
We should question sharp and significant issues. We should demand transparency and fairness. But we should also recognise value when technology genuinely makes life easier.
Nothing of lasting value is necessarily free forever. The sensible question is not whether we should pay anything, but whether what we pay is reasonable for the value we receive.
UPI has already changed the way Bharat transacts. The debate now should be about making that transformation sustainable, inclusive and affordable—not about resisting progress simply because progress may eventually come with a price.
