Exploited Workers, A Labour Policy’s Empty Promises

The Hindu

1. Introduction and Context

This editorial presents a critical evaluation of India’s labour policy framework, focusing on the Shram Shakti Niti 2025, which the government projects as a future-ready, rights-driven labour vision for Viksit Bharat.

The author exposes the disconnect between policy rhetoric and the lived reality of India’s vast informal workforce — over 90% of whom lack formal social protection, face exploitative work conditions, and are excluded from institutional welfare.

Set against the backdrop of rising reports of forced and bonded labour — particularly among women, Dalits, and migrant workers — in India’s coastal and mining sectors, the piece argues that India’s current labour trajectory risks hollowing out the moral and constitutional foundation of its development model.

2. Key Arguments Presented

a. Persistent Informality and Exploitation

• Despite new digital tools like e-SHRAM and welfare schemes, informality dominates — most workers lack access to Provident Fund, ESI, paid leave, or pension.
• The author calls this the “ancient Indian duality” — where the labouring class drives economic growth but remains socially invisible and economically unprotected.
• Informality is not merely an economic condition but a structural injustice, perpetuated through weak enforcement and deliberate policy neglect.

b. Policy Promises vs. Ground Reality

• The Shram Shakti Niti 2025 and earlier digital welfare programs promise inclusion but remain technocratic and cosmetic.
• Digitization ≠ democratization: digital IDs, portals, and AI tools cannot substitute for rights enforcement.
• Semi-literate or migrant workers often fall through bureaucratic cracks due to documentation gaps, interstate migration, or lack of grievance redressal.

c. Absence of a Rights-Based Approach

• India’s four new Labour Codes — on Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, and Occupational Safety — are criticized as pro-employer and anti-union, prioritizing “flexibility” over justice.
• The editorial warns that these laws dilute collective bargaining, reduce job security, and weaken workplace democracy.
• The author cites the ILO Conventions 87, 98, and 155, stressing India’s weak compliance on humane work conditions.

d. Shrinking Space for Worker Representation

• Unions and worker associations — once the backbone of social justice — have been sidelined.
• The state now favors a productivity-first model, measuring growth in terms of efficiency, not welfare.
• This approach, the author argues, replaces labour rights with labour discipline — an inversion of the welfare principle.

e. The Gender and Caste Dimension

• Women and Dalits remain the worst affected — confined to unorganized, hazardous, and low-paying jobs.
• Bonded labour in coastal fisheries, textile, and mining sectors illustrates how social hierarchy reinforces economic exploitation.
• The piece urges that labour policy must address intersectional inequalities — not as welfare add-ons, but as core justice imperatives.

3. Author’s Stance and Tone

The author’s stance is firmly rights-based and moral, combining legal, ethical, and constitutional reasoning.

• He invokes Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23 — affirming that dignity and fairness at work are not policy favors but constitutional entitlements.
• The tone is critical yet constructive, urging the state to move from welfare populism to justice-oriented labour governance.
• Philosophically, it calls for a social-democratic realignment, where growth and compassion coexist.

4. Biases and Limitations

Bias

• The author takes a worker-centric, left-progressive position, favoring state regulation over market efficiency.
• He tends to view private sector flexibility and automation as inherently exploitative.

Limitations

• Does not present quantitative evidence of post-reform impact — such as formalization trends under e-SHRAM or EPFO expansion.
• Overlooks sectoral diversity — the difference between gig workers, manufacturing labour, and rural informal employment.
• Lacks specific fiscal strategies to balance rights with competitiveness.

5. Pros and Cons of the Argument

 Pros

• Moral & Constitutional Depth: Reasserts human dignity as central to India’s economic narrative.
• Analytical Breadth: Connects micro-level worker distress to macro-level governance design.
• Global & Legal Relevance: Anchors the debate in ILO conventions and constitutional morality.

 Cons

• Economic Narrowness: Neglects business realities like compliance costs and investment climate.
• One-Sided Critique: Ignores positive reforms (e.g., gig worker recognition in Rajasthan, EPFO coverage for startups).
• Limited Solutions: Focuses on critique rather than balanced reform pathways.

6. Policy Implications

1. Strengthen Labour Governance:
• Enforce ILO Conventions 87, 98, and 155 on association, bargaining, and workplace safety.
• Strengthen labour courts and inspection systems for real-time redressal.
2. Universalize Social Security:
• Ensure mandatory registration on e-SHRAM with portability across states.
• Integrate welfare schemes (ESIC, PM-SYM, Ayushman Bharat) through a one-nation, one-beneficiary architecture.
3. Gender & Caste Equity:
• Enforce anti-discrimination audits in hiring and wages.
• Provide targeted insurance, maternity benefits, and creches for women in informal sectors.
4. Digital Inclusion:
• Design multilingual, voice-based grievance apps for semi-literate workers.
• Use AI for monitoring workplace compliance, not surveillance.
5. Corporate Responsibility:
• Link ESG tax benefits to compliance with fair wage and decent work indicators.

7. Alignment with UPSC GS Papers

Essay Paper Topics:

• “Digital India, Informal Labour: A Tale of Two Economies.”
• “Growth Without Justice: Rethinking Labour Policy in Viksit Bharat.”

8. Real-World Impact

If the current trajectory continues:

• India may deepen its dual economy — high-tech growth coexisting with mass precarity.
• This will widen income inequality, weaken the social contract, and risk labour unrest.
• The demographic dividend could turn into a social liability if millions remain unprotected.

If reforms follow a rights-based model:

• Combining digital governance with legal enforceability could ensure inclusive protection.
• Balanced reform could generate productive, formal jobs while retaining dignity and fairness.

9. Conclusion

The editorial underscores a stark paradox — a nation aspiring for global technological leadership, yet failing to secure basic rights for its workers.

The Shram Shakti Niti 2025, while visionary on paper, risks becoming another digital showcase if social audits, worker representation, and legal enforcement are not institutionalized.

True labour reform, the author argues, lies not in flexibility but fairness — in ensuring that India’s economic progress rests on moral foundations of justice, dignity, and compassion.

A Viksit Bharat will emerge not through apps and codes, but through respect for those who build its foundations — the workers themselves.

10. Future Perspectives

1. Labour–Tech Balance: Integrate AI and blockchain for transparent wage payments and welfare tracking.
2. Portable Social Security: Enable real-time portability of benefits for migrant and gig workers.
3. Worker Cooperatives: Support labour-owned enterprises as a model of inclusive capitalism.
4. Gender Mainstreaming: Embed safety, pay parity, and care infrastructure in all industrial policies.
5. Ethical Labour Index: Introduce an annual “Decent Work Index” to benchmark states and corporations on compliance and equity.