The Republic of Labour Without Rights: Informality, Jobless Growth and the Retreat of the State in Contemporary India

 From the Eight-Hour Day to the Era of Endless Work

By Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

India's labour question has entered a profound crisis. More than three decades after economic liberalisation, unprecedented growth in output and wealth has coexisted with chronic unemployment, expanding informality, declining public employment and the erosion of labour rights won through centuries of struggle. Nearly 90 per cent of the country's workforce remains outside the organized sector and lacks meaningful social security. Simultaneously, workers in the organized sector increasingly confront contractualization, outsourcing and growing insecurity. Recent agitations against attempts to extend working hours beyond eight hours in industrial clusters such as Noida, Greater Noida and other parts of India reveal that workers are being compelled to fight again for rights that were secured through blood and sacrifice more than a century ago.

This article examines the historical evolution of labour rights, the condition of Indian workers under neoliberal capitalism, the retreat of the state as an employer, the feminisation and informalisation of labour, and the weakening of collective bargaining institutions. Adopting a Marxist perspective and drawing upon contemporary labour studies, the paper argues that India is witnessing a transition from a welfare-oriented developmental state towards a regime of precarious labour, where insecurity itself has become a mechanism of accumulation. It contends that restoring dignity to labour requires reimagining employment, social security and public investment as democratic rights rather than welfare concessions.

"Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded."

— Karl Marx

Introduction: Growth Without Security

India stands amidst one of the greatest paradoxes of contemporary capitalism. On one hand, it is celebrated as the fastest-growing major economy, a rising technological power and a hub of entrepreneurial innovation. On the other hand, millions of workers confront unemployment, declining real wages, informalization and uncertain livelihoods.

The coexistence of economic growth with widespread labour insecurity challenges the assumptions underlying post-liberalisation development. While the discourse of economic reforms promised prosperity through market efficiency, global integration and private investment, the actual experience of labour has been marked by increasing precarity.

The contradiction is visible everywhere. India's billionaires rank among the wealthiest in the world, while workers continue to struggle for basic rights. Stock market valuations reach unprecedented levels, yet young graduates spend years preparing for shrinking government vacancies. The economy creates wealth but not enough decent jobs. The organized sector increasingly adopts informal practices, while the informal sector remains excluded from social security.

The problem is not simply unemployment. Rather, it is the emergence of what Guy Standing (2011) calls the "precariat"—a vast population characterized by insecurity, unstable incomes and the absence of occupational identity.

India's labour market today exhibits precisely these characteristics.

The Historical Making of Labour Rights

Labour rights were not bestowed by benevolent states. They emerged through protracted struggles against capital and authoritarian political systems.

The Industrial Revolution in Europe transformed labour into a commodity. Factory workers routinely worked fourteen to sixteen hours daily under hazardous conditions. Women and children constituted a large portion of the workforce, and social security was practically absent.

Friedrich Engels, in The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845), documented the misery produced by early industrial capitalism. Marx later argued that capital accumulated by extracting surplus value from labour and perpetually sought to lengthen the working day.

The Birth of the Eight-Hour Day

The struggle for an eight-hour workday emerged as one of the most important demands of the labour movement.

Workers raised the slogan:

"Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest and eight hours for what we will."

The Haymarket movement of Chicago in 1886 became a watershed. Workers demanding the eight-hour day faced violent repression. Several labour leaders were executed after the Haymarket affair, and their sacrifice transformed May Day into an international symbol of working-class solidarity.

What appears today as a basic labour standard was achieved through extraordinary struggles.

Table 1: Major Milestones in the Global Labour Movement

Year	Event	Historical Significance
1848	Communist Manifesto	Class struggle and workers' emancipation
1864	First International	International working-class solidarity
1886	Haymarket Movement	Eight-hour workday demand
1917	Russian Revolution	Right to work and social welfare
1919	Formation of ILO	International labour standards
1936	French General Strike	Paid leave and collective bargaining
1945–1975	Welfare State Expansion	Universal social security
1968	French Workers' Movement	Industrial democracy
1980	Solidarity Movement in Poland	Independent trade unions
1990 onwards	Neoliberal Globalisation	Flexible labour markets

The Welfare State and the Social Question

The devastation of two World Wars and the spread of socialist movements compelled capitalist societies to concede significant rights to workers. Western Europe witnessed the emergence of welfare states characterised by:

· Universal health care;

· Pension systems;

· Employment security;

· Paid leave;

· Collective bargaining rights;

· Public education;

· Unemployment insurance.

These institutions represented what Karl Polanyi termed the "social protection" necessary to prevent the destructive consequences of unregulated markets.

Post-independence India inherited many of these ideas.

The Indian Constitution itself reflects this orientation.

Article 39 directs the State to ensure adequate means of livelihood.

Article 41 recognises the right to work.

Article 43 envisages living wages and decent conditions of work.

The post-independence developmental state viewed employment not merely as an economic issue but as an instrument of social justice.

Public sector enterprises, railways, banking institutions and government departments emerged as major sources of stable employment.

Labour and the Developmental State

Between the 1950s and the 1980s, India followed a mixed economy model where the public sector occupied commanding heights.

Large public enterprises such as:

· Steel Authority of India;

· Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited;

· Coal India;

· Indian Railways;

· ONGC;

· State Electricity Boards;

provided millions of jobs with pensions, medical benefits and employment security.

Trade unions became institutionalised actors in industrial relations.

Although labour conditions remained far from ideal, organized workers enjoyed rights unimaginable to their predecessors.

This era represented the high point of labour protection in independent India.

However, beginning in 1991, the relationship between labour, capital and the state underwent profound transformation.

"The story of labour under neoliberalism is not merely one of unemployment. It is the story of transforming citizens into precarious workers and rights into market commodities."

Liberalisation, Informalisation and the Retreat of Employment

From the Developmental State to the Age of Precarious Labour

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks."

— Karl Marx, Capital

Liberalisation and the Transformation of the Labour Regime

The economic reforms initiated in 1991 marked a decisive break from India's post-colonial developmental model. Faced with a balance-of-payments crisis, the Indian state embraced structural adjustment policies centred around liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. These reforms altered not merely economic policies but the very nature of the relationship between labour, capital and the state.

The post-independence state had viewed itself as an active participant in economic development and a major employer. Liberalisation, however, reconceptualised the state as a facilitator of private enterprise and market efficiency.

The underlying assumptions were straightforward:

· Economic growth would create jobs.

· Private investment would absorb labour.

· Labour market flexibility would enhance competitiveness.

· Reduced state intervention would improve efficiency. 

Three decades later, these assumptions appear increasingly questionable.

Growth has occurred, but employment generation has lagged behind. Rising GDP has not translated into proportionate increases in decent work.

India has become an archetypal case of what economists call jobless growth.

The New Political Economy of Labour

The neoliberal paradigm transformed labour from a social question into an economic variable.

The emphasis shifted from:

Welfare State Era	Neoliberal Era
Employment security	Labour flexibility
Permanent jobs	Contractual jobs
Trade unions	Individual contracts
Public employment	Private employment
Social rights	Market efficiency
Welfare expenditure	Fiscal discipline
Collective bargaining	Corporate competitiveness

The discourse itself changed.

Workers increasingly became "human resources."

Employment became "cost".

Trade unions became "rigidities".

Social security became "fiscal burden".

Marx had anticipated this tendency when he wrote that capitalism constantly seeks to convert human relations into commodity relations.

Informalisation: The Defining Characteristic of Indian Capitalism

India's most striking labour characteristic is the overwhelming dominance of the informal sector.

According to PLFS estimates and ILO studies, nearly 90 per cent of workers remain outside the formal economy.

Table 2

Distribution of Workforce in India

Sector	Share of Workforce
Informal Sector	88–90%
Organized Sector	10–12%
Agriculture	42–45%
Manufacturing	11–12%
Services	33–35%

Source: PLFS and ILO estimates.

Characteristics of Informal Employment

Most informal workers suffer from:

· Absence of written contracts.

· No paid leave.

· Lack of health insurance.

· Absence of pensions.

· Wage insecurity.

· Occupational hazards.

· Gender discrimination.

· Vulnerability to arbitrary dismissal.

Jan Breman describes India as an economy characterized by "footloose labour"—workers constantly migrating in search of survival.

Unlike European industrial capitalism, where informal labour gradually transformed into formal employment, India has experienced what Barbara Harriss-White terms "informalisation of the formal sector itself."

Organized Sector Without Security

Contrary to conventional wisdom, organized sector employment no longer guarantees security.

A permanent worker in a factory today often works alongside:

· Contract labour;

· Apprentices;

· Fixed-term employees;

· Casual workers;

· Outsourced service providers.

In many industries, contract workers perform identical functions but receive substantially lower wages and fewer benefits.

Thus, two classes of workers coexist under one roof.

The permanent employee.

The precarious employee.

Increasingly, the latter outnumber the former.

Rise of Contract Labour

Contractualization has become one of the most significant features of contemporary labour markets.

Table 3

Contract Labour in Major Industries

Sector	Share of Contract Labour
Manufacturing	35–40%
Mining	50%+
Ports and Logistics	60%
Construction	80%
Services	40–70%

The logic is straightforward.

Contract workers provide:

· Lower wages;

· No pension liabilities;

· Easier termination;

· Reduced unionisation.

Capital gains flexibility while labour loses security.

"The organized sector increasingly resembles the unorganized sector, while the unorganized sector remains beyond protection altogether."

The Gig Economy and Digital Taylorism

App-based capitalism has produced a new category of labour.

Delivery workers.

Cab aggregators.

Warehouse workers.

Platform-based freelancers.

While celebrated as examples of entrepreneurship, gig workers embody a peculiar paradox.

They possess:

· No minimum wage guarantee.

· No fixed hours.

· No pension.

· No protection against termination.

· No collective bargaining rights.

Algorithms replace supervisors.

Ratings replace personnel departments.

Incentives replace wages.

Digital platforms create the illusion of independence while intensifying dependence.

Guy Standing identifies this new class as the precariat, whose defining characteristic is insecurity.

India's gig economy may employ over twenty million workers by 2030.

Yet these workers remain legally outside traditional definitions of employee and employer.

Unemployment and the Reserve Army of Labour

One of Marx's most enduring insights concerns the existence of the "industrial reserve army"—a vast pool of unemployed and underemployed people that disciplines those who are employed.

India exemplifies this phenomenon.

Table 4

Dimensions of Labour Insecurity

Category	Approximate Numbers
Population	1.4 billion
Labour Force	600 million
Youth Population	370 million
Workforce	550 million
Informal Workers	500 million
Gig Workers	8–10 million
Unemployed Youth	Tens of millions

The enormous supply of labour creates conditions where workers are forced to accept:

· Long hours;

· Low wages;

· Hazardous jobs;

· Absence of benefits.

Fear of unemployment itself becomes a disciplinary mechanism.

Educated Unemployment and the Crisis of Aspirations

India's unemployed are not merely the poor.

Increasingly, they are graduates.

Engineers.

Postgraduates.

Doctorates.

Millions spend years preparing for government examinations because public sector jobs continue to represent:

· Security;

· Pension;

· Social mobility;

· Dignity.

Recruitment delays, examination cancellations and shrinking vacancies have produced widespread frustration.

The paradox is striking:

India simultaneously suffers from:

High unemployment.

Large numbers of vacant government posts.

Retreat of the State as Employer

The most profound transformation since liberalisation has been the withdrawal of the state from direct employment generation.

Table 5

Central Government Civilian Employment

Period	Employees
Early 1990s	~4.1 million
2020s	~3.2 million

Public Sector Employment

Period	Employees
Late 1980s	2.3 million
2023–24	Around 1 million

Meanwhile:

Population increased from:

846 million (1991)

to

1.4 billion (2025).

Thus, population increased by almost 70%.

Government employment declined.

The ratio of public employment to population fell sharply.

Railways: Symbol of Declining Public Employment

Indian Railways once represented the largest employer in the country.

Employment peaked at around 1.7 million.

Today:

· Vacancies remain substantial.

· Outsourcing has expanded.

· Contractual work has increased.

· Permanent recruitment has slowed.

Similar trends characterize:

· BSNL.

· State Electricity Boards.

· Coal India.

· Public banks.

· Universities.

· Public hospitals.

Privatization and the Shrinking Public Sphere

Disinvestment policies have transformed the employment landscape.

The public sector historically provided:

· Stable jobs;

· Reservation benefits;

· Social mobility;

· Trade union protections.

Privatisation changes these dynamics.

Private enterprises prioritize:

· Profitability.

· Cost reduction.

· Flexibility.

Employment becomes secondary.

Consequently, growth becomes capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive.

Manufacturing Without Workers

India's aspiration to become a manufacturing hub faces a paradox.

Manufacturing contributes substantially to GDP but employs relatively few people.

Automation, robotics and artificial intelligence increasingly substitute labour.

Corporate profits rise while employment elasticity declines.

This has produced a phenomenon economists call:

"Growth without jobs."

Public Employment and Welfare State Comparisons

Table 6

Government Employment as Share of Population

Country	Public Employment
Norway	30%
Sweden	28%
France	21%
UK	17%
USA	15%
India	Around 2–3%

India's low public employment becomes particularly striking when viewed alongside:

· Population growth;

· Urbanisation;

· Expanding educational attainments;

· Rising aspirations.

The state has increasingly ceased to act as employer of last resort.

Fiscal Conservatism and Employment Neglect

Successive governments—irrespective of ideology—have prioritised:

· Fiscal deficit reduction;

· Privatization;

· Ease of doing business;

· Corporate incentives.

Employment generation has rarely occupied the centre of macroeconomic policy.

This retreat is evident in:

· Contractual teachers;

· Outsourced health workers;

· Anganwadi workers;

· ASHA workers;

· Scheme workers.

Ironically, even welfare programmes depend upon poorly paid women workers denied employee status.

"The developmental state created employment as an instrument of citizenship. The neoliberal state increasingly treats employment as a by-product of markets."

Marx's Reserve Army and Contemporary India

Marx observed:

"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is therefore accumulation of misery at the opposite pole."

This proposition acquires renewed relevance.

The growth of billionaires has coincided with:

· Rising precarity;

· Stagnating wages;

· Informalization;

· Gigification;

· Declining unionisation.

The unemployed youth waiting for examinations, the contractual teacher without pension, the food delivery rider racing against algorithms and the migrant labourer searching for daily work—all constitute different expressions of what Marx called the reserve army of labour.

The insecurity of millions strengthens capital's bargaining power.

Labour becomes replaceable.

Fear becomes an economic institution.

Three decades after liberalisation, India confronts a paradoxical labour regime.

Economic growth has not translated into secure employment.

Informality dominates.

Public employment shrinks.

Contractualization expands.

Unemployment disciplines labour.

The state increasingly withdraws from its historic role as employer.

The consequence is the emergence of a society characterised by what Guy Standing terms the precariat, and what Marx would recognise as the expanded reserve army of labour.

The Eight-Hour Day and the Return of Endless Work

Labour Struggles, Trade Unions and Resistance in Contemporary India

"Every reduction in working hours represents a victory of civilization over the barbarism of unrestricted capital."

Introduction: Why Are Workers Fighting Again for the Eight-Hour Day?

Perhaps the greatest irony of contemporary capitalism is that workers are once again being compelled to defend rights that earlier generations won through immense sacrifice.

Across industrial clusters in Noida, Greater Noida, Gurugram, Manesar, Chennai, Sriperumbudur, Hosur, Bengaluru and other manufacturing centres, workers have increasingly opposed proposals and practices aimed at extending working hours to ten, twelve or even more hours under the guise of "flexibility" and "global competitiveness."

What appears as a technical debate about labour productivity is, in fact, a struggle over time itself.

For capital, time means profit.

For workers, time means life.

The eight-hour day represented humanity's attempt to place moral and social limits on capital's limitless appetite for labour.

The contemporary assault upon this principle reveals deeper transformations in capitalism and the weakening of labour's bargaining power.

Capital and the Struggle Over Time

Marx devoted a substantial section of Capital to the working day.

He argued that capital possesses an inherent tendency to lengthen the working day because surplus value is generated by extracting unpaid labour.

Capital, therefore, constantly seeks:

· Longer hours;

· Higher productivity;

· Lower wages;

· Reduced rest periods.

Workers, on the other hand, struggle to preserve:

· Their physical health;

· Family life;

· Leisure;

· Social existence.

Thus, the conflict over working hours is fundamentally a conflict between life and accumulation.

As Marx observed:

"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer unless under compulsion from society."

The Birth of the Eight-Hour Movement

The Industrial Revolution subjected workers to fourteen- and sixteen-hour workdays.

Child labour was widespread.

Women and children worked under appalling conditions.

Factories resembled prisons.

The slogan that emerged from nineteenth-century struggles became immortal:

Eight hours for work,

Eight hours for rest,

Eight hours for what we will.

The Haymarket Movement, Chicago (1886)

The eight-hour movement culminated in mass strikes across the United States.

On May 1, 1886, hundreds of thousands of workers went on strike.

The Haymarket incident followed.

Police repression resulted in deaths.

Labour leaders including Albert Parsons, August Spies and others were executed.

The Haymarket martyrs became symbols of international working-class resistance.

May Day subsequently became International Workers' Day.

Table 7

Major Struggles for the Eight-Hour Day

Country	Movement	Achievement
Britain	Chartist and Trade Union Movements	Factory Acts
USA	Haymarket Movement (1886)	Eight-hour principle
Australia	Stonemasons' Strike (1856)	Eight-hour day
France	General Strike (1936)	Paid leave and 40-hour week
Soviet Union	Post-1917 Reforms	Social security and labour rights
Germany	Weimar Labour Reforms	Collective bargaining
Scandinavia	Social Democratic Settlement	Welfare state
South Africa	COSATU struggles	Labour rights and democracy
Latin America	Trade Union Movements	Labour protections

The Indian Labour Movement

Labour struggles in India emerged alongside colonial industrialization.

Bombay textile mills, jute factories of Bengal and railway workshops became centres of worker mobilization.

Important milestones include:

1918 Ahmedabad Textile Strike

Led by Mahatma Gandhi.

Demanded wage increases and fair treatment.

Formation of AITUC (1920)

The All India Trade Union Congress became the first national labour federation.

It united workers across industries.

Bombay Textile Struggles

Bombay emerged as the centre of militant trade unionism.

Communists, socialists and nationalists played major roles.

Post-Independence Institutionalization

After 1947:

· INTUC;

· AITUC;

· HMS;

· CITU;

· BMS;

became major trade union centers.

Labour laws expanded.

Collective bargaining became institutionalized.

The state itself acted as mediator between labour and capital.

The Post-1991 Decline of Trade Union Power

Globalisation fundamentally altered industrial relations.

Several developments weakened unions:

Informalisation.

Contract labour.

Outsourcing.

Privatization.

Automation.

Declining public sector employment.

Workers became fragmented.

Permanent workers and contract workers occupied different positions.

Gig workers lacked traditional workplaces.

Fear of unemployment discouraged militancy.

Consequently, union density declined.

The Rise of the Precariat

Guy Standing's concept of the "precariat" captures the fragmentation of labour.

Unlike traditional industrial workers, the precariat lacks:

· Stable employment;

· Occupational identity;

· Collective consciousness;

· Pension rights;

· Social security.

The delivery worker.

The contractual teacher.

The app-based driver.

The security guard.

The scheme worker.

The temporary factory worker.

These categories experience insecurity as a permanent condition.

Why Capital Wants Longer Working Hours

Several arguments are advanced in favour of extended working hours:

Global competitiveness.

Higher productivity.

Ease of doing business.

Reduction in labour costs.

Faster industrial growth.

Industry leaders have periodically advocated seventy-hour and even ninety-hour work weeks.

Some corporate executives have openly argued that Indian workers need to work longer.

The underlying assumption is that prosperity arises primarily from labour intensity rather than technological innovation and equitable distribution.

The Karnataka Twelve-Hour Work Controversy

Attempts to amend labour laws to permit twelve-hour shifts generated strong opposition from trade unions.

Workers argued that such changes would:

· Increase fatigue.

· Cause health problems.

· Reduce family time.

· Increase accidents.

· Curtail employment opportunities.

Trade union resistance forced reconsideration of these measures.

Resistance in Noida, NCR and Other Industrial Clusters

In Noida, Greater Noida, Gurugram-Manesar, Faridabad and adjoining industrial areas, workers and trade unions have repeatedly protested:

· Long working hours.

· Wage suppression.

· Contract labour.

· Delayed payments.

· Arbitrary dismissals.

Electronics, automobile and manufacturing sectors increasingly rely upon flexible labour.

Workers fear that formal acceptance of longer shifts would reverse decades of labour struggles.

Workers are again defending not new rights but old victories.

The Codes on Labour: Reform or Reversal?

The four labour codes represent the most extensive labour reform since independence.

Proponents argue they:

· Simplify laws.

· Improve ease of doing business.

· Encourage investment.

· Reduce compliance burdens.

Critics contend that the codes weaken labour protection by:

Raising thresholds for retrenchment.

Facilitating fixed-term employment.

Restricting strikes.

Weakening collective bargaining.

Expanding managerial discretion.

Strikes and the Criminalisation of Protest

Historically, strikes constituted labour's principal weapon.

Without collective action, workers possess little bargaining power.

The Industrial Relations Code imposes:

· Notice requirements;

· Restrictions during conciliation;

· Penalties for illegal strikes.

Trade unions argue that these provisions effectively curtail spontaneous worker action.

This reflects a broader tendency toward depoliticisation of labour.

Gig Workers and Invisible Labour

Delivery workers and ride-hailing drivers symbolize contemporary labour precarity.

They are called "partners" rather than employees.

Consequently:

· Minimum wages do not apply.

· Social security remains uncertain.

· Working hours are self-imposed but economically compelled.

Many workers spend twelve to fourteen hours daily to earn subsistence incomes.

Digital algorithms monitor performance.

Ratings become instruments of discipline.

Michel Foucault's concept of surveillance acquires new relevance in platform capitalism.

Scheme Workers: Welfare Without Workers' Rights

India's welfare state depends heavily upon women workers:

· Anganwadi workers;

· Helpers;

· ASHA workers;

· Mid-day meal workers;

· Creche workers.

Despite performing essential public functions, they are categorized as volunteers or honorarium workers rather than employees.

Consequently, they remain deprived of:

· Minimum wages;

· Pension;

· Gratuity;

· Employment security.

The irony is profound.

The welfare state itself depends upon precarious labour.

The Human Cost of Long Working Hours

Medical studies worldwide have established strong associations between excessive working hours and:

Cardiovascular diseases.

Depression.

Anxiety.

Sleep disorders.

Workplace accidents.

Family breakdown.

Reduced fertility.

Burnout.

Japan coined the term:

Karoshi

— death from overwork.

Long hours ultimately undermine productivity itself.

International Experiences

Europe has increasingly moved toward:

Four-day workweeks.

Thirty-five-hour weeks.

Flexible work arrangements.

Work-life balance.

France adopted the 35-hour week.

Scandinavian countries emphasize social well-being.

Germany combines productivity with shorter hours.

Ironically, while advanced economies experiment with reduced working hours, parts of the developing world are revisiting nineteenth-century labour practices.

The Politics of Time

Time itself has become an arena of class struggle.

Who controls time?

Capital seeks:

· Maximum utilization.

Workers seek:

· Human life beyond work.

The demand for leisure is not laziness.

It is civilization.

As Bertrand Russell argued in In Praise of Idleness, leisure makes culture, art, family and citizenship possible.

Endless work creates alienation.

Marx, Alienation and Endless Work

Marx identified four dimensions of alienation:

Workers become alienated from:

1. Their product.

2. Their labour process.

3. Their fellow human beings.

4. Their own humanity.

Long working hours intensify all four forms.

The worker ceases to live.

He merely survives.

Life becomes subordinated to wages.

Human beings become appendages of machines.

Trade Unions and the Future of Resistance

Despite their decline, trade unions remain indispensable.

Their agenda must expand beyond traditional factory workers to include:

· Gig workers.

· Scheme workers.

· Women workers.

· Migrant labourers.

· Domestic workers.

· Platform employees.

Future labour politics must move from narrow industrial unionism towards universal social citizenship.

"The labour movement is not merely about wages. It is about the right to live as human beings."

Defending Civilization Itself

The struggle for the eight-hour day represented one of humanity's greatest achievements.

It established that human beings are not machines.

The contemporary attempts to normalize longer workdays represent not progress but regression.

The crisis is not simply economic.

It is civilizational.

When societies celebrate seventy-hour weeks while millions remain unemployed, they reveal a profound contradiction.

Instead of distributing work more equitably, capitalism intensifies labour for some and unemployment for others.

Workers in Noida, NCR, Bengaluru and elsewhere who resist these trends are not resisting modernity.

They are defending the very foundations of modern labour civilization.

Their struggle continues the tradition of the Haymarket martyrs, Bombay textile workers and countless unnamed labourers whose sacrifices made human dignity possible.

As E. P. Thompson observed, the working class did not merely happen—it made itself.

Whether it can remake itself under neoliberal capitalism remains one of the defining questions of twenty-first century India.

Jobless Growth and the Retreat of the State

Public Employment, Privatization and the Crisis of Social Citizenship in India

"The modern state is increasingly expected to withdraw from employment while simultaneously maintaining social stability amidst mass unemployment. This contradiction lies at the heart of neoliberal capitalism."

The Vanishing State as Employer

Independent India inherited not merely a colonial bureaucracy but an immense developmental challenge. Poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and social inequality necessitated a strong public sector capable of creating productive employment and providing social infrastructure.

From Nehru to the late twentieth century, governments viewed employment generation as a central instrument of nation-building. Public enterprises, state electricity boards, universities, hospitals, banks and railways became vehicles for social mobility and economic transformation.

Three decades after liberalisation, this conception has fundamentally changed.

The state no longer sees itself primarily as an employer.

Its role is increasingly defined as:

· Facilitator;

· Regulator;

· Investor-friendly institution;

· Provider of targeted welfare.

The responsibility of generating employment has been delegated to markets.

Yet markets have failed to deliver adequate jobs.

Consequently, India faces the paradox of rising GDP amidst growing unemployment and insecurity.

The Developmental State and Employment Generation

The decades following independence witnessed the expansion of public employment on an unprecedented scale.

Public institutions performed multiple functions:

Economic.

Social.

Political.

Redistributive.

Large-scale recruitment took place in:

· Indian Railways;

· State Electricity Boards;

· Coal India;

· BSNL and Posts;

· Public sector banks;

· Universities;

· Public hospitals;

· Irrigation departments;

· Public works departments.

Employment represented not merely wages but citizenship.

For Dalits, backward classes and women, government service became a pathway to dignity and social mobility through reservations and affirmative action.

The Expansion of the Public Sector

Table 8

Major Public Sector Expansion (1950–1990)

Sector	Employment Peak
Indian Railways	1.7 million
Public Sector Banks	1 million
State Electricity Boards	1 million+
Coal India	700,000
BSNL and Department of Telecom	500,000+
Central Government Civilian Employees	4.1 million
State Governments	More than 10 million
CPSEs	Around 2.3 million

These institutions generated stable employment characterized by:

· Defined pensions;

· Medical benefits;

· Housing;

· Collective bargaining;

· Promotion structures;

· Social security.

Employment was viewed as an instrument of nation-building rather than a fiscal burden.

Liberalisation and the New Philosophy of the State

Economic reforms fundamentally altered this vision.

New priorities emerged:

Fiscal discipline.

Privatization.

Downsizing.

Outsourcing.

Efficiency.

Corporate competitiveness.

The state ceased to regard itself as employer of last resort.

Public employment became associated with:

· Inefficiency;

· Subsidy burden;

· Fiscal stress.

Private enterprise was expected to absorb labour.

This expectation proved misplaced.

Jobless Growth: The Great Contradiction

Indian GDP has grown substantially since 1991.

Yet employment elasticity has declined.

Table 9

Growth versus Employment

Decade	GDP Growth	Employment Growth
1980s	Moderate	Moderate
1990s	High	Low
2000s	High	Stagnant
2010s	High	Weak
2020s	Uneven	Precarious

Economists describe this phenomenon as:

Jobless Growth.

Output increases.

Employment does not.

Productivity rises.

Labour absorption falls.

Population Explosion and Shrinking Public Employment

The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed demographically.

Table 10

Population and Public Employment

Year	Population	Central Govt Employees
1951	361 million	Less than 2 million
1991	846 million	4.1 million
2025	1.43 billion	Around 3.2 million

Population has quadrupled since independence.

Labour force participation has expanded enormously.

Educational attainment has increased.

But public employment has stagnated or declined.

The ratio of public employment to population has steadily fallen.

The Railway Example

Indian Railways historically represented the largest employer.

Peak Employment

1.7 million workers.

Today:

· Recruitment has slowed.

· Vacancies remain substantial.

· Maintenance is increasingly outsourced.

· Contract labour has proliferated.

The railway worker who once embodied middle-class stability increasingly confronts insecurity.

Banking and Financial Sector

Nationalisation transformed banking into a source of mass employment.

Bank branches expanded into rural India.

Recruitment generated millions of secure jobs.

Today:

· Consolidation has reduced hiring.

· Digitalization limits recruitment.

· Outsourcing has expanded.

· Workload has intensified.

Permanent employment gives way to contractual arrangements.

BSNL and Telecommunications

Perhaps no institution better symbolizes the retreat of public employment than BSNL.

During its peak:

More than 500,000 employees.

Today:

Drastic reduction.

Voluntary retirement schemes.

Technological transition.

Market competition.

Private players dominate the sector.

The social consequences of this transformation remain inadequately studied.

Vacancies Amidst Unemployment

A striking contradiction characterizes contemporary India.

Millions are unemployed.

Simultaneously, millions of posts remain vacant.

Table 11

Areas with Chronic Vacancies

Sector	Situation
Schools	Teacher shortages
Universities	Faculty vacancies
Health sector	Doctor and nurse shortages
Judiciary	Massive vacancies
Police	Understaffing
Railways	Recruitment delays
Research institutions	Unfilled positions

The result is double injustice.

Citizens receive inadequate services.

Youth remain unemployed.

Contractualization of Government

Even where recruitment occurs, permanent employment increasingly disappears.

New categories emerge:

· Guest teachers.

· Contract lecturers.

· NHM employees.

· ASHA workers.

· Anganwadi workers.

· Outsourced sanitation workers.

· Data entry operators.

The state itself adopts the practices of private capital.

Ironically, the guardian of labour laws increasingly circumvents them.

Privatization and the New Corporate Order

Disinvestment policies are justified on grounds of efficiency.

Yet privatization transforms labour relations.

Public enterprises historically provided:

Security.

Reservation benefits.

Unionization.

Pension.

Social mobility.

Private enterprises prioritize:

Profit.

Cost minimization.

Labour flexibility.

Consequently, employment quality deteriorates.

International Comparisons

Table 12

Government Employment as Percentage of Population

Country	Share
Norway	30%
Sweden	28%
France	21%
UK	17%
USA	15%
China	8–10%
India	2–3%

India's public employment levels are remarkably low considering:

· Population size.

· Developmental challenges.

· Infrastructure deficits.

· Educational needs.

Unemployment and the Educated Middle Class

Unemployment increasingly affects graduates.

Millions prepare for:

· UPSC;

· SSC;

· Banking;

· Railways;

· State services.

The attraction lies not merely in wages.

Government employment promises:

· Stability;

· Pension;

· Prestige;

· Social security.

Yet vacancies remain limited.

Examinations are delayed.

Recruitments are litigated.

Youth experience prolonged uncertainty.

MGNREGA and Rural Distress

MGNREGA represents one of the largest employment programmes globally.

It emerged as recognition that markets alone cannot guarantee livelihoods.

Its achievements include:

· Rural wage support;

· Reduction in distress migration;

· Women's participation;

· Community assets.

However:

· Budget constraints;

· Delayed wages;

· Administrative bottlenecks;

limit its effectiveness.

The programme remains relief rather than transformation.

The Gig Economy as Employment Policy

Instead of secure jobs, India increasingly generates:

· Delivery workers;

· Platform drivers;

· Freelancers;

· Warehouse labour.

The gig economy absorbs unemployment without eliminating insecurity.

Workers remain:

Neither self-employed nor employees.

Neither entrepreneurs nor labourers.

The ambiguity benefits capital.

Marx and the Reserve Army of Labour

Marx argued that capitalism requires a permanent reserve army of labour.

Unemployment performs economic functions.

It:

· Keeps wages low.

· Weakens unions.

· Disciplines workers.

· Increases competition among labourers.

Contemporary India represents perhaps the world's largest reserve army.

The unemployed engineer.

The graduate preparing for examinations.

The migrant worker.

The gig worker.

All constitute different manifestations of this reserve army.

Public Sector Decline and Social Justice

Reservations transformed government employment into a vehicle of democratization.

Shrinking public employment affects disproportionately:

· Scheduled Castes;

· Scheduled Tribes;

· OBCs;

· Women;

· Economically weaker groups.

Privatization threatens the social justice architecture itself.

The market does not guarantee representation.

Thus, employment becomes not merely an economic issue but a constitutional question.

The Crisis of Social Citizenship

T. H. Marshall defined citizenship as comprising:

1. Civil rights.

2. Political rights.

3. Social rights.

Employment forms the foundation of social citizenship.

Without secure livelihoods:

Political equality becomes hollow.

Democracy itself weakens.

Mass unemployment breeds:

· Anxiety;

· Polarization;

· Communal tensions;

· Authoritarian tendencies.

The labour question is therefore inseparable from the democratic question.

The decline of public employment is not merely an administrative phenomenon; it signifies the retreat of the social republic envisioned by the Constitution.

India's transition from a developmental state to a market-oriented state has profoundly altered the landscape of employment.

Public employment has shrunk.

Privatization has accelerated.

Contractualization has spread.

Population and aspirations have expanded.

The result is a society characterized by:

Growth without jobs.

Development without security.

Wealth without redistribution.

Democracy without social citizenship.

Marx's insight that capitalism continuously reproduces insecurity finds renewed relevance.

The retreat of the state has not been matched by an expansion of decent private employment.

Instead, precarious work has become the dominant condition.

The consequences are visible in rising youth frustration, growing inequalities and weakening social solidarity.

The central question confronting India today is therefore not merely how to increase GDP.

It is:

Who will provide work?

What kind of work?

For whose benefit?

And above all,

Can democracy survive amidst permanent precarity?

"Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed."

— Abraham Lincoln

Women, Invisible Labour and the Feminisation of Precarity

Gender, Social Reproduction and the Crisis of Care in Contemporary India

"Woman's emancipation becomes possible only when woman can participate in production on a large, social scale, and domestic work no longer claims anything but an insignificant amount of her time."

— Friedrich Engels

The Invisible Foundation of Society

The economy rests upon labour.

But labour itself rests upon care.

Behind every worker stands another worker whose labour remains invisible.

The child who attends school.

The employee who reaches office.

The politician who governs.

The entrepreneur who builds wealth.

All depend upon someone who cooks, cleans, nurses, nurtures and reproduces human life.

Historically, this work has been assigned to women and treated not as labour but as duty.

Capitalism externalizes the costs of social reproduction onto households and women while appropriating the benefits.

Thus, much of women's labour remains economically invisible despite being indispensable.

The Great Paradox of Women's Work

Indian women work continuously.

Yet they are statistically absent from the labour market.

This paradox arises because national income accounting recognizes only market transactions while excluding unpaid domestic work.

Women perform:

· Cooking.

· Cleaning.

· Childcare.

· Elder care.

· Emotional labour.

· Community work.

· Collection of water and fuel.

· Agricultural assistance.

Yet most of this remains outside GDP calculations.

Consequently, women are described as "non-working" despite working more hours than men.

Table 13

Average Daily Time Use (Hours)

Activity	Women	Men
Paid work	Lower	Higher
Domestic work	Much higher	Lower
Care work	Much higher	Minimal
Leisure	Lower	Higher
Total work burden	Higher	Lower

(Source: Time Use Survey)

Women experience what sociologists call:

The Double Burden.

And often,

The Triple Burden.

Paid work.

Domestic work.

Care responsibilities.

Female Labour Force Participation: The Indian Puzzle

India's female labour force participation remains among the lowest in the world.

Table 14

Female Labour Force Participation (%)

Country	Participation
China	60%+
Vietnam	70%
Bangladesh	40%
Sweden	60%
USA	55%
India	30–40%

This paradox persists despite:

· Rising education.

· Urbanization.

· Economic growth.

Why are Indian Women Leaving the Workforce?

Several factors explain this trend:

Patriarchal norms.

Lack of childcare facilities.

Safety concerns.

Wage discrimination.

Informalization.

Mechanization of agriculture.

Household income effects.

Absence of suitable jobs.

Many educated women withdraw because available jobs are:

· Unsafe.

· Low paying.

· Far from home.

· Incompatible with care responsibilities.

Thus, declining participation does not signify liberation.

Rather, it reflects structural constraints.

Women's withdrawal from paid employment represents not prosperity but exclusion.

Feminisation of Informal Labour

Women are disproportionately concentrated in:

· Domestic work.

· Home-based work.

· Agriculture.

· Garment manufacturing.

· Piece-rate work.

· Beedi rolling.

· Food processing.

· Scheme work.

These occupations are characterized by:

· Low wages.

· Lack of contracts.

· No social security.

· Irregular incomes.

Thus, women experience what scholars describe as:

Feminisation of Poverty.

Feminisation of Informality.

Feminisation of Precarity.

Marxist Feminism and Social Reproduction

Classical Marxism focused primarily upon production.

Marxist feminists expanded the analysis to include reproduction.

Important thinkers include:

Silvia Federici.

Lise Vogel.

Nancy Fraser.

Angela Davis.

Mariarosa Dalla Costa.

Their central argument is profound:

Capitalism depends not merely upon factories but upon the daily reproduction of labour power.

Workers must:

· Eat.

· Sleep.

· Raise children.

· Receive care.

Women perform much of this work without wages.

Thus, capitalism benefits from unpaid domestic labour.

Nancy Fraser describes this contradiction as:

Crisis of Social Reproduction.

Homemakers and the Recognition Debate

The recent Supreme Court observations recognizing homemakers as "nation builders" mark an important conceptual shift.

The Court observed:

"It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent when the household itself depends substantially upon her."

The Court quantified the minimum economic value of domestic care at ₹30,000 per month for compensation purposes.

This recognition challenges patriarchal assumptions that homemakers are economically unproductive.

Yet symbolic recognition alone is insufficient.

The larger question remains:

Should domestic work itself be treated as productive labour?

The Wages for Housework Debate

Silvia Federici and other feminists argued:

Housework produces labour power.

Therefore:

Housework is work.

The demand for wages for housework emerged not because women wished to remain confined to homes but because unpaid labour perpetuated dependence.

Critics, however, fear that monetization may reinforce traditional gender roles.

The debate continues.

Scheme Workers: Welfare Built on Women's Exploitation

India's welfare architecture depends heavily upon women workers.

These include:

Anganwadi Workers.

Helpers.

ASHA Workers.

Mid-Day Meal Workers.

Creche Workers.

They perform essential public functions:

· Nutrition.

· Health care.

· Immunization.

· Early childhood education.

· Community mobilisation.

Yet they are designated as:

Volunteers.

Honorarium Workers.

Consequently:

· Minimum wages are denied.

· Pension remains absent.

· Social security is inadequate.

· Employee status is denied.

Ironically, the welfare state itself survives through feminized precarious labour.

Domestic Workers: Invisible Workers

Millions of domestic workers remain excluded from labour legislation.

Most are:

· Women.

· Migrants.

· Dalits.

· Minority communities.

They face:

· Long hours.

· Verbal abuse.

· Sexual harassment.

· Wage theft.

Their workplaces are private homes, making regulation difficult.

Domestic workers embody the intersection of:

Class.

Gender.

Caste.

Migration.

Gender Wage Gap

Women continue to earn significantly less than men.

Table 15

Average Earnings

Category	Men	Women
Regular salaried	Higher	Lower
Self-employed	Higher	Much lower
Casual labour	Higher	Lower

The causes include:

· Occupational segregation.

· Interrupted careers.

· Care responsibilities.

· Discrimination.

Women are concentrated in low-paying sectors while men dominate higher-paying occupations.

Sexual Division of Labour

Patriarchal ideology naturalizes certain occupations as "women's work":

· Teaching.

· Nursing.

· Caregiving.

· Domestic work.

These sectors are historically undervalued because care itself is feminized.

Conversely, occupations associated with masculinity receive higher remuneration.

Thus, wage inequality reflects social valuation rather than productivity.

Women and the Informal Economy

Jan Breman observed that women often constitute the reserve reserve army of labour.

They enter labour markets during distress.

They exit when opportunities decline.

Consequently, women bear the costs of economic crises disproportionately.

During the COVID pandemic:

Women experienced:

· Job losses.

· Increased domestic burden.

· Rising violence.

· Reduced mobility.

The crisis exposed the fragility of women's economic gains.

Women's Employment and Development

No society has achieved high human development while excluding women from economic participation.

East Asian economies benefited from female employment.

Nordic countries created extensive care infrastructure.

China's industrialization involved massive female labour participation.

India's demographic dividend cannot be realized without women entering gainful employment.

Women's employment generates:

· Higher household incomes.

· Better child nutrition.

· Lower fertility rates.

· Educational improvements.

· Social empowerment.

Care Economy and Public Investment

Care should not remain a private burden.

Public investment is necessary in:

Childcare.

Elder care.

Health services.

Creches.

Maternity benefits.

Such investments generate employment while reducing women's unpaid workload.

The care economy itself represents a powerful source of job creation.

Women, Caste and Labour

Dalit women occupy the lowest rungs of the labour hierarchy.

They are overrepresented in:

· Sanitation work.

· Agricultural labour.

· Domestic work.

· Informal occupations.

Thus, gender oppression intersects with caste oppression.

As B. R. Ambedkar recognized, social democracy requires the annihilation of caste and patriarchy together.

Feminism and Marxism

Marxism reveals exploitation.

Feminism reveals invisibility.

Together they demonstrate that capitalism and patriarchy reinforce one another.

Capital benefits from:

· Cheap female labour.

· Unpaid domestic labour.

· Reproductive labour.

Patriarchy legitimizes these arrangements.

Women's liberation therefore requires:

Economic emancipation.

Social recognition.

Redistribution of care.

Transformation of patriarchal relations.

The struggle for women's emancipation is not a supplementary question to the labour movement; it lies at its centre.

Beyond Invisible Labour

Women's labour sustains families, economies and nations.

Yet recognition remains partial.

Millions remain trapped between unpaid care work and precarious employment.

The paradox of Indian development is stark:

Women are indispensable to society.

Yet society treats their labour as expendable.

The challenge before India is not merely increasing female labour force participation.

It is creating dignified employment.

Equality requires:

· Equal wages.

· Social security.

· Childcare infrastructure.

· Safe workplaces.

· Recognition of care work.

The future of labour itself depends upon whether society acknowledges that production and reproduction are inseparable.

Without care, there can be no labour.

Without women, there can be no economy.

Without dignity, there can be no development.

"The degree of emancipation of women is the natural measure of the general emancipation."

— Karl Marx

Labour, Democracy and the Future of Capitalism

A Marxist Interpretation of the Indian Worker in the Twenty-First Century

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

— Karl Marx

 

The Crisis Beyond Employment

Employment is not merely a source of income.

It is also:

· Identity.

· Citizenship.

· Social recognition.

· Dignity.

· Collective belonging.

Therefore, unemployment and precarious work produce not merely economic deprivation but social and political instability.

The labour crisis is simultaneously:

A democratic crisis.

A social crisis.

A moral crisis.

A crisis of capitalism itself.

Marx and the Theory of Exploitation

Marx's central insight was simple yet revolutionary.

Capital does not create value.

Labour creates value.

Capital appropriates surplus value.

The worker sells labour power.

The capitalist purchases it.

But the worker produces more value than he receives in wages.

The difference constitutes:

Surplus Value.

The foundation of profit.

Thus, exploitation is not theft in the legal sense.

It is embedded in the structure of wage labour itself.

Table 16

Marx's Circuit of Capital

Money (M)

↓

Commodity (C)

↓

Labour Process

↓

Commodity with Surplus Value (C')

↓

Money Plus Profit (M')

The entire process depends upon extracting unpaid labour.

Alienation: The Human Cost of Capitalism

Marx identified four dimensions of alienation.

Workers become alienated from:

Their product.

The labour process.

Fellow human beings.

Their own humanity.

Modern capitalism intensifies these forms.

The call centre worker.

The software engineer.

The delivery rider.

The contractual teacher.

All increasingly experience:

· Burnout.

· Anxiety.

· Isolation.

· Meaninglessness.

Work becomes merely survival.

Human beings become appendages of systems they do not control.

The tragedy of capitalism lies not only in poverty but in the reduction of human beings into commodities.

Primitive Accumulation and Neoliberalism

Marx described primitive accumulation as the violent separation of producers from their means of subsistence.

Contemporary neoliberalism reproduces similar processes.

Through:

· Privatization.

· Land acquisition.

· Corporate agriculture.

· Informalization.

· Displacement.

Millions are dispossessed.

Migration becomes compulsory rather than voluntary.

Rural distress pushes workers into precarious urban employment.

David Harvey terms this process:

Accumulation by Dispossession.

The Reserve Army of Labour

One of Marx's most enduring concepts is the reserve army.

Capitalism requires unemployment.

The unemployed exert downward pressure upon wages.

Fear disciplines labour.

India possesses perhaps the world's largest reserve army.

It includes:

Unemployed youth.

Migrant labourers.

Informal workers.

Women outside labour markets.

Gig workers.

Educated aspirants.

This vast surplus population weakens labour's bargaining power.

The Rise of Billionaires and the Concentration of Wealth

The neoliberal era has witnessed unprecedented inequality.

A small elite controls enormous wealth.

Meanwhile:

· Real wages stagnate.

· Informality expands.

· Public employment declines.

Thomas Piketty's work demonstrates that returns to capital often exceed economic growth.

Consequently, inequality widens structurally.

India exemplifies this trend.

Economic growth has enriched capital far more than labour.

Fragmentation of the Working Class

E. P. Thompson emphasized that classes are made through historical experience.

Contemporary capitalism fragments class identities.

Workers are divided by:

· Caste.

· Religion.

· Region.

· Language.

· Gender.

· Contractual status.

Identity politics often supersedes class politics.

Fragmentation weakens solidarity.

Capital benefits.

Table 17

Fragmentation of Labour

Earlier Industrial Worker	Contemporary Worker
Factory-based	Dispersed
Unionized	Individualized
Permanent	Contractual
Shared identity	Fragmented identities
Stable occupation	Multiple jobs
Collective bargaining	Algorithmic control

Democracy and the Labour Question

T. H. Marshall's concept of social citizenship remains relevant.

Democracy requires:

Civil rights.

Political rights.

Social rights.

Without social rights, democracy becomes formal.

Mass unemployment weakens democratic participation.

Economic insecurity breeds:

· Authoritarianism.

· Communal polarization.

· Xenophobia.

· Populism.

History repeatedly demonstrates that economic despair threatens democratic institutions.

Labour and Communal Politics

Marx famously observed:

"Labour in white skin cannot emancipate itself where labour in black skin is branded."

Similarly, labour divided by caste and religion cannot emancipate itself.

Economic insecurities are often displaced into:

· Religious conflicts.

· Ethnic tensions.

· Nationalist anxieties.

Workers who share common economic interests become enemies.

Capital remains unaffected.

Thus, class fragmentation strengthens authoritarian politics.

Trade Unions and New Social Movements

Traditional unions emerged around factories.

Contemporary labour requires new forms of organization.

Future labour politics must include:

Gig workers.

Domestic workers.

Women workers.

Scheme workers.

Migrants.

Platform workers.

Environmental movements.

Farmers' organizations.

The distinction between labour movements and social movements is increasingly blurred.

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work

Technological revolutions generate contradictions.

AI promises productivity.

But also threatens:

· White-collar jobs.

· Routine occupations.

· Administrative work.

Automation creates wealth while reducing labour demand.

The challenge is not technology itself.

The question is:

Who owns technology?

Who benefits from productivity gains?

If gains accrue solely to capital, inequality deepens.

Climate Change and Labour

Climate change disproportionately affects workers.

Heat stress.

Floods.

Agricultural crises.

Migration.

Occupational hazards.

Construction workers, agricultural labourers and informal workers face the greatest vulnerabilities.

The future of labour must therefore integrate ecological sustainability.Universal Basic Income or Universal Employment?

Two approaches dominate contemporary debates.

Universal Basic Income

Advantages:

· Income security.

· Administrative simplicity.

Criticisms:

· May legitimize unemployment.

· Does not address alienation.

Universal Employment

Advantages:

· Social participation.

· Dignity.

· Collective purpose.

Employment is not merely income.

It is citizenship.

The challenge lies in combining both security and meaningful work.

The Care Economy as Future Employment

Investment in:

· Health.

· Education.

· Childcare.

· Elder care.

· Nutrition.

Can simultaneously:

· Generate employment.

· Reduce inequality.

· Empower women.

The care economy represents one of the most labour-intensive sectors.

Its expansion offers a humane alternative to jobless growth.

Ecological Socialism and Sustainable Development

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.

The future demands:

Renewable energy.

Green employment.

Sustainable agriculture.

Public transport.

Circular economies.

Labour rights and ecological justice must become complementary rather than antagonistic.

The Crisis of Capitalism or Crisis of Labour?

Capitalism itself remains resilient.

What is in crisis is the social compromise that once moderated capitalism.

The welfare state.

Collective bargaining.

Public employment.

Social security.

Stable careers.

These institutions are weakening.

The consequence is the rise of precarity.

Thus, contemporary capitalism increasingly resembles what Karl Polanyi called:

The disembedded market.

Society becomes subordinated to economic logic.

The labour question is ultimately the question of what kind of society we wish to build.

Towards a New Social Contract

A democratic labour regime requires:

Employment-Centred Growth.

Expansion of Public Employment.

Universal Social Security.

Living Wages.

Strengthening Trade Unions.

Recognition of Care Work.

Gender Equality.

Eight-Hour Workday.

Rights for Gig Workers.

Investment in Education and Health.

Green Employment.

Reduction of Working Hours.

Democratic Participation in Workplaces.

The State of the Indian Worker Today

The Indian worker in the twenty-first century inhabits contradictory realities.

He or she produces unprecedented wealth but possesses little security.

The organized worker fears becoming informal.

The informal worker dreams of becoming organized.

Women remain burdened by invisible labour.

Youth confront unemployment amidst expanding education.

Workers are fragmented by caste, religion and region.

Trade unions struggle to reinvent themselves.

Yet labour remains the foundation of society.

Marx ended Capital with the observation that capital produces its own gravediggers.

Whether contemporary labour can rediscover solidarity amidst fragmentation remains an open question.

As E. P. Thompson wrote, the working class made itself through struggle.

The Indian worker today stands at a similar historical moment.

The choice before India is stark.

A republic governed by markets and precarity.

Or a social republic founded upon dignity, work and democratic citizenship.

For ultimately, the question of labour is not merely about economics.

It is about civilization itself.

Conclusion: The Republic at the Crossroads

The crisis of labour in contemporary India is not merely a crisis of jobs. It is a crisis of the very social compact upon which the Republic was founded.

Three decades of liberalisation have undoubtedly produced growth, wealth and technological transformation. Yet they have also created a paradox that lies at the heart of contemporary India: prosperity without security, growth without employment, productivity without dignity and democracy without social citizenship. A country that once imagined work as the foundation of nation-building increasingly treats labour as a cost to be minimized and insecurity as a condition to be normalized.

The tragedy is not simply that millions remain unemployed. It is that even employment no longer guarantees dignity. Informality has become the dominant condition of labour. Permanent workers fear contractualisation; contractual workers dream of permanence; gig workers survive without rights; women sustain society through invisible labour while remaining economically undervalued; welfare programmes themselves rest upon the poorly paid work of Anganwadi workers, ASHAs and countless scheme workers denied recognition as employees. The state, which once regulated capital and expanded employment, increasingly reproduces the logic of the market.

The assault upon labour has simultaneously become an assault upon time. Workers are once again compelled to defend the eight-hour day against the return of endless work. Rights secured through generations of struggle are being presented as impediments to efficiency. What nineteenth-century capitalism sought through the factory, twenty-first-century capitalism increasingly pursues through algorithms, contractualisation and digital surveillance. Exploitation has changed its forms, but not its essence.

Equally alarming is the fragmentation of labour itself. Workers divided by caste, religion, region, gender and precarious status find themselves competing against one another rather than confronting structures of inequality. Economic anxieties are redirected into cultural and communal antagonisms. The consequence is not merely weakened trade unions but a weakening of democracy itself. A society in which millions experience permanent insecurity cannot indefinitely sustain democratic citizenship.

For the Indian Constitution did not envision a republic governed solely by markets. It envisaged a social republic founded upon justice, equality and dignity. Employment, social security and decent conditions of work were not conceived as charitable concessions but as instruments of freedom and social transformation. The retreat from these commitments represents not merely a policy shift but a moral and constitutional rupture.

History demonstrates that societies cannot indefinitely endure extreme inequalities without consequences. The concentration of wealth alongside mass precarity, the celebration of seventy-hour workweeks amidst chronic unemployment, and the withdrawal of the state amidst expanding aspirations expose the contradictions of contemporary capitalism with increasing sharpness. The question confronting India is therefore larger than economics. It concerns the future of the Republic itself.

Will India become a society where human beings exist merely as disposable units of production, endlessly competing in precarious markets while wealth accumulates in ever fewer hands?

Or will it renew the constitutional promise that labour is not a commodity, that care is not invisibility, that citizenship demands social rights, and that democracy cannot survive without dignity and economic security?

Ultimately, the labour question is not about wages alone.

It is about the kind of civilization we choose to build.

For no republic can remain democratic when work becomes precarious, rights become privileges, and millions are condemned to insecurity while a few accumulate unprecedented wealth. A society may survive such contradictions for a time, but it cannot indefinitely flourish upon them.

The future of India will be determined not by the fortunes of its billionaires, nor by the heights of its stock markets, but by the fate of its workers.

For labour preceded capital, sustains society and remains, in the final analysis, the foundation upon which every republic stands.

And when labour is stripped of rights, it is not merely the worker who becomes precarious.

The Republic itself does.

 

"The worker has become all the poorer the more wealth he produces."

— Karl Marx

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

— Marx and Engels

References

1. Karl Marx, Capital (1867).

2. Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

3. Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845).

4. Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (1944).

5. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963).

6. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005).

7. Guy Standing, The Precariat (2011).

8. Jan Breman, At Work in the Informal Economy of India (2013).

9. Barbara Harriss-White, India Working (2003).

10. Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen, An Uncertain Glory (2013).

11. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014).

12. Nancy Fraser, “Contradictions of Capital and Care” (2016).

13. Silvia Federici, Wages Against Housework (1975).

14. ILO, World Employment and Social Outlook (various issues).

15. Government of India, Periodic Labour Force Survey (various rounds).