Criminal antecedents of accused from right wing outfits 

The statement reads:

“The hardened criminals who have been arrested for leading the attack have been identified as activists and supporters of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). They are said to have actively campaigned for the BJP in the just concluded local body elections. They are history-sheeters with cases including attempt to murder against them. The first accused Anu son of Appunni has 9 criminal cases against him in the Valayar police station involving serious charges including attempt to murder for gravely injuring CPI (M) and DYFI workers 15 years ago. (FIR No. 336/2015, 419/2015, 002/2009, 106/2012, 569/ 2012, 829/2013, 364/2012, 30/2007, 04/2023 all in Valayar Town North and Kasaba Police stations).

“Another accused, Prasad son of Chandran has 2 cases (FIR No. 996/2014, 821/ 2015) and Murali son of Chathu has 3 cases (FIR No. 106/2012, 2/2009, 569/2012). During the court proceedings local BJP leader R Jineesh, an accused in another murder case visited the accused and arranged support.

In a detailed analysis of the state of affairs in the country has not spared the top leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP.) Says the statement, “The hate-campaign unleashed by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah raising the false bogey of illegal “Bangladeshi infiltrators” for electoral benefits through communal polarisation is responsible for creating such an atmosphere. In the context of widespread murders of innocent people especially after Narendra Modi become the Prime Minister, AIKS once again reiterates the demand for a law against mob lynching with strong deterrent punishment and state support to victim families.”

“Widespread attacks against the Christian and Muslim minorities across India are going on in a way damaging national unity.  Christmas celebrations also were targeted by the Sangh Parivar organisations even in the capital city, New Delhi. The United Christian Forum (UCF) in a letter to the Home Minister had pointed out that there were 843 incidents of crime in 2024 alone against Christians across India, meaning 70 violent incidents per month. In 2025 till November 706 such incidents were recorded.”

The AIKS has appealed to all political parties, mass and class movements across the country to unite against hate politics and communal polarisation being spearheaded by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP. Let us all unite against hate and divisive communal polarisation.  The statement was signed by AIKS president, Ashok Dhawale and general secretary, Vijoo Krishnan.

Related:

Kerala Lynching: Migrant worker lynched in Palakkad a ‘victim of Sangh Parivar’s hate politics’ says state government

The post Demand that Modi provides Rs 1 crore compensation for migrant worker, Ram Narayan Baghel killed by right wing goons in Kerala: AIKS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We bring you the exclusive transcript of the latest episode of “Cross Bat,” the high-octane, metaphor heavy talk show hosted by the ever ebullient Balancedeep Sabchangasi. Known for his penchant for framing national crises through the nostalgic lens of 1970s Bollywood melodies and the technical nuances of a late-cut at Eden Gardens, Balancedeep attempts to find “balance” even when the pitch is clearly crumbling.

His guest is none other than Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala, a man who exemplifies the delightful charm of a bygone era. A veteran carpenter and restorer of vintage teak and rosewood, Cyrus operates from the old money enclave of Colaba. However, he is perhaps better known for his missives to the highest echelons of power, penned with the elegant precision of an antique dealer and the sharp wit of a seasoned observer. Cyrus represents the Model Citizen of the Amrit Kaal. He is a man who claims to be most law-abiding citizen, while using a strategic “naïve” voice to dissect the shenanigans of our times.

In this exchange, the duo tackles the controversial new MGNREGA Bill. The proposed legislation seeks to fundamentally transform rural employment by repealing the historic 2005 Act and replacing the legal right to work with a supply-driven, centrally capped model. This new framework shifts a significant 40% of the material funding burden to state governments and introduces mandatory 60 day work pauses during agricultural seasons, potentially curtailing the scheme’s responsiveness to local distress. Perhaps most symbolically, the bill removes the “Mahatma Gandhi” prefix from the program’s title, signalling a substantive ideological shift in India’s social safety net.

Cyrus, in his signature style, defends the government’s overhaul of the rural employment guarantee^, discussing key aspects such as democratic checks and socioeconomic security. ^.

The Transcript: Cross Bat with Balancedeep Sabchangasi

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: Welcome to Cross Bat! Today, we’re looking at the new MGNREGA Bill. Is it a masterstroke, a ‘Helicopter Shot’ over the boundary, or are we witnessing a hit wicket for rural India? To help us navigate this, we have the legendary restorer of both furniture and public discourse, Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala. Cyrus, the government says extreme poverty has fallen faster than a wicket on a green top pitch. Yet, they’ve extended free food grains to 800 million people under PMGKAY until 2028. Is this a classic Bollywood double role, or a contradiction that even Kishore Kumar couldn’t harmonize?

Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala: Balancedeep, may I call you BS? You approach the subject with the frantic energy of a bowler in the final over. Please, decelerate. In the hallowed halls of governance, this is not a contradiction. This is Strategic Surplus. You see, the world should see that the house is sturdy to maintain the shining veneer. Yet we keep the pantry stocked with 800 million bags of grain just in case the floorboards collapse^. It is a “pre-emptive philanthropy” that ensures the masses are sufficiently fed so they do not have the ungrateful urge to demand their “legal right” to work. We are polishing the image of prosperity while acknowledging, in a hushed whisper, that the wood may be a wee bit termite-ridden.  

BS: But Cyrus, let’s talk about the “repair” job. Social audits show that, post Digital reforms, misappropriation of funds is less than 0.3%. That’s a cleaner record than most mid table teams! Why do a complete structural overhaul and repeal the legal right to work when a bit of digital “varnishing” would have sufficed?

Cyrus: My dear boy, a legal right is a very cumbersome piece of furniture. It is like a heavy Victorian wardrobe that refuses to fit into a modern, streamlined apartment. It is unwieldy. By repealing the right and shifting to a centrally capped model, the government is merely practicing administrative minimalism. We are de-sanctifying the labour of the commoner. Why should the state be legally bound to provide work when it can simply offer normative allocations based on the prevailing mood in the capital? It’s about flexibility! Should the timber refuse to align with the Amrit Kaal décor, the state can simply withhold the varnish of central allocation.

BS: Flexibility? Studies show no widespread farm labour shortages, yet the bill introduces mandatory 60 day pauses during harvest seasons. Isn’t this like telling a batsman he can’t score during the Powerplay? You’re depriving workers of income exactly when they’re most vulnerable.

Cyrus: It is a rhythmic intermission. We must ensure the rural folk do not become addicted to the stability of a government wage. It spoils the entrepreneurial spirit of the impoverished! By forcing a pause, we encourage them to explore the “free market” of private exploitation, err, I mean, private enterprise. It is a lesson in character building. If they cannot find work in the fields, they can always practice coloured spit accuracy while chewing paan or while their time near garbage piles, which, as I have hitherto suggested, are the new benchmarks for a simplified citizenship.

BS: Let’s talk about the funding. The 60:40 split is a heavy bouncer for states like Punjab or Tamil Nadu. If a state is fiscally strained and can’t meet its 40% share, the workers suffer. Did the government model this risk, or is this “trickle-up” economics where the states are left to fend for themselves?

Cyrus: It is Fiscal Darwinism, BS. We are fostering a healthy competition in destitution. If a state cannot afford its share of the material costs, it simply proves that its administration lacks the visionary zeal of the centre. The Union Budget remains stagnant at ₹86,000 crore, while dues exceed ₹21,000 crore. This is a masterclass in aspirational accounting. We promise the glory of Amrit Kaal while ensuring the material reality is as thin as a cheap plywood veneer. It’s about the feeling of employment, not the actual payment.

BS: But what about the consultation, Cyrus? The original bill was debated for a year with unions and civil society. This one was passed in a midnight session amidst a walkout, debated for barely a few hours. Is this thorough scrutiny or a quick single taken while the wicketkeeper wasn’t looking?

Cyrus: Consultation is such a “pre-digital” concept. Why consult the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha or Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan when their views might cause a cognitive dissonance with the government’s perfect plan? Consulting a worker about a labour bill is like asking the rosewood if it wants to be chiselled. The wood has no macro-perspective. The carpenter knows best! Passing it after midnight is a stroke of nocturnal genius. It ensures that only the most law-abiding and awake citizens are present to witness the unanimous voice vote.

BS: Cyrus, opposition members have suggested looking at Brazil’s Bolsa Família, Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net, or similar schemes in Mexico and South Africa to mitigate concerns. Could we not have learned from these global best practices to build a more robust, less controversial bill?

Cyrus: Brazil? Ethiopia? My dear BS, those are foreign timbers. We are building an Atmanirbhar cabinet here. Why look at a South African model that might favour equity or transparency when we can have a uniquely Indian model of opaque benevolence? To learn from others is to admit that our unparalleled wisdom has a limit. We don’t need best practices from abroad. We have kick-ass creativity at home! Besides, international schemes often involve accountability, which is a very difficult stain to remove once it sets into the wood.

BS: Speaking of accountability, there were no time-bound, measurable goals added. No specific targets for poverty reduction or narrowing the inequality gap. Isn’t a bill without a deadline just a dead rubber match?

Cyrus: A time-bound goal is a trap for the unwary! If you set a goal, people expect you to reach it. That is very un-Sanskari! By keeping the goals vague and the rhetoric high, we maintain a permanent state of “becoming.” We are always about to reduce inequality. We are always on the verge of ending poverty. It keeps the privileged class, of which I am a senior member, in a state of comfortable anticipation while the “trickle-up” continues to the penthouse. Why have a poverty reduction target when you can have a glory expansion target? It also makes the Supreme Leader’s role easier.

BS: Finally, the name. Mahatma Gandhi’s name has been dropped. No discussion. Just a “symbolic” exit. Is this a substantive reform or an ideological renovation?

Cyrus: The Mahatma, with his spinning wheel and his truth, was a bit too austere for the high-gloss finish of the modern era. We needed something that reflects the supply-driven reality of our times. In fact, I have drafted a proposal for a new, more fitting acronym for the scheme: S.C.R.A.P.

BS: SCRAP?

Cyrus: Indeed! The “Strategic Centrally Restricted Allocation Program.” It is honest. It is efficient. And it tells the rural poor exactly what the government thinks of their legal rights, that they are bits of old wood to be scrapped and replaced with the shiny, hollow plastic of modern governance.

BS: Cyrus, as always, you’ve left us with much to polish in our minds. Whether this bill is a century or a duck remains to be seen, but the craftsmanship is certainly unique.

Cyrus: Just remember, BS, that in the Amrit Kaal, if you can’t fix the rot, you simply apply a thicker coat of varnish and call it an “antique”!

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: As we wrap up this intense session of Cross Bat, I find myself feeling like a batsman who’s survived a fiery spell from a vintage pacer like Malcolm Marshall. I feel bruised, bewildered, but certainly enlightened. What have we learned today from the inimitable Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala? Is this the Amrit Kaal renovation of our rural safety net? Is it a complete structural overhaul that replaces legal rights with central discretion?  Is just the surface being polished to a high gloss finish? Is the underlying grain of security for the most vulnerable being shimmied down to nothing^? Is the 60:40 funding split a Fiscal Darwinism? How does one view the nocturnal efficiency of a midnight voice vote? Is the craftsmanship of this bill a sophisticated exercise in rhetorical engineering?

As the haunting notes of “Zindagi Kaisi Hai Paheli” echo in the background, I ask you, our audience: Is this new S.C.R.A.P. model a visionary leap toward efficiency, or are we simply applying a thick coat of varnish over a deepening crisis? Is accountability such difficult stain to remove? We want to hear your views. Please send us your feedback via our digital channels.

Don’t forget to support Cross Bat. Like a classic Kishore-da melody, we strive to hit the right notes, even when the lyrics are difficult. Stay balanced, stay questioning, and we’ll see you at the next delivery.

 (A regular contributor to SabrangIndia, the writer is a conscientious citizen and a man of science and letters)

Related:

The Cross Bat Conversation: Air, antiques and force majeure

The Nation needs an Ethanol Republic – A Satire

A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India

Cyrus Seeks a Right to Multiple Voter Ids

A Satirical Plea, Dripping with Envy, to President Xi Jinping of China

The post Out with MNREGA: Hitting the Poor for a Six appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 19, rural India spoke in many accents—but with a shared unease. From drought-hit districts to tribal belts and agrarian heartlands, agricultural labourers and rural workers across the country held coordinated protests against the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, which replaces the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Organisers framed the mobilisations not as episodic dissent but as part of a longer struggle to defend rights-based welfare against increasing executive discretion.

Called by the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, farm worker unions, and peasant organisations, the nationwide protests reflected widespread concern that a legally enforceable right to work was being replaced by a discretionary, mission-mode programme.

Maharashtra: “Without the Guarantee, Drought Becomes Death”

In several districts of Marathwada, groups of farm workers gathered outside tehsil offices, holding up job cards as symbols of survival.

“Here, farming depends on the monsoon and fate,” groups of agricultural labourers from drought-prone Marathwada districts said. “MGNREGA meant at least food when crops failed. Without the guarantee, drought becomes death.”

Workers said that while wage delays had become routine, the legal right to demand work still provided leverage.

“Earlier, we could demand work or unemployment allowance,” workers from Beed and Osmanabad districts said. “Now everything will depend on the mood of officials.”

Jharkhand: “From Right to Request”

In Ranchi, protests drew participation from Adivasi workers from Khunti, Gumla, and Simdega districts.

“MGNREGA allowed us to stay in our villages instead of migrating,” Adivasi workers from central Jharkhand said. “If the guarantee goes, migration will return.”

Activists accompanying the workers said the shift from a right to a scheme would have lasting consequences.

“This bill turns a constitutional promise into a programme,” said Adivasi rights activist Dayamani Barla. “A programme can be stopped. A right cannot.”

Bihar: “Migration Will Increase Again”

In Patna, groups of construction and agricultural labourers linked the new law directly to distress migration.

“Every train to Delhi is full of workers from Bihar,” groups of rural labourers from north and central Bihar said. “MGNREGA reduced migration slightly. Removing the guarantee will push people out again.”

Women workers highlighted how the programme enabled local employment.

“MGNREGA allowed us to work near home and care for our families,” women workers from Gopalganj and Muzaffarpur districts said. “Without it, we will be forced to leave.”

Kerala: “Women Will Pay the Price”

In Kerala, where women form a significant proportion of MGNREGA workers, protests were led largely by women’s collectives.

“MGNREGA gave us dignity, not charity,” groups of women workers from Alappuzha and Palakkad districts said. “If wages become uncertain, women will be the first to lose work.”

Trade union leaders warned that replacing a rights-based programme with a centralised mission would undermine decentralised planning.

“This is a retreat from democratic governance,” said CPI(M) leader and former MP Elamaram Kareem. “Kerala’s experience shows that employment guarantees work when people can demand them.”

Tamil Nadu: “This Is About Control, Not Development”

Protests in Madurai, Tiruchirapalli, and Dindigul focused on the erosion of local decision-making.

“MGNREGA worked because panchayats had a role,” groups of rural workers from southern Tamil Nadu said. “This bill takes control away from local bodies.

Workers also pointed to rising costs of living.

“Food prices are rising every month,” women workers from Dindigul and Theni districts said. “If work becomes uncertain, survival becomes uncertain.”

Punjab: Farmers and Labourers Together

In Punjab, farmer unions joined rural labourers, framing the issue as part of a wider agrarian crisis.

“When labourers lose income security, agriculture weakens,” said Sanyukt Kisan Morcha leader Balbir Singh Rajewal. “This reflects the same mindset that pushed the farm laws.”

Protesting labour groups echoed the concern.

“Rural employment schemes support the entire village economy,” groups of landless labourers from Punjab’s Doaba and Malwa regions said.

Northeast: “One Law Cannot Fit All”

In Nagaland, protests organised by the Congress and civil society groups highlighted the region’s dependence on public employment.

“Our villages have few alternatives,” groups of rural workers from Nagaland said. “A uniform law ignores regional realities.”

Senior Congress leader K. Therie said the bill failed to recognise economic disparities between states.

Political Opposition: “Anti-Village”

Opposition leaders across parties amplified the protests.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the bill as “anti-village and anti-state,” arguing that development cannot be built by withdrawing guarantees from the poorest citizens.

“You cannot weaken the foundation and expect the structure to stand,” he said.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said the legislation reflected a systematic dilution of labour protections.

“From labour laws to rural employment, guarantees are being steadily eroded,” she said.

Parliament vs the Streets

The protests coincided with dramatic scenes in Parliament, where Opposition MPs staged walkouts and overnight sit-ins following the bill’s passage. “ They rushed the law because they feared scrutiny,” said CPI general secretary D. Raja. “What Parliament avoided debating, the people debated on the streets.” Economists and labour researchers warned that replacing rights with schemes shifts power away from citizens. “ A scheme depends on budgetary discretion,” said social activist and economist Jean Drèze. “A right depends on law.”

What December 19 Revealed

As protests dispersed peacefully across states, organisers announced plans for sustained mobilisation.

“They can change the name and the structure,” groups of rural workers from Chhattisgarh and Odisha said while leaving protest sites. “But hunger does not change.”

December 19 did not reverse the VB-G RAM G Bill. But it revealed something harder to legislate away: rural India’s collective memory of what a guarantee meant—and its refusal to let that memory be erased quietly.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post “They Changed the Law, Aggravating Our Misery and Hunger” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Government presents the Codes as a modernisation that eases compliance, simplifies regulatory processes and boosts investment. From an industry perspective, consolidation reduces administrative burden and litigation risk, enhancing flexibility. However, labour unions and many policy analysts contend that these reforms prioritise employer interests, weaken worker protections, and ignore the realities of India’s heavily informal workforce. This paper critically examines the Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, Code on Social Security, and Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, analysing their likely impact on workers, employers, unions, and labour rights. All the codes have been embedded at the end of this analysis for easy reference.

Understanding the Four Labour Codes

• The Code on Wages, 2019

The Code on Wages replaces four earlier laws — Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 — into a unified wage framework. At first glance, this rationalisation is welcome: it removes the peculiar fragmentation wherein only certain “scheduled employments” were entitled to minimum wage protection, leaving vast sectors uncovered.

Its most noted provision is the establishment of a National Floor Wage, below which no state can fix minimum wages. In theory, this should reduce inter-state disparities. However, the Code does not mandate that states must revise their minimum wages upward if their current rates slightly exceed the national floor. Many states already have minimum wages far higher than earlier floor-level recommendations; thus, unless the national floor is set ambitiously, something economists have long urged, it will have little meaning.

The Code also introduces a uniform definition of “wages”, attempting to address the inconsistencies across earlier laws. Critically, this definition includes basic pay and dearness allowance but excludes a list of allowances. If exclusions exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess counts back into wages. While this aims to prevent employers from artificially restructuring wages to avoid statutory contributions, it remains complex in practice and will likely generate future litigation.

Moreover, enforcement has been significantly weakened. Earlier, workers could approach labour courts directly for wage-related grievances. The new system shifts much of the enforcement to inspectors-cum-facilitators and administrative mechanisms, reducing avenues for judicial redress. In a country where workers face stigma, fear, and lack of access to representation, administrative barriers often function as substantive barriers.

• Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Industrial Relations (IR) Code arguably represents the most transformative and contentious reform. It combines the Trade Unions Act 1926, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and Standing Orders Act 1946, governing everything from unionisation and dispute resolution to layoffs and closures.

The most controversial shift is the increase in the threshold for layoffs and closures from 100 to 300 workers. Units employing fewer than 300 workers no longer need prior government permission to terminate or retrench employees. This is not a minor change; it effectively removes a layer of job security for workers in medium-sized establishments, a sector which accounts for a large share of India’s organised workforce.

Proponents argue that rigid labour laws have suppressed the growth of labour-intensive industries, forcing firms to remain small to avoid crossing the regulatory threshold. They insist that increased flexibility will encourage larger hiring. But India’s own experience, and that of countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam, suggests that labour protections alone do not determine employment growth; infrastructure, productivity, skill development, and stable markets play a far more decisive role.

The IR Code also tightens procedures around strikes. The new rules require workers to provide extended notice in all industrial establishments, and prohibit strikes during conciliation proceedings and arbitration. Taken together, this significantly curtails the traditional bargaining power of unions. With union density already low in the private sector, critics argue that the Code further shifts the power imbalance in favour of employers.

The introduction of fixed-term employment — contracts with a defined duration but parity in benefits — adds another layer of flexibility. While it technically ensures equal benefits, the ability to not renew a contract provides employers a way to bypass protections against arbitrary dismissals. Without strong union presence or dispute-resolution mechanisms, many workers may experience heightened precarity.

• Code on Social Security, 2020

The Social Security Code replaces nine statutes, such as the Employees’ State Insurance Act, Provident Funds Act, Maternity Benefit Act and the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, into one framework intended to extend welfare benefits across India’s vast workforce — including organised, unorganised, gig and platform workers.

The Code on Social Security puts in place suitable welfare arrangements for unorganised workers, like health and maternity benefits, education, etc. [Section 109(1)] as well as provident fund, gratuity, housing, old-age homes, funeral assistance, etc [Section 109 (2)]. However, it makes the registration of such unorganised workers, including gig workers, compulsory. Such registration is also subject to submission of the Aadhaar details of the workers under Section 113 (2)(1)-

shall make an application for registration in such form along with such documents including Aadhaar number as may be prescribed by the Central Government and such worker shall be assigned a distinguishable number to his application

Yet, recognition alone does not guarantee actual coverage. Registration under the Code requires Aadhaar-based identification, which has been criticised for excluding those without stable documentation, particularly migrant workers and those on the margins of the digital ecosystem. Several constitutional arguments have been raised against making Aadhaar a mandatory precondition for accessing statutory benefits, but the Code nevertheless embeds this requirement.

Moreover, the Code leaves most of the substantive welfare provisions to be framed through future schemes. This skeletal drafting has drawn criticism for shifting the real decision-making power from Parliament to the executive. Funding responsibilities between states and the Centre are vaguely articulated, leaving scope for jurisdictional friction and uneven implementation. Another issue arises for the gig workers. While the gig workers are a part of a larger subset of unorganised workers, the SSC 2020 lays down separate provisions for the gig workers, making the provisions applying to such workers confusing. Gig workers, in particular, are recognised as a category but remain non-employees in the eyes of the law.

• Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

The OSH Code merges 13 different laws on factories, mines, construction, contract labour, inter-state migrant workers and more, aiming for uniform workplace safety standards. It increases formalisation by allowing a single registration for establishments working across sectors, and in principle extends certain safety and welfare protections to gig/platform workers as well. However, as with the Social Security Code, most operational details are delegated to subordinate rule-making.

One notable change is the relaxation of restrictions on women working at night. While framed as a progressive step toward gender equality, the Code requires that states ensure adequate safety conditions. Critics point out that without strong monitoring mechanisms, this provision could expose women to vulnerabilities in poorly regulated industries such as hospitality, manufacturing, and gig-based delivery. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Code, 2020, while bringing together various labour laws, fails to incorporate specific measures to safeguard women from violence and harassment comprehensively.

The OSH Code also does not adequately address India’s longstanding compliance problems. The earlier Factories Act mandated facilities like crèches and sanitation, but enforcement remained abysmally weak. Merely codifying these rights in a consolidated law does not guarantee their realisation without institutional strengthening.

Do the New Labour Codes Strengthen Labour Rights?

The central claim of the Government is that legal consolidation promotes clarity, reduces duplication and enhances compliance. But the deeper question is whether this simplification translates into strengthened labour rights or whether it functions as an understated pathway to employer-centred deregulation. Across the Codes, several concerns persist:

Weakening of Unions and Collective Bargaining: The expanded notice requirements for strikes, and the constraints placed on union recognition and dispute resolution, have raised alarms about the shrinking space for collective bargaining. In a labour market already skewed in favour of employers, these restrictions deepen the imbalance.

Ease of Retrenchment: Raising the threshold for retrenchment permission to 300 workers enables employers to terminate workers more easily. Economic studies show that greater job insecurity often pushes workers into informal or precarious employment, undermining long-term industrial stability.

Ambiguous Social Security for Gig Workers: Recognition without rights creates a misleading sense of inclusion. Gig workers remain outside traditional employer-employee frameworks, and the Code does not mandate contributions that would secure pensions, provident funds or health insurance for them.

Dilution of Safety Standards: By shifting critical provisions to future rules, the OSH Code risks weakening existing protections — especially in sectors with historically high accident rates such as construction and mining.

Skeletal Legislative Frameworks:  All four Codes defer substantial amounts of lawmaking to delegated legislation. This centralises power in the executive and sidelines parliamentary oversight. Critics argue that this makes workers’ rights contingent on administrative discretion rather than statutory guarantees.

Constitutional Concerns: Questions arise under: Article 14 (differential treatment of workers based on establishment size, potentially arbitrary), Article 16 (fairness in employment procedures), Article 19(1) (c) (restrictions on forming associations and unions) and Article 21 (dignity and security of livelihood). While not necessarily unconstitutional, the Codes open space for litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Overlapping and Confusing Jurisdictions

The Delhi High Court on December 11, 2025, noted that The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, was brought in without repealing the previous 3 laws- Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. As reported in Bar and Bench.

There has also been a great deal of opposition from the labour unions with regard to the judicial recourse available to the working class. All cases pending in the Labour Courts and Industrial tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 have now been transferred to special tribunals under the new code. These tribunals have, however, not yet been put in place. This raises much doubts on the effectiveness of these tribunals.

In terms of the jurisdiction, there is an overlap between the Centre and the State Governments. While the boundaries are clearly demarcated between the central and the state governments under Section 109(1) and Section 109(2) of the OSH Code, what it does not specify is the implementation authority. Another point of contention is that of the fund allocation between the states. Till the time these issues are clarified and sorted out, no progress of any sort could be made.

Challenges in Implementation

Even the best-designed labour laws fail without effective implementation — and here, the Codes face formidable challenges. One bigger question that comes is up:  how well the government has resources and infrastructure for the electronic registration of unorganised workers, gig workers, and platform employees.?  A report by Mehrotra and Sarkar in EPW also point out that the current OSH Code does not take into account the high proportion of unregistered establishments (67.7 percent) in the unorganised sector, instead stating that ‘every establishment to which the code applies’ must be registered.

A major concern is the transition from labour inspectors to “Inspector-cum-Facilitators”, which shifts the enforcement philosophy from deterrence to self-certification and advisory compliance. Critics argue that replacing surprise inspections with web-based randomised checks significantly dilutes state oversight, especially in sectors notorious for exploitation such as construction, textiles, and mining. This new framework assumes that employers will voluntarily comply with safety and welfare norms; an assumption that may not hold in an economy where informalisation is widespread and labour violations are systemic.

Migrant workers, who make up a large share of India’s workforce, face particular vulnerabilities under the new regime. While the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code promises better registration and portability of benefits, the on-ground mechanisms required to operationalise these guarantees remain weak. The experience of the pandemic, when millions of migrant workers were left without income, shelter, or social protection, demonstrates the fragility of India’s labour governance system and raises serious questions about whether the Codes can be meaningfully enforced without substantial administrative strengthening.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Codes will depend not only on legislative intent but on the capacity of state labour departments, the willingness of employers to comply, and the ability of workers, especially those in informal and precarious sectors, to access grievance redressal mechanisms. Without significant investment in personnel, digital infrastructure, and awareness-building, the promise of simplification may translate into weaker protections and heightened precarity for millions of Indian workers.

Conclusion

The consolidation of labour laws into four comprehensive Codes was an enormous legislative undertaking, long recommended by commissions and economic advisors. Again, like the much-opposed erstwhile Farm laws (that were subsequently withdrawn because of intense agitation by India’s famer organisations (2020-2021), the Labour Codes have been brought in near unilaterally without effective debate, deliberations and discussions either with sake holder Worker’s Unions or Parliament. On paper, simplification seems beneficial. But simplification that simultaneously erodes substantive rights, weakens collective bargaining, and defers essential protections to executive rule-making demands scrutiny.

India’s economy does need labour reform. It needs modernisation, expanded social security, and flexible frameworks that encourage job creation. But reform must not come at the cost of workers’ security, dignity and constitutional rights.

Central to any step forward must remain the rights, welfare and accountability due to India’s marginalised workforce. While the Labour Codes attempt to position themselves as a new social contract for India’s workforce, several provisions remain vague. Most concerning is the push-back on a rights-based approach with constitutional provisions of judicial review to restricting redressal to tribunals etc. Finally, whether they become meaningful instruments of empowerment, or mechanisms that accelerate employer-centred deregulation, will depend on how the rules are drafted, how states implement them, and whether the opinions, concerns and voices of workers and unions are meaningfully included in shaping the next phase of India’s labour landscape.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

Code on Wages may be read here:

Industrial Relations Code may be read here:

Code on Social Security may be read here:

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code may be read here:

Related

Lockdown has reduced lives of bidi labourers to ashes!

Bandna Parab: A festival that celebrates light and life

Will the 125-year old Bolpur Poush Mela be held this year?

The post India’s New Labour Codes: A critical appraisal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as the Lok Sabha debated the intent of the present Modi regime to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 with the Viksu Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin Bill, 2025) late past midnight yesterday, December 17, the urgent issue is agitating Parliamentarians and activists/academics alike.

Dr Manoj Jha, academic activist associated with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and also a member of the Rajya Sabha has, in an Open Letter to other Rajya Sabha members appealed to the fellow parliamentarians against the intended repealment. Meanwhile, senior activists and academics including Jean Drèze and Prabhat Patnaik have warned of nationwide protests against the ill-intended move.

In his Open Letter to fellow parliamentarians dated December 18, 2025 (MPRS/BHRID/2025/7-80) Dr Jha reminds us of the history and context of this historic law guaranteeing rural work, passed in 2005, 55 years after the enactment of the Constitution.

Reminding us that any failures in the existing MNREGA arise from failures or drawbacks in implementation not the statute itself, Dr Jha writes how MGNREGA was enacted in 2005 with the support of all major political parties. The House then acknowledged a shared constitutional obligation that the right to work with dignity is integral to our democracy. Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to secure the right to work and to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment and undeserved want, MGNREGA translated this directive into a justiciable legal guarantee. The proposed bill dismantles that guarantee.

Dr Jha made his letter public on X.

Appeal to fellow members in Parliament to save MGNREGA, which was not merely a government programme but a moral commitment made by the Indian Republic to its poorest citizens. It embodies the constitutional promise of dignity, livelihood, and social justice.
Jai Hind pic.twitter.com/qOjRGHugcY

— Manoj Kumar Jha (@manojkjhadu) December 18, 2025

Meanwhile announcing that protests against the move to end MGNREGA will start this week, civil society groups said Modi govt cannot use a “mere parliamentary majority to end a rural livelihood programme that resulted from extensive consultations across the board and forging of a national consensus that included BJP. “Founding members of MGNREGA, intellectuals and advocacy groups associated with the scheme came together to slam the “VB-G RAM G” bill, arguing that provisions in the proposed legislation will mark the end of job guarantee and hurt the socially vulnerable groups that depend on it for sustenance. NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, comprising economists Jean Drèze, who was part of the Sonia Gandhi-headed NAC that played a key role in drafting the job scheme, Prabhat Patnaik and Jayati Ghosh, Annie Raja, Yogendra Yadav, B Venkat of All India Agricultural Workers Union, Mukesh Nirvasit, several NGOs and activists, addressed a press conference to express their concerns, while warning they will this week start nationwide protests against the abolition of MGNREGA. They said the shifting of financial burden to states has made the new programme uncertain as the states are cash-strapped.

Patnaik said mere parliamentary majority cannot undo the national consensus that resulted in the enactment of MGNREGA, and the Modi govt needs to bring an “alternative consensus” to repeal MGNREGA. The new Bill takes away the “right-based approach” and makes the scheme a “gift” from the govt, Ghosh said. “We have seen the pattern …Right to food is a right, but now we have ration bags coming with the PM’s photo on it,” she said. Drèze said, “The Union govt would now have full power to decide when and where to implement the scheme, while the obligation is on the states. It is like saying I give a work guarantee, but don’t guarantee that the guarantee will be in place.”

The entire text of Parliamentarian (Rajya Sabha) DR Manoj Jha’s letter may be read below:

“Date: 18.12.2025

Dear Colleagues,

Many of us will recall the first page of our school textbooks, which carried Gandhi’s tulisman. He urged us to remember the face of the poorest and weakest person we have seen, and to ask whether the action we are about to take would be of any use to that person whether it would restore to them control over their own life. He believed that if our action met that test, all doubts would dissolve. That talisman was meant to guide every decision in public life. I write you today with that principle in mind.

On December 15, 2025, the government introduced a Bill to repeal the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and replace it with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2075, While the Lok Sabha has held discussion till late night yesterday, I urge you to oppose this move in our house.

This appeal is not partisan, MGNREGA was enacted in 2005 with the support of all major political parties. The House then acknowledged a shared constitutional obligation that the right to work with dignity is integral to our democracy. Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to secure the right to work and to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment and undeserved want, MGNREGA translated this directive into a justiciable legal guarantee. The proposed bill dismantles that guarantee.

The government claims that the new framework will provide 125 days of work instead of 100. This claim is misleading. Unlike MGNREGA, which was demand-driven, the new hill makes employment dependent on central allocations and administrative discretion. Its coverage in no longer universal but limited to arcus notified by the Central Government. At a time when even MGNREGA workers received only 50-55 days of work annually due to inadequate funding, the promise of additional days without assured resources lacks credibility. Further, the proposed cost-sharing arrangement-requiring states to bear 40 per cent of the expenditure-will place an unsustainable burden on many states, leading to exclusion and contraction.

MGNREGA has its shortcomings, but they arise from failures of implementation, not from the law itself. Over two decades, it has provided crucial support during periods of distress, enhanced women’s participation in the workforce, and upheld the principle of work as a right, not a favour. It could and should have been strengthened. Repealing it without consultation or consensus is not reform, it is a retreat from constitutional responsibility.

I appeal to you, as fellow legislators, to defend a law born of democratic consensus and moral clarity. Let us stand by the principle that every hand deserves work and every worker deserves dignity.

The poorest citizens of our country are watching our choices.

With regards,

Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha”

Related:

CJP submits detailed feedback to Labour Ministry on Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

The post Appeal to Parliamentarians against repeal of MNREGA: Dr Manoj Jha & activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Besides the platform has stated that India needs and must ratify C87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise), C98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention), and C190 (on violence and harassment of workers, especially women, in the world of work). Finally, before making any changes in existing labour laws, the Centre hold meaningful discussions with the States and the workers. It is important that the idea of federalism is in no way diluted.

The PCPSPS, includes eminent academics, jurists, erstwhile administrators, trade unionists and social activists. PCPSPS intends to have in-depth consultations with all stakeholders and people concerned with the process of policy making and those against the government’s decision to monetise, disinvest and privatise public assets/enterprises and produce several sectoral reports before coming out with a final report. Here is the first interim report of commission – Privatisation: An Affront to the Indian Constitution. Among the members are EAS Sharma, former secretary in the government of India, Thomas Isaac, former finance minister of Kerala, Prabhat Patnaik, well known left economist and professor emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) among others.

The Union Labour Ministry has introduced new Labour Codes, codifying 29 existing labour laws with modifications into four codes, namely, the Code on Wages, the Code on Social Security, the Industrial Relations Code, and the Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code.

The PCPSPS states that evidently, the Central government has neither taken the workers’ associations nor the States into confidence fully before imposing the new set of codes, resulting in nationwide protests from workers. It is significant that the BJP’s own workers’ wing, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), has opposed these codes. Though the subject, “labour”, is in the Concurrent List, the States were not consulted, and one State, namely Kerala, has announced that it will not implement the codes.

The government should take note of the fact that Article 39 enjoins upon the State as follows:

Article 39

“……………..

(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and

the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced

by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength”

The newly proposed Labour Codes fail to comply with the above.

The labour laws that are in force have been enacted by the government from time to time to align State policy in tune with the intent underlying the Directive Principles. In a capitalist economy, the promoters and managers of businesses, whether organised or unorganised, aim to maximise their profits at the cost of the welfare of the workers, women workers in particular. Especially in the case of the unorganised sector, it is public knowledge that not only male workers’ rights are suppressed, but also women workers and children are subject to harassment, exploitation, and abuse. It is to safeguard the interests of all such workers that successive governments at the Centre and the States have introduced different labour laws. The newly proposed Labour Codes turn this idea upside down and modify the labour laws fundamentally to make it easy for the promoters and managers of businesses to maximise their profits without hindrance, at the cost of the workers.

India is a founder member of the ILO and has been a signatory to several ILO conventions that have stipulated norms relating to workers’ rights and welfare. The ILO has recognised the pitfalls of globalisation as an instrument of development and its likely adverse impact on workers’ individual and collective rights.

While the government should align the labour laws with the ILO norms, the newly introduced Labour Codes deviate from the ILO norms in several respects, which we have discussed in the following paragraphs.

Before we do that, we wish to point out that, though India is a founder member of the ILO, it has not signed the ILO Conventions C87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise), C98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention), and C190 (on violence and harassment of workers, especially women, in the world of work).

C190 has direct relevance for India. No doubt, the country has implemented some protective laws such as the POSH Act to prevent harassment of women and laws like the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Ratification of C190 would require significant legal alignment.

In order to align the labour laws in line with the Directive Principles and also harmonise them with the ILO Conventions C87, C98, and C190, the government should ratify these Conventions immediately and amend the laws accordingly.

Even in the case of those ILO Conventions which India has ratified, there are significant deviations from the norms set out in them vis-à-vis the new Labour Codes, as discussed below.

The Code on Wages

While the ILO has emphasised the importance of prior consultation with the workers in the matter of determining and periodically revising their wages so as to ensure that they remain fair and in line with living standards, the new code in India lacks a robust institutional arrangement for its realisation. The annual conventions which were held every year with employee organisations, employers, and the government have been discontinued since 2015.

In effect, the codes may result in a wage structure that fails to maintain decent living conditions for workers. While the ILO insists on a living wage and decent wage, the codes talk about minimum wage only.

The Code on Social Security

The ILO standards mandate adherence to the principle of equity and proportionality in social protection. The latest Indian code, which gives the Central Government extensive autonomy in establishing and managing social security schemes, may not ensure this, as it does not provide for prior consultation either with the States or the workers in determining norms underlying the social security schemes. This violates predictability and consistency from the point of view of the States and the workers.

Code on Industrial Relations

The ILO’s Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention guarantees that every worker has a say in determining terms and conditions of employment and promoting an equitable and democratic work environment, and it emphasises the importance of the right to strike as a cornerstone of the freedom of association.

The 8-hour workday attained through struggles and sacrifices has been diluted by providing 8–12 hours work flexibility.

The Wage Code and IR Code have surreptitiously brought in privatisation by including a clause which says that government shareholding in the public sector can be below 50%.

Those whose work is supervisory in nature are not covered by the codes. Those who earn a salary above Rs 18,000 per month are also excluded. The Supreme Court, in a judgment on a pilots’ strike, ruled that they are also workers even if they earn a lakh as salary, as they are not part of the management. This has been ignored in the new codes.

The latest Indian code makes it difficult for the workers to exercise the right to strike. In addition, it makes hiring and firing procedures simpler, which cuts at the root of the ILO standards that support stable employment conditions. The code jeopardises the job security of workers and deters workers from attempting to form a union.

Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions

The ILO’s Occupational Safety and Health Convention mandates not only the stipulation of rigorous norms of occupational safety, health, and working conditions of workers, but also the putting in place of a strong regulatory institutional arrangement to enforce those norms.

The ghastly Bhopal gas tragedy remains a standing testimony to the inadequacy of norms that exist in India to ensure the safety of industrial workers and the communities that live in the vicinity of hazardous industrial units. Though the Centre has introduced several changes in the provisions of the Factories Act consequent to that accident, there has not been much improvement in the occupational safety of workers. The reason for this is the strong and unholy nexus that exists between political parties and private businesses. As elections are getting more and more expensive as a result of the deteriorating ethical standards of political parties, they turn to big businesses to fund them in exchange for political support to the latter in diluting the laws and regulations that exist to enforce environmental and safety norms for businesses. In addition, political parties, often more loyal to their corporate cohorts than the people who elect them, compromise the integrity of enforcement of laws and regulations by appointing business-friendly regulators.

As a result, the ILO-stipulated norms of occupational safety and health standards are rarely realised in India, and the latest code unilaterally imposed by the Centre further aggravates the situation.

As already stated, the whole exercise of “codifying and simplifying” the existing labour laws is aimed more at making it easy for private businesses to maximise their profits without having to allow workers to exercise their fundamental rights, without having to hold prior consultation with them on matters relating to their wages, their safety, their welfare, and most importantly, allowing them the right to form unions and bargain collectively with the promoters of businesses.

The latest codes confer excessive authority on the Centre in determining the minimum wages for different classes of workers, the norms for their safety and welfare, etc., and thus run counter to the spirit of federalism that is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The codes, in our view, will accentuate the existing inequities in society, and therefore run counter to the values that underlie the Directive Principles of the Constitution.

It is important to take note of the fact that the majority of workers in India belong to the informal sector, information on which, as it stands today, is thoroughly inadequate, even though they contribute significantly to the nation’s income. What is urgently called for is to take them into reckoning and adapt the existing labour laws so as to enhance their social security and welfare.

In view of the above, the PCPSP demands that:

1. The new Labour Codes be revoked forthwith.
2. The existing labour laws be brought fully in alignment with the letter and spirit of the Directive Principles of the Constitution.
3. The existing labour laws be brought fully in line with the ILO Conventions to which India is a signatory.
4. India ratify C87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise), C98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention), and C190 (on violence and harassment of workers, especially women, in the world of work).
5. Before making any changes in the labour laws, the Centre hold meaningful discussions with the States and the workers. It is important that the idea of federalism is in no way diluted.

Related:

CJP submits detailed feedback to Labour Ministry on Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

The post Labour Rights Endangered: Four labour codes passed without worker or state governments’ consultation or consent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The united Opposition has demanded that this Bill, along with two others (three far-reaching Bills) to be referred to the Standing Committees concerned. Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress (INC), Jairam Ramesh stated that, “We are hopeful that in keeping with the best of Parliamentary traditions and practices, this demand will be agreed to by the Government. The Bills require deep study and wide consultations. 1. Higher Education Commission Bill 2. Atomic Energy Bill 3. G-RAM-G Bill.” It is to be seen if the NDA’s outside allies, Chandrababu Naidu Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal United (JDU) join the Opposition in demanding that these proposes changes and shifts are first deliberated on, as required by a Parliamentary Committee.

Meanwhile, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) –that was had strongly participated in deliberations on the 2005 original MGNREGA apart from being part of the 2004-2009 UPA—has, in a public statement, strongly opposed the Union government’s move to introduce the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 (VB-GRAMG Bill), which seeks to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement issued today, the left party stated that, “The proposed bill completely negates the basic character of the MNREGA, which is a universal demand driven law providing a limited right to work. It legally absolves the Union government from its responsibility to allocate funds according to the demand.”

Further the CPI-M states that, “The government’s claim of increasing guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days is merely cosmetic. In reality, the Bill opens the door to the exclusion of large sections of rural households in the name of rationalisation of job cards. The provision allowing governments to suspend employment for up to 60 days during peak agricultural seasons will deny work to rural households when it is most needed and make them dependent on landlords. Mandating digital attendance at work place is bound to cause immense difficulties to workers, like loss of work, and denial of their rights.”

Another major concern is the proposed shift in the funding pattern. The Bill reduces the Centre’s responsibility for wage payments from 100 per cent to a 60:40 sharing arrangement for major states. By doing this, the proposed law shifts the responsibility of bearing the expenditure on unemployment allowance and delay compensation from the Union to the states. In doing so, this places an unsustainable financial burden on state governments while denying them any role in the decision making process. The introduction of “normative allocation” – with state-wise expenditure ceilings imposed by the Centre and excess costs borne by states – will further curtail the programme’s reach and dilute the Centre’s accountability, states the CPI-M. Hence the party has also demanded a) that the VB-GRAMG Bill be withdrawn immediately and b) The Union government must instead engage in consultations with political parties, trade unions and organisations of the rural poor to strengthen MGNREGA and ensure its effective implementation as a universal and rights-based employment guarantee.

Meanwhile, John Brittas, a Parliamentarian in the Rajya Sabha representing the CPI-M has also provided a detailed critique of the new proposed law on social media, “X”. He states that the “Modi 3.0 government has removed the soul of a rights-based guarantee law and replaced it with a conditional, centrally controlled scheme stacked against States & workers.

“125 days” is the headline. 60:40 is the fine print – MGNREGA was a fully centrally funded one for unskilled wages; G RAM G downgrades it with States to bear 40%. States will now have to shell out around Rs. 50,000+ crore. Kerala alone will have to bear an additional 2,000–2,500 crore.  Cost shifting by stealth, not reform. This is the new federalism: States pay more; Centre walks away, yet claims the credit.

“MGNREGA was demand-driven: if a worker asked for work, the Centre had to pay – G RAM G replaces this with Centre’s pre-fixed normative allocations & ceilings. When funds run out, rights run out. A legal employment guarantee is reduced to a centrally managed publicity scheme at the expense of States.

“Panchayats have been side-lined, (digital) dashboards empowered – MGNREGA trusted Gram Sabhas & Panchayats to plan works based on local needs – G RAM G mandates GIS tools, PM Gati Shakti layers & central digital stacks. Local priorities are filtered through a Viksit Bharat National Rural Infrastructure Stack. It makes biometrics, geo-tagging, dashboards and AI audits statutory. For millions of rural workers, tech failures mean exclusion without appeal. “

Therefore, he says,

“Decentralisation replaced by centralised templates; People (have) become data points.

“Worse, G RAM G mandates suspension of work for up to 60 days every year in the name of agricultural seasons. Employment guarantee or labour control? Scheme labourers are legally told: Don’t work. Don’t earn. Wait. Stopping public works to push labour into private farms is not welfare – it is state-managed labour supply, stripping workers of wages, choice and dignity. “

He concludes by adding that,

“G RAM G stands for central control, State funds & conditional rights. Same workers. Less rights. More burden. This Bill doesn’t reform MGNREGA – it dismantles it fiscally, institutionally and morally.

“Bottom line: In the name of RAM, the States and poor are penalised, short-changed and fiscally sacrificed.”

Detailing the new 2025 Bill further, John Brittas says,

“Under Section 10 of the MGNREG Act, 2005, the ‘Central Employment Guarantee Council’ ‘ was statutorily bound to uphold social representation, mandating that not less than one-third of its non-official members shall be women and not less than one-third belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Minorities. Yet, the corresponding rechristened ‘Central Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Council’ under Clause 12 of the G RAM G Bill conspicuously and deliberately omits these reservation requirements.

“In contrast, Clause 13 of the G RAM G Bill, governing the rechristened ‘State Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Councils’, explicitly retains the very same representation criteria for women, and for SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities, exactly as provided in Section 12 of MGNREGA for the ‘State Employment Guarantee Councils’.

“This selective retention leaves no room for benign explanation. It clearly establishes that the omission at the Central level cannot be dismissed as an oversight or drafting error, but represents a conscious dilution of statutory social inclusion at the apex level. This follows a familiar pattern – much like the Union Government’s 2023 attempt to dilute mandatory SC/ST allocations under the revised MPLADS Guidelines, which was constrained to be rolled back after I (John Brittas) raised formal objections with the Minister – demonstrating that such exclusions are neither accidental nor unprecedented, but deliberate policy choices until challenged.”

Clearly rights based legislation is being diluted and rural work has been made more conditional and fragile. MGNREGA 2025 that revived rural economies, prevented migration, kick-started a demand based economic cycle is being formally throttled by a new law that will seek to control and not disburse and de-centralise economic growth and resources.

It is to be seen if the NDA’s outside allies, Chandrababu Naidu Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal United (JDU) join the Opposition in demanding that these proposes changes and shifts are first deliberated on, as required by a Parliamentary Committee.

Related:

MNREGA facing fund crunch despite highest ever budgetary allocation

CJP submits detailed feedback to Labour Ministry on Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025

Jharkhand BJP leader gets ration from Antyodaya, claims being MNREGA labour, while Savitri starves to death after being denied Antyodaya card

The post MNREGA to G RAM G: Ideological shift, erosion of rural workers’ rights, increase of fiscal burden on states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The idea of IFWD emerged from the India Fisher Women Assembly 2024, a historic gathering that declared November 5 as the day to honour the invisible hands that feed nations and protect the oceans. The call was later taken to the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) General Assembly in Brazil, where it was unanimously adopted. It now stands as a global symbol of recognition — and rebellion.

As fisherwomen say, this day is not about being seen, but about reclaiming what was always theirs.

Anchored in a long tide of struggles

In the long history of people’s struggles, women have always been the conscience of resistance. From the factory floors of early Europe to the beaches of the Indian coast, women have stitched together the labour of survival and the ethics of care. Rosa Luxemburg’s words — “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains” — echo in the voices of fisherwomen today, who refuse to stay still while their waters are fenced, their lives erased, and their rights sold in the name of development.

International Women’s Day, born of the labour and socialist movements of Clara Zetkin and Luxemburg, demanded political equality and an end to exploitation. November 5 extends that lineage from the land to the sea. It reminds us that liberation cannot be confined to borders or industries — that the politics of the ocean, too, must carry the red thread of equality, community, and justice.

As Zetkin had said, “The working women’s question is not an isolated question, but part of the great social question.” The fisherwomen of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have kept that question alive — turning it into a sea of solidarity that stretches from Kanyakumari to Dakar.

Why November 5 matters — and why it began in India

Fisherwomen have always held the coastline together. They wake before dawn to carry fish to market, manage homes through storms and loss, and are the first to rebuild after every cyclone. Yet, their names do not appear in government records. They are still called ‘helpers’ or ‘dependents’, while laws, schemes, and cooperatives continue to be written in the masculine lens.

This erasure, the women declared in Kerala, must end. They demanded recognition not as “wives of fishers,” but as fishers themselves — rightful claimants of the seas, keepers of knowledge, and protectors of coasts.

In doing so, they carried forward the dreams of pioneers such as Thomas Kocherry and Harekrishna Debnath, who had long insisted that the future of fisheries lies not in mechanisation or export figures, but in justice, community control, and the dignity of work. Both leaders believed that the rights of fisherwomen were the moral compass of the movement. Kocherry often said, “When the poor stand up, even the sea must make way.”

The declaration of November 5 thus became a collective act of remembering — of drawing strength from those who built India’s post-colonial fishworker movement and from the women who sustained it quietly all along. This was endorsed by the largest social movement of fishers across the globe, the Word Forum of Fisher Peoples at the General Assembly held in Brazil in the same month of November 2025.

The women of waters and their demands

The call for an International Fisher Women’s Day is inseparable from its politics. Across India’s recently declared more than 11,000-kilometre coastline and its countless rivers and lakes, women are demanding what should never have been denied:

• Recognition as fishers in law and policy, not as dependents.
• Equal rights to access and govern coastal and inland waters, free from corporate intrusion.
• Inclusion in welfare, insurance, and disaster-compensation schemes.
• First-sale and market rights to secure fair prices and independence from exploitative middlemen.
• Representation in fisheries boards and cooperatives.
• Protection of ecosystems from destructive aquaculture, deep-sea mining, and coastal militarisation.
• Legal safeguards from caste and gender-based violence — both within the community and from the state.

These are not demands for special treatment; they are demands for survival, carved from decades of unpaid and unacknowledged work that sustains both the fishing economy and the national food basket.

The ocean remembers

In the last decade, government programmes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) and new policies under the banner of Blue Economy 2.0 have promised prosperity. But for most coastal and inland fishing communities, these schemes have delivered displacement instead.

Behind the numbers and glossy reports lie harbours privatised, commons enclosed, and women’s livelihoods erased. As industrial trawlers deplete fish stocks and aquaculture pollutes backwaters, fisherwomen are left struggling for survival in a development model that excludes them.

The state’s vision of ‘modernisation’ has turned the sea into a commodity. But fisherwomen, who live by its moods and rhythms, remind us that the ocean is not a market to be managed — it is a living commons that sustains cultures, livelihoods, and spiritual traditions.

Ocean feminism and the new tide

From the lagoons of Chilika to the estuaries of Karaikal and the islands of the Sundarbans, women’s collectives are practising what they call ocean feminism — rooted in care, community, and resistance. They see themselves not as victims but as custodians of ‘aqua territories’ — spaces of relationship, knowledge, and survival.

As Harekrishna Debnath, one of India’s earliest fisher leaders, often said, “We don’t fight the sea; we live with it. But we must fight those who sell it.” Today, that fight is global. It connects fisherwomen in India to their sisters in Senegal, Thailand, and Brazil — all confronting the false climate solutions packaged as Blue Transformation, 30×30, and Marine Spatial Planning, which in practice privatise the oceans and displace small-scale fishers.

Through the five-week campaign initiated by WFFP — from November 5 to December 10 — women and men of the fishing world are asserting their right to live with dignity, protect their territories, and resist enclosure in every form.

From recognition to transformation

This International Fisher Women’s Day is not a commemoration; it is a beginning. It reminds us that the ocean too has a memory — of those who built communities along its edge, who fed others before themselves, and who continue to hold the fragile balance between humanity and water.

As Rosa Luxemburg warned, “Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently.” Across India’s coasts and rivers, fisherwomen are thinking — and acting — differently: against caste, patriarchy, and neoliberal enclosures; for rights, justice, and community life.

Their struggle is our collective future. When the tide rises, may it rise with their names on its waves.

Jesu Rethinam is the Global Women Coordinator of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP).

Vijayan MJ is Director, Participatory Action Research Coalition, India (PARCI).

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Every Wave Has a Memory: Women, Waters and the Promise of November 5 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This book unpacks Niyogi’s ideas and seeks to explore new discoveries and heights of labour’s interaction with ecology and technology. The study is a testament to tensions and contradictions being an integral part of any endeavour challenging economic, social and political backwardness.

The author explores four major aspects.

1. Through resurrecting Niyogi and the CMM, the author navigates and examines how the ideological frameworks, structures and processes forge a crucial bond between labour and environment.
2. Whether a worker has the capacity to be part of the process of democratising technology, or bridging the boundaries between the ‘user’ environment and the ‘developer’ environment of technology.
3. Whether examining aspects of nationality and sub-nationality, ethnicity and identity hinder aspect of identity deeply rooted in labour
4. Finally, whether debates around technology, environment, and nationality were a contravention of class-based trade union practice.

In addressing these questions, this book will be recommended reading for students and scholars of environment studies and labour studies.

The book explores the path breaking achievements undertaken by Niyogi. The author taps Niyogi’s visions of labour foreseeing the factory as an ecological component within the broader framework of the farm and the forest. He gives a most vivid description of the developmental debates which post-colonial India opened up which welcomed anti- people technological formats. It is a most compelling and illustrative narrative of the journey of the CMM led by Niyogi, in orchestrating the unified resistance of Adivasis, famers, peasants and workers and thus forging links between factory and forest. Most intensively it explores and dissects how the CMM planted the seeds, for a genuinely pro-people alternative of a developmental model. The book also untaps how it used semi-mechanisation to combat technology displacing labour and contractual workers forged a link with Adivasis in forests, in background of industrial pollution plaguing living conditions.

In chapter ‘A 24*7Union’ in immaculate detail it traces the historic transition of the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha in the backdrop of a spectrum of political events or parallel organisations and movements alongside.

The chapter on ‘Labour and Technological Changes in Chhattisgarh ‘makes a clinical and lucid diagnosis of the applicability of traditional Gandhian methods or conventional Marxist approach, and explores the creative role of Niyogi and his path breaking innovations in technology and labour methods. The book explores how Niyogi synthesised Gandhi’s ideas with that of Marx, not blindly or mechanically following either. It threw light on CMM made a major departure from economism, not merely confining itself to boundaries encompassing wages and working conditions. Ecological concerns were made an integral complement to other basic demands. Aspect of technology became a major part of the discourse. The chapter elaborated how Niyogi differed with Gandhi in utilising strike as a weapon and visualised labour as a creative, collective force in contrast to Gandhi’s vison of labour as a moral, individual duty. Unlike Gandhi Niyogi foresaw labour as capable of, innovating, interacting, creating and transforming existing structures. However Niyogi did endorse Gandhi’s critique of mechanisation and support to village technologies, in opposition to mass production of the machine. Still hands down he opposed Gandhi’s semi-feudal structures of rural economy. The chapter also invoked a detailed exploration of the economic model of Kumarappa.

Niyogi invented a Marxist method that addressed ecological contradictions and tensions and spurred workers, trade unionists and activists to re-evaluate their concept of what constitutes the working class. A critique was made of technology imported from former Soviet Union. CMM asserted that to be categorised as ‘socialist’, it had to promote labour participation in the manufacturing process, and not cause retrenchment of labour.

In Chapter on ‘Green and red Imagination’ makes a most extensive and illustrative exploration of how the CMM virtually created a new world for the workers and tribals, highlighting the abolishing of contract labour, winning rights for a fair wage, housing, free health and literacy. It elaborated how a path-breaking model had been constructed by Niyogi, with health facilities for workers transcending horizons unexplored.

In chapter ‘Chhattisgarh for Whom’ the author makes a thorough study of the nationality question and movement in Chhattisgarh. Linking it with the broader framework of political liberation and economic revolution. The experiences are located not only in their historical context, but also in the broader arena of debates on environment, science and technology, and movements for statehood and identity.

A concluding chapter ‘The Road not taken’ reflects how after Niyogi’s death after being murdered on September 28, 1991, the CMM movement strived to walk on the trail or pursue the legacy of Niyogi by keeping his ideas intact.

The work analyses practicality of Niyogi’s ideas in respect to current political and economic scenario. It navigates how globalisation and liberalisation era policies shaped the course of the CMM, recounting protests of CMM against Dunkel in 1994and 1998, jointly with farmers organisations of Punjab and Karnataka. Now the dialogue between forest and factory had sharpened with growth in process of industrialisation.

The CMM reformulated its environmental campaigns, designing posters, songs and entire campaign showcasing this theme. The CMM took an ant-war stance on Kargil after Pokhran blasts in 1998 and also formulated a powerful ant-communal agenda.

This chapter also mentions how selective memories have been obliterated of Niyogi, on environmental movements, ecological concerns and alternative technological and developmental agendas.

(The author is a freelance journalist).

Related:

“The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir” by Anand Teltumbde stands as one of the most powerful indictments of Indian democracy

Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence

Weavers of Banaras are forced to work for less than the minimum wage

The post ‘Shankar Guha Niyogi: A Politics in red and green is testament to the path breaking experiments of a labour movement with a strong ecological component appeared first on SabrangIndia.

About a month ago the Draft Policy had been circulated and the Ministry had invited feedback on the draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025. While the initiative to update India’s labour and employment policy in light of changing technological, demographic, and economic realities is welcome states CJP, a careful examination of the draft, has led the human rights organisation to submit detailed comments and actionable recommendations aimed at ensuring that the policy truly advances constitutional values of equality, dignity, and social justice.

Giving a rationale for this need to actually dis-aggregate the policy and detail its application to different kinds of workers, CJP has in the detailed tabular Comments and Recommendations underlined that “Work demand under MNREGA work is increasing, the gig workers are facing precarious work conditions and there is huge amount of supply of gig workers. Agricultural labour face one of the most intense employment insecurities and yet, the availability of agricultural labour is scarce in rural regions. The problems they face are different.  Therefore, different action plans and policy outlook need to be envisaged for different kinds of workers. Administrative ease of linking people with jobs and jog givers, and management of data across ministries and departments is a centralised advantage for the government.” This and “the absence of an articulated framework for tripartite negotiation among workers, employers, and the State risks concentrating decision-making power within government and weakening workers’ ability to secure equitable outcomes. At a structural level, the continued whittling down of state powers in the concurrent domain, undermines the federal balance essential for meaningful labour reform.”

Addressing these lacunae in the focus of the entire policy, CJP has stated that, a revised approach should:

• Address these issues in the further drafts by incorporating specific visions for different kinds of workers mentioned above.
• Introduce tripartite negotiation frameworks at national and state levels where the State is not the arbiter of worker interests but a facilitator of dialogue.
• Strengthen the section on cooperative federalism, a basic feature of the Constitution, by emphasising a federal policy structure, ensuring meaningful participation of State governments in labour governance.
• Explicitly recognise trade unions and collective bargaining as constitutional mechanisms for worker participation and policy co-creation under Articles 19. 41 and 43 of the Constitution.

The rest of the Tabular Comments on the Draft Shram Shakti Niti may be read here:

Related:

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

Beyond insurance: addressing the needs of India’s agricultural labour force

The post CJP submits detailed feedback to Labour Ministry on Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.