Yet from the start of the protests in April 2026, the state attempted to reduce the protests into something smaller, narrower, and more criminal than they actually were. What was unfolding in Noida was not merely a law-and-order disturbance. It was not an irrational outbreak of mob violence. Nor was it simply a reaction to one wage notification.

It was the culmination of years of accumulated distress inside India’s industrial economy. The protests represented the eruption of long-suppressed anger over stagnant wages, forced overtime, unsafe working conditions, contractual exploitation, rising inflation, arbitrary deductions, labour insecurity, and the collapse of institutional mechanisms through which workers could negotiate with employers.

For perhaps the first time in years, the invisible workforce powering India’s manufacturing economy forced itself into national visibility. In addition, the state responded not with dialogue or labour mediation — but with policing, criminalisation, conspiracy narratives, mass FIRs, detentions, and coercive force.

That response revealed something fundamental about the contemporary Indian political economy: labour unrest is increasingly treated not as a democratic or industrial issue but as a security threat.

The industrial glory of Noida was built on invisible and disposable labour

For more than two decades, Noida and Greater Noida have been projected by governments, investors, and industry bodies as symbols of India’s industrial transformation — sprawling manufacturing corridors representing export growth, technological expansion, and integration into global supply chains. Electronics assembly plants, garment export units, pharmaceutical industries, footwear factories, automobile ancillary hubs, and mobile-phone manufacturing facilities turned the region into one of North India’s most important industrial belts.

Political speeches, investment summits, and corporate campaigns repeatedly celebrated Noida as evidence of India’s emergence as a global manufacturing destination under initiatives such as “Make in India.” But beneath this image of industrial modernity existed a vast labour regime built upon invisibility, insecurity, and disposability.

The industrial economy of Noida depended overwhelmingly on migrant labourers arriving from Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bengal, Odisha, Assam, and other economically distressed regions. These workers migrated not because industrial employment guaranteed stability, but because rural economies increasingly offered little possibility of survival amid agrarian distress, shrinking agricultural incomes, indebtedness, and chronic unemployment.

Once inside Noida’s industrial ecosystem, many workers entered conditions defined by insecurity, overcrowding, exhausting work schedules, and near-total absence of bargaining power. As The Times of India reported during the protests, large numbers of workers employed across electronics factories, garment units, footwear industries, and ancillary manufacturing facilities earned roughly between ₹11,000 and ₹13,000 per month despite routinely working extended shifts. Workers and labour organisers told the newspaper that shifts regularly stretched beyond eight hours, often reaching 10–12 hours during periods of intense production demand.

Several workers alleged that overtime had effectively become compulsory. According to accounts cited in The Indian Express, workers frequently began shifts early in the morning and returned late at night after exhausting factory schedules, leaving little time for sleep, recovery, or family life. In many factories, labourers alleged that refusal to comply with overtime expectations risked threats, penalties, or removal from work rosters.

The wage structure itself revealed the depth of economic exploitation. Even before deductions, monthly wages barely sustained survival within NCR’s rapidly rising cost of living. After accounting for rent, transport, food, electricity, and remittances sent back to families in villages, many workers reportedly retained almost nothing by the end of the month.

Contract labour became the central mechanism of industrial control

One of the clearest realities exposed by the Noida protests was that the industrial economy of NCR no longer functions primarily through stable, direct employment. Instead, it increasingly operates through a vast contract labour regime that allows industries to maximise production while minimising accountability.

The modern factory system in Noida is built not merely on low wages, but on deliberately structured insecurity.

Across electronics factories, garment export units, footwear industries, pharmaceutical facilities, automobile ancillary plants, and mobile-phone assembly units, workers repeatedly stated during the protests that they were employed not directly by companies but through contractors, labour suppliers, manpower agencies, and intermediaries who controlled recruitment, attendance, wages, discipline, and dismissals. Reports by Hindustan Times described these intermediaries as effectively functioning as “shop-floor fixers” operating between management and labour.

This structure was not incidental to industrial production. It became central to the organisation of industrial power. The contractor system served several purposes simultaneously:

• insulating companies from direct legal liability,
• fragmenting workers into unstable categories,
• weakening collective bargaining,
• discouraging unionisation,
• and ensuring labour remained permanently replaceable.

Workers repeatedly described how insecurity itself became a mechanism of industrial discipline, as reported by The Wire.

Many alleged they had no written contracts and could be removed from work without explanation. Others stated that labourers were routinely terminated before they became eligible for statutory protections, bonuses, provident fund benefits, or wage increments. Accounts documented in reports by The Indian Express and labour organisers covering the protests suggested that the fear of sudden dismissal had become normalised inside factories.

The figures cited during the protests were staggering:

• 58.2% of workers reportedly had no written employment contract,
• 51.7% lacked social security protections,
• over 47% were not entitled to paid leave.

These numbers revealed something fundamental about Noida’s industrial economy: Insecurity was not exceptional. It had become structural.

Even inside formally organised manufacturing systems linked to major domestic and international supply chains, workers increasingly existed in conditions resembling informal labour.

Reports emerging during the protests, including coverage by Scroll and labour-rights commentators, repeatedly highlighted how contractualisation fragmented workers inside the same factory. Workers performing identical labour often belonged to different employment categories depending on the contractor through whom they were hired. This meant different wage structures, different entitlements, and different levels of vulnerability despite identical work on the same production lines. The contractor system therefore did more than reduce labour costs. It actively prevented worker solidarity.

Workers alleged that attendance systems were manipulated, overtime compensation arbitrarily reduced, and deductions imposed without transparency. Multiple reports documented complaints regarding deductions for aprons, uniforms, slippers, safety equipment, and even questionable “ITI diploma” schemes that workers believed either did not exist or offered no meaningful educational benefit.

Several workers reportedly told journalists and labour organisers that raising complaints about overtime, wage deductions, or conditions could lead to immediate removal from work rosters. This fear was economically devastating for migrant workers. For labourers supporting families in villages while surviving in rented industrial settlements around Noida, losing employment could immediately trigger hunger, debt, or eviction.

As per The Caravan, women workers faced particularly severe vulnerabilities inside this structure. Reports by independent media platforms and labour groups documenting the protests described complaints regarding overcrowded and unhygienic toilets, inadequate sanitation facilities, and dismissive responses from supervisors when concerns were raised. Contractual insecurity also made reporting harassment or abuse significantly more difficult because workers feared retaliation or dismissal.

The Noida protests therefore exposed how contractualisation had fundamentally transformed industrial relations in India. The contractor system was no longer merely a labour arrangement. It had become the primary architecture through which industrial discipline, labour suppression, and economic control were maintained across India’s manufacturing economy.

Inflation turned low wages into a survival crisis

The immediate economic context behind the protests was critical. By early 2026, industrial workers across the NCR region were already under immense financial pressure. The energy crisis triggered by geopolitical tensions in West Asia and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz sharply increased fuel prices across India. LPG costs surged, transport became more expensive, and food inflation intensified dramatically.

For workers already surviving on stagnant wages, the consequences were devastating. Indian Express and The New Indian Express repeatedly documented workers explaining how monthly wages no longer covered basic survival expenses. Rent alone reportedly consumed one-third to half of monthly income for many migrant labourers living in overcrowded industrial settlements around Noida and Greater Noida.

One worker described returning to cooking on a wood-fired chulha because LPG cylinders had become unaffordable. Others explained that after paying rent and transport expenses, almost nothing remained for food, healthcare, or family support.

The protests therefore emerged from material desperation. This was not abstract labour dissatisfaction. Workers were confronting the collapse of subsistence itself. The erosion of real wages had become impossible to ignore. Even as industrial productivity increased and companies expanded production, workers experienced declining purchasing power and worsening living conditions. The industrial economy demanded more labour from workers while giving them less capacity to survive. That contradiction produced explosive anger.

Haryana’s wage hike triggered an explosion that was already building

The immediate trigger for the Noida uprising came from neighbouring Haryana. After sustained labour unrest and wage-related mobilisation across industrial centres such as Manesar, Gurugram, and Faridabad, the Haryana government announced a substantial increase in minimum wages in April 2026. As per The Hindu, the revised wage rates reportedly increased minimum pay for unskilled workers from roughly ₹11,000–11,300 to more than ₹15,000 per month.

The announcement spread rapidly through worker WhatsApp groups, labour settlements, contractor networks, factory dormitories, and informal worker circles across Noida and Greater Noida. Its political impact was immediate. Workers across industrial belts in Uttar Pradesh began directly comparing their wages with those offered in neighbouring Haryana for nearly identical work.

The question emerging inside factories was devastatingly simple: Why were workers producing for the same industrial economy being paid thousands less simply because they worked across a state border?

This comparison carried enormous political force because Noida, Greater Noida, Gurugram, Manesar, and Faridabad do not function as isolated industrial regions. They form part of an interconnected NCR manufacturing ecosystem where labour, contractors, and production networks constantly move across state boundaries. Workers assembling electronics, garments, automobile components, footwear products, or mobile phones in Noida often performed labour nearly identical to workers employed in factories in Manesar or Gurugram. Yet wage structures differed dramatically.

Coverage by Scroll, and worker testimonies documented by independent labour-rights groups highlighted how workers increasingly viewed this disparity as evidence of deliberate labour suppression rather than economic necessity. The comparison with Haryana transformed workplace dissatisfaction into political anger. Workers and labour organisers reportedly argued that industrial competitiveness in Uttar Pradesh increasingly depended upon keeping labour cheaper, more weakly protected, and less organised than neighbouring states.

This was one of the most important dimensions of the protests. The Noida unrest rapidly became about far more than a single wage revision. It exposed a broader development model in which states compete for industrial investment by suppressing labour costs, expanding contractualisation, weakening collective bargaining structures, and maintaining a permanently insecure workforce.

The collapse of labour institutions left workers with only the streets

One of the deepest structural causes behind the unrest was the collapse of institutional labour negotiation mechanisms. Historically, industrial disputes in India were mediated through trade unions, labour commissioners, conciliation systems, industrial tribunals, and collective bargaining processes. Those systems have steadily weakened.

Reports by Article 14 and others repeatedly noted that workers today possess very few effective institutional avenues through which grievances can be meaningfully addressed. The weakening of trade unions combined with the expansion of contract labour fragmented workers and undermined collective organising.

As a result, workers increasingly felt that no institutional mechanism existed through which employers or the state would seriously engage with their grievances. This is crucial to understanding the escalation in Noida. The unrest did not emerge because workers suddenly became violent or irrational. It emerged because institutional channels for labour negotiation had been systematically hollowed out.

Workers turned to the streets because the structures historically meant to mediate industrial conflict had largely collapsed. The tragedy is that the state itself helped weaken these institutions — and then responded to the resulting unrest through coercion instead of reconstruction.

 Labour Codes deepened worker anxiety and distrust

The protests also unfolded against the backdrop of the implementation of the four Labour Codes in late 2025. The Codes covering wages, industrial relations, occupational safety, and social security were promoted as reforms intended to modernise labour regulation and improve ease of doing business. But workers and labour scholars increasingly viewed them differently.

Many feared that the reforms weakened labour protections while expanding managerial power and flexibility.

Labour economist K.R. Shyam Sundar noted in The Indian Express that the new framework created uncertainty regarding working-hour limits and increased executive discretion in labour regulation. Workers repeatedly alleged that “flexibility” effectively meant longer hours, increased overtime pressure, and weaker enforcement of labour standards.

The old Factories Act imposed clearer restrictions on daily working hours and spread-over limits. Critics argued that the new framework diluted these protections under the language of reform. Importantly, many workers reportedly expected the Labour Codes to improve wages and standardise protections after their implementation in November 2025. When these expectations were not realised, frustration deepened dramatically. Workers increasingly perceived labour reform not as protection but as deregulation in favour of industrial capital.

The critical appraisal of the new labour codes may be read here.

The state reframed a labour crisis as a security threat

Perhaps the most alarming feature of the Noida protests was how rapidly the Uttar Pradesh government transformed what was fundamentally a labour and economic crisis into a security operation. From the very beginning, the state appeared far more willing to investigate conspiracy than exploitation.

Instead of foregrounding the actual grievances driving workers onto the streets — stagnant wages, inflation, contractual exploitation, unpaid overtime, unsafe working conditions, arbitrary dismissals, and collapsing labour protections — the official response increasingly shifted toward the language of destabilisation, subversion, and law-and-order threat.

As reported across The Hindu, senior officials and police authorities repeatedly suggested that “outside forces” and organised conspirators were responsible for the unrest.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath publicly suggested that “urban naxalites” and disruptive actors were attempting to provoke industrial instability. Simultaneously, sections of the police and administration alleged that Pakistani social media handles had amplified misinformation surrounding the protests.

This framing was not politically neutral. It fundamentally altered the meaning of the protests themselves. Workers demanding dignified wages and humane working conditions were no longer treated primarily as citizens articulating economic grievances. They were increasingly portrayed as potential instruments of destabilisation.

The implication was deeply dangerous: Large-scale labour mobilisation itself became suspicious. The state effectively suggested that worker anger on such a scale could not emerge organically from economic suffering and structural exploitation. Instead, unrest had to be explained through hidden instigators, ideological infiltration, foreign amplification, or organised conspiracy. This reflected a broader political tendency increasingly visible across India — the securitisation of democratic dissent.

Economic protest was not treated as evidence of policy failure, labour distress, or institutional collapse. It was reframed as a threat to public order and industrial stability. This shift carried enormous consequences.

Once labour unrest was classified as a security problem rather than a social or economic issue, coercive policing became easier to justify while structural questions about wages, labour protections, and exploitation were pushed into the background.

Coverage and commentary emerging during the protests in Scroll.in repeatedly warned that this narrative erased workers’ own political agency. The implication was that workers themselves were incapable of collectively resisting exploitation unless manipulated by hidden actors.

Historically, this has been one of the most common methods used by states to delegitimise labour movements. By converting economic anger into conspiracy, governments avoid confronting the structural conditions that produced the unrest in the first place.

The tragedy of the Noida response was that it prevented any serious political engagement with the actual realities workers were describing: impossible living costs, wage stagnation, contractor exploitation, unsafe workplaces, and the collapse of labour negotiation mechanisms. The more the state emphasised conspiracy, the less it spoke about labour. And that silence revealed the deeper priorities underlying the response.

Detailed report on fact finding on Noida protest may be read here.

Police repression became the state’s primary language

As the protests intensified around April 13, the state moved decisively away from negotiation and toward coercive suppression. What began as labour unrest was increasingly met with the machinery of criminal law, mass policing, surveillance, and punitive force.

Reports emerging from Noida and Greater Noida in Hindustan Times described widespread lathi charges, raids, detentions, arrests, and sweeping FIRs filed against workers and unnamed persons allegedly involved in the protests. Workers and activists repeatedly alleged that police intervention escalated confrontations that had initially been localised and economically driven.

Instead of functioning as mediators attempting to reduce tensions, police operations increasingly appeared designed to demonstrate overwhelming state control. The scale of criminalisation was extraordinary.

According to reports emerging during the crackdown from The Indian Express, police registered cases against thousands of unnamed persons under serious penal provisions including rioting, unlawful assembly, destruction of property, and attempt to murder. Entire working-class neighbourhoods reportedly came under fear and surveillance.

Workers described police raids in labour settlements late at night. Families reportedly searched desperately for detained relatives without clear information regarding where they had been taken. Independent reports and labour-rights accounts alleged that minors and uninvolved persons were also picked up during police operations conducted across industrial localities.

Accounts emerging from detention facilities and Kasna jail raised serious constitutional concerns. Lawyers, labour organisers, and civil-rights activists cited in reports by Scroll.in alleged violations of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, including arbitrary detentions, denial of timely legal access, failures to promptly inform families, and procedural irregularities surrounding arrests.

What was particularly striking was the collective nature of the crackdown. The policing increasingly resembled punitive action directed not only at specific accused individuals but at labour communities themselves. Fear spread rapidly through worker settlements across Noida and Greater Noida. The message being communicated by the state was unmistakable: Collective resistance would invite overwhelming coercive force.

This was especially significant because the protests themselves emerged from the collapse of institutional labour mediation mechanisms. Workers had already reached a point where they felt trade unions, labour departments, and industrial dispute systems no longer meaningfully addressed their grievances. The state’s response to this institutional collapse was not reconstruction of dialogue, rather it was criminalisation.

The criminalisation of labour solidarity was equally significant

The crackdown did not remain confined to workers physically present at protest sites. Very quickly, the focus of police action expanded toward labour organisers, student activists, writers, independent voices, and individuals publicly expressing solidarity with workers. What made this phase of the crackdown especially alarming was that the state increasingly appeared to treat labour organising itself as suspicious political activity.

The shift became particularly visible through the arrests and prosecutions that followed the April 13 protests. As reported by The Indian Express, police repeatedly alleged that the unrest had not emerged organically from worker anger but had instead been orchestrated by an “organised syndicate of outsiders.” Authorities claimed that labour organisers and activists associated with groups such as Mazdoor Bigul Dasta played a “significant role” in provoking violence, disrupting public order, and inciting workers.

This narrative became central to the state’s justification for the crackdown. Among the most prominent cases was that of Aditya Anand, a 28-year-old BTech graduate from National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur and an employee at Genpact, whom police described as a “mastermind” behind the Noida protests. As reported by The Indian Express, Anand was arrested from Tiruchirappalli in Tamil Nadu on April 18 and later linked by Haryana Police to separate labour unrest and violence in Manesar that had occurred four days before the Noida protests.

Police alleged that Anand delivered “provocative speeches,” organised marches, and encouraged workers to block roads. He was booked under multiple serious provisions, including rioting, unlawful assembly, assault on public servants, criminal conspiracy, and attempt to murder. Yet the details emerging about Anand’s background complicated the state’s narrative considerably.

His family described him not as a violent conspirator but as someone deeply engaged with labour issues and social movements. His younger brother told The Indian Express that Anand had rejected job opportunities abroad, including in Sweden, because he wanted to remain in India and work on issues affecting ordinary people. The family stated that he had long been associated with labour concerns and youth activism linked to the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, the organisation historically associated with Bhagat Singh.

The symbolism here was politically significant. A labour activist speaking publicly about workers’ rights was increasingly being framed through the language of criminal conspiracy and organised disorder. The crackdown intensified further in May when authorities invoked the stringent National Security Act against two accused linked to the protests: Aakriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old history graduate from Delhi University, and former journalist Satyam Verma.

The use of the NSA marked a dramatic escalation. Preventive detention laws of this nature are generally associated with threats to national security or public order of an exceptional nature. Their invocation against individuals associated with labour protests and worker solidarity immediately raised concerns among civil-rights groups and labour organisations.

According to The Indian Express, police alleged that Chaudhary and Verma were active members of Mazdoor Bigul Dasta and had played “significant roles” in violence, arson, and disorder during the protests. But the accounts emerging from families and lawyers sharply challenged this narrative.

Aakriti Chaudhary’s father reportedly stated that she had been picked up from Botanical Garden Metro station on April 11 — two days before the violence on April 13 — raising serious questions about the chronology of the allegations against her. Her family argued that she had merely participated in activities supporting workers’ rights.

Her father, who works with Ganashakti, the CPI mouthpiece, told The Indian Express: “I’m proud that my daughter was raising her voice for workers’ rights. She is the Bhagat Singh of today.”

Similarly, advocates representing other accused argued that students and social workers had merely expressed solidarity with workers through speeches, meetings, and street plays — activities traditionally associated with democratic protest movements.

The case of Satyam Verma was equally revealing. Verma, a journalist and editor associated with writings on Bhagat Singh and anti-colonial political history, was arrested from his residence in Lucknow. Friends and associates described him as a long-time journalist, translator, and intellectual engaged with labour and democratic issues rather than violent mobilisation. Other arrests followed a similar pattern.

Himanshu Thakur, a 24-year-old history postgraduate from Hansraj College and a NET-qualified scholar, was accused of instigating crowds and coordinating violence. His family described him as someone involved in student activism, translation work, and social causes, including protests relating to student deaths during the Delhi flooding crisis.

What became increasingly visible through these arrests was a larger pattern: The state was collapsing the distinction between labour organising, political solidarity, and criminal conspiracy.

This distinction mattered enormously. Instead of recognising collective labour mobilisation as a democratic response emerging from exploitation, inflation, contractual insecurity, and wage stagnation, authorities increasingly personalised the unrest through narratives centred on masterminds, infiltrators, and ideological actors.

This framing effectively erased workers’ own political agency. The implication was that workers themselves could not independently organise resistance after years of economic distress and labour exploitation. Their anger had to be explained through manipulation by “outsiders.” Historically, states confronting labour unrest have often relied upon precisely this strategy.

Worker mobilisation is reframed not as a consequence of material exploitation but as evidence of political contamination or organised subversion. The consequences of such a framework extend far beyond one protest. Once labour solidarity itself becomes suspicious, the democratic space available for workers to organise, negotiate, document abuses, and collectively assert rights begins shrinking dramatically. This was what made the Noida crackdown especially significant. The issue was no longer merely how the state handled one industrial protest.

The deeper question was whether independent labour mobilisation itself was increasingly being treated as illegitimate within India’s contemporary industrial order — particularly when it challenged industrial profitability, disrupted production, or exposed the inequalities hidden beneath the language of economic growth and “Make in India” industrial success.

Detailed report on state crackdown on dissent may be read here.

Noida was one of the most important labour protests in contemporary India

The importance of Noida cannot be overstated. The protests formed part of a broader wave of labour unrest across industrial regions including Manesar, Surat, Panipat, Barauni, Faridabad, and other manufacturing hubs.

Across sectors and geographies, workers raised remarkably similar demands:

• living wages,
• overtime compensation,
• social security,
• dignified working conditions,
• stable employment,
• humane working hours.

This convergence revealed a national labour crisis. Noida exposed the widening contradiction at the centre of India’s economic model: expanding industrial growth and rising productivity alongside deepening worker insecurity and stagnant real wages. Most importantly, the protests revealed the limits of governing labour through precarity, exhaustion, fear, and suppression.

The interim wage hikes announced after the unrest only reinforced this reality. The government responded meaningfully only after workers paralysed industrial movement and disrupted production. That fact alone is a profound indictment of the existing labour regime.

Noida was not merely an industrial disturbance. It was a warning from the workforce sustaining India’s manufacturing economy — a warning that an industrial system built on insecurity, wage suppression, informalisation, and coercion cannot indefinitely maintain social peace.

Related:

Cracks in Indian Environment Jurisprudence: An examination of High Courts of central India

Documents Cannot Decide Democracy: How CJP is training communities to navigate the SIR process

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

Caged Voices, Silenced Truths: FSC’s expansive indictment of India’s press freedom crisis

Workers Cry for Justice!

The post Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The team, formed by civil rights group Jan Hastakshep included Supreme Court senior advocate S.S. Nehra, former Hindu College professor Ish Mishra, retired IFS officer Ashok Sharma, senior journalist Anil Dubey, and senior advocate M.Z. Ali.

The team visited Noida on April 24 and spoke to workers across multiple industrial units, shopkeepers and other affected residents on the issue.

According to the statement released by the team, investigators have found no evidence to support allegations circulated by sections of the administration and media that foreign elements were behind the protests.

Instead, the team reported how, the anger among the workers had been building for years over low wages, rising inflation and comparisons with higher minimum wages in neighbouring Delhi and Haryana. The agitating workers told the team that factories relocating from Delhi and Gurugram to Noida continued paying lower wages after shifting operations, despite higher pay scales prevailing in those regions.

The fact-finding group said that this dissatisfaction intensified after workers learned that wages at units in Haryana –barely 170 kilometres away–had increased significantly following a hike in minimum wages there. This comparison, combined with stagnant wages in Noida for 10 years, reportedly triggered the initial sit-in protest at a garment-manufacturing unit in Sector 83 earlier this month. According to the Fact-finding team’s statement, protests spread across industrial clusters in Sectors 59, 60, 62, 83 and 84, eventually drawing tens of thousands of workers onto the streets. The team also alleged that police action escalated tensions and that more than 1,000 workers were detained, with some families not informed of their whereabouts for several days.

The team of investigators noted that the state government’s subsequent actions, including issuing notices to 43 contractors, cancelling licences of 10 contractors and announcing a 21 per cent wage increase, indicated acknowledgement of the irregularities in wage practices rather than evidence of any external conspiracy.

Significantly, a trade union leader who had worked in a multinational company, also told the team that two decades ago, wages were not an issue in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA because wages here were higher than in other states. However, conditions have changed over the past 20 years.

Disparate wages: While wages increased in Delhi and Haryana, they did not increase in Uttar Pradesh, and companies arbitrarily set their own minimum wages. This difference also significantly increased exploitation. He added that most of NOIDA industries operate with only contract labour, with companies hiring workers through contractors who provide no security or other benefits.

The team concluded that the unrest reflected long-standing labour grievances rooted in wage stagnation and rising living costs, and called for implementation of revised minimum wages, linking wages to inflation, and withdrawal of cases against workers involved in the protests.

Related:

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post No ‘Pakistan conspiracy’ in Noida labour unrest: Fact-finding report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the police statement, both Verma and Choudhary were allegedly associated with “Mazdoor Bigul Dasta” and had played a “significant role” in the violence, arson and disruption that accompanied the workers’ protest. Police further claimed that the two attempted to disturb public order by “provoking” workers in different areas and circulating inflammatory material. Senior police officers, quoted in report by The Times of India, cited CCTV footage, electronic evidence, intelligence inputs and social media activity as the basis for invoking the NSA, a preventive detention law that permits incarceration for up to one year without trial on grounds related to national security or maintenance of public order.

The use of the NSA against the two has, however, triggered strong criticism from lawyers, labour rights groups, civil liberties organisations and campaigners associated with the Campaign for the Release of Workers and Activists of Noida (CaRWAN), who have termed the move an attempt to indefinitely prolong incarceration after the prosecution allegedly failed to establish concrete evidence during bail proceedings. Supreme Court advocate Ali Zia Kabir Choudhary, representing several accused in the matter, told The Wire that neither the accused nor their legal teams had been formally provided documents explaining the grounds on which the NSA was invoked. He pointed out that under constitutional safeguards, including Article 22 concerning protection against arrest and detention; the arrested persons are entitled to be informed of the grounds of detention.

“The only detail we have is the police press release. No papers have been supplied. In court we argued that there is not a single piece of evidence showing that Satyam or others called for violence,” Choudhary said while speaking to The Wire, adding that in Verma’s case, police had allegedly failed to show that he was even part of any WhatsApp groups cited during arguments. He further alleged that the prosecution relied largely on unrelated photographs and chats involving persons who were not arrested.

Timing of NSA invocation raises concerns

CaRWAN, in a statement issued on May 13 and cited by The Wire, questioned the timing of the NSA charges, noting that the law was invoked only after the prosecution faced difficulty during bail hearings. The collective stated that during the hearing, defence counsel highlighted the “emptiness of the charges” and the “illegality of the arrests,” while prosecutors allegedly failed to present substantial incriminating material against either Verma or Choudhary. The group argued that the accused had already spent over a month in judicial custody and that the sudden invocation of the NSA appeared designed solely to ensure continued detention.

The police crackdown follows weeks of unrest linked to industrial workers’ protests in Noida and Greater Noida. As reported by Hindustan Times, the demonstrations began on April 10 after the Haryana government announced a substantial increase in minimum wages for workers, prompting labourers in Noida’s industrial belt to demand similar hikes, better overtime compensation and improved working conditions. While protests remained largely peaceful in the initial days, violence broke out on April 13 across several industrial sectors, during which factories were allegedly vandalised, vehicles torched and police personnel injured in incidents of stone pelting.

Following the violence, the Uttar Pradesh Police launched a sweeping crackdown. Multiple FIRs, various reports place the number between seven and fifteen, were registered across police stations including Phase II and Sector 63. According to The Indian Express, hundreds of people were detained in the aftermath, while at least 60 individuals remain incarcerated on charges ranging from rioting and criminal conspiracy to attempt to murder. Police have consistently maintained, including in statements carried by The Hindu and Hindustan Times, that the violence was not spontaneous but orchestrated by an “organised syndicate of outsiders.”

Activists, students and scholars among those arrested

The arrests have drawn particular attention because many of those booked are students, researchers, labour organisers and activists rather than industrial workers themselves.

Satyam Verma, a 60-year-old journalist based in Lucknow, was arrested on April 17. According to The Indian Express, Verma previously worked with the news agency Univarta and has been associated with Janchetna Books and Jagaruk Nagrik Manch. He has also written for the labour publication Mazdoor Bigul, after which the organisation “Mazdoor Bigul Dasta” is allegedly named. Friends and supporters quoted in The Indian Express described him as a writer, translator and editor deeply engaged with labour rights and progressive literature. He is also the son of noted historian and academic Lal Bahadur Verma.

Civil rights groups have strongly disputed police claims portraying Verma as a “main conspirator.” CaRWAN stated in comments carried by The Times of India and The Wire that Verma was not present in Noida during the protests and had reportedly not visited the city in over a decade. His associates argue that the prosecution has attempted to criminalise ideological affiliations rather than establish any direct role in violence.

Aakriti Choudhary, 25, a postgraduate in history from Delhi University’s Daulat Ram College and an aspiring PhD scholar, was detained by plainclothes officers at Noida’s Botanical Garden Metro Station on April 11 — two days before the violence erupted. The Hindu reported that police initially claimed she was detained for disturbing public order, but later alleged that subsequent investigation uncovered evidence linking her to organising the protests.

Her father, Arun Choudhary, associated with the CPI(M) mouthpiece Ganashakti, questioned in comments to The Indian Express how someone detained before April 13 could be charged with orchestrating violence that occurred later. He defended his daughter’s participation in labour solidarity campaigns and criticised attempts to equate Left political beliefs with criminality. Defence lawyers similarly noted, according to Hindustan Times, that during proceedings prosecutors allegedly presented a book recovered from her residence as evidence of “Left-wing ideology.”

Concerns over criminalisation of ideology and dissent

It has been argued that the prosecution’s case increasingly appears to rely on political profiling rather than direct evidence of criminal conduct. Rajnish Yadav, counsel for Choudhary and other accused, told The Indian Express that the activists had merely participated in solidarity efforts, including speeches and street plays supporting workers demanding fair wages. He compared their participation to broader solidarity movements seen during the farmers’ protests.

The police have also arrested several other young activists and students. Among them is Aditya Anand, a 28-year-old NIT Jamshedpur graduate employed at Genpact, arrested from Tiruchirappalli on April 18. According to The Indian Express, police allege he delivered “provocative” speeches and organised marches during the protests. His family, however, portrayed him as a socially conscious engineer deeply engaged in labour rights issues and associated with the Naujawan Bharat Sabha.

Another accused, Himanshu Thakur, a 24-year-old history postgraduate from Hansraj College and a NET-qualified PhD aspirant, was arrested from Delhi’s Shalimar Bagh on allegations of coordinating protests and instigating crowds. His family told The Indian Express that he was the sole earning member of the household who supplemented family income through freelance translation work while advocating for students’ and women’s rights.

Families of working-class accused have also described devastating economic consequences following the arrests. The Indian Express reported that Amit Kumar, a 19-year-old worker from Prayagraj earning ₹8,000 a month in Noida, and Pankaj Kumar, a mason from New Ashok Nagar, are among those whose detention has reportedly pushed already vulnerable families into debt and unemployment.

Questions over misuse of the NSA

The use of the NSA in Uttar Pradesh has long been controversial. In April 2021, an investigation by The Indian Express reported that the Allahabad High Court had raised concerns over the apparent misuse of the law after red-flagging 94 out of 120 habeas corpus petitions involving NSA detentions. Similarly, Newslaundry reported in 2022 that police proposals seeking NSA sanctions in communal violence cases had invoked conspiracy narratives such as “land jihad.”

It must be pointed out that the NSA, unlike ordinary criminal law, allows preventive detention through executive orders without the procedural protections of a regular criminal trial. Human rights advocates have repeatedly warned that the law is frequently deployed to circumvent bail and prolong incarceration where ordinary criminal charges may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The invocation of the NSA in the Noida workers’ protest case has therefore intensified concerns regarding the shrinking space for labour organising, student activism and political dissent.

Related:

JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Solidarity with protests of locals against projects facilitating coal transportation (Goa to Karnataka): NAPM

‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting

The post NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The opening paras of the article says it all, “It was waiting to happen. Only the “when” was not clear. The buildings in the industrial areas of the National Capital Region (NCR), with their glitzy interiors, could not camouflage the simmering anger of workers inside any longer. When what started as a small bubble of frustration took on the force of a volcanic eruption, fuelled by the oppressive conditions imposed by hostile employers and abetted by compliant governments, nothing could put a lid on it…Thus, in mid-April, workers poured out of their factories, striking work in the industrial area of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) in Uttar Pradesh, fully conscious of the reprisals and the heavy hand of the state that would come into play as the official reaction to their action. But it was a moment that the workers truly owned, and there was no factory that was unaffected…. There was no coordinated action, no direct union involvement. Yet, it seemed like magic. As per some official reports, workers across 82 factories struck work protesting against the 12-hour, 7-day working week and the harsh and unsafe working conditions within the factories, all for a measly monthly wage of Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 12,000.”

On November 21, 2025, the Government began implementing the four Labour Codes (on Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, and Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions). Concerned citizens, trade unions and opposition parties label them ‘anti-worker.’ Most regard these codes as favouring the corporate sector. Their ‘anti-worker’ dimensions include ‘the hire and fire policy’; ‘curtailing right to strike’; ‘expansion of Fixed-Term Employment (FTE); ‘diluted safety & welfare’

The way the NOIDA workers came out in droves to protest their grim reality is a case in point! The Uttar Pradesh government announced a 21% wage hike, but many workers and unions deemed this insufficient. The police have taken legal action against those (apparently several thousands) involved in the violence. On expected lines, the godified media did not highlight the plight and the protest of the NOIDA workers. The situation of the ordinary worker (particularly casual labourers and migrant workers) in India leaves much to be desired: most of them are at the mercy of employers who are exploitative and corrupt. Workers are often denied just wages and have long hours of work. Many do not get appointment letters nor are there the mandatory ‘Service Conditions.’ Trade Unions in India have become almost non-existent. The COVID period revealed the miserable conditions of the working class.

The month of May begins with the ‘International Workers’ Day’. This Day normally focuses on honouring the global workforce, promoting labour rights, and fighting exploitation. The Catholic Church has consistently championed the cause and the rights of workers. On 15 May 1891, Pope Leo XIII gave the world his path-breaking encyclical, ‘Rerum Novarum’ (‘Of New Things’), regarded as the foundational document of modern Catholic Social Teaching. The encyclical addressed the plight of the working class during the Industrial Revolution. It advocates for worker dignity, the right to form unions, and a just wage, while defending private property and rejecting both socialism and unrestrained capitalism.

In his Encyclical ‘Laborem Exercens’ (On human work), dtd. 14 September 1981, Pope John Paul writes, “the Church considers it her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide [social] changes so as to ensure authentic progress by man and society.” Later, on 1 May 1991, he promulgated another Encyclical ‘Centesimus Annus’ (‘The Hundredth Year’) to commemorate the historic anniversary of ‘Rerum Novarum’. It reiterated the fundamental vision, of ‘Rerum Novarum’ and   expounded issues of social and economic justice, including a defense of private property rights and the right to form private associations, including labour unions

In keeping with the significance of the day, the Catholic Church celebrates it as the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker. Pope Pius XII established it in 1955, to honour Joseph as the patron of workers and to celebrate the dignity of human labour.

A year ago, on May 8, 2025, Pope Leo XIV was elected to succeed Pope Francis; he assumed office on 18 May. When asked to explain his choice of name, Pope Leo said, “I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’ addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.”

The Catholic Church has been consistent in defending the rights of workers for a more dignified, just and humane life. Cardinal Joseph Cardijn (1882-1967),  founder of the Young Christian Workers , left no stone unturned to focus on the plight of workers and ensure that the teachings of ‘Rerum Novarum’ are mainstreamed in the life and mission of the Church.

Pope Leo XIII says it very strongly in his ‘Rerum Novarum’, “(We must) save unfortunate working people from the cruelty of men of greed, who use human beings as mere instruments for money-making. It is neither just nor human to grind men down with excessive labour.”

The point is:  is anyone listening? Workers must unite! We must heed their cry for justice! We are all called to be in solidarity with workers, to ensure that they have better working conditions, with just wages, normal working hours and above all, to live in dignity!

 April 30, 2026

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist)

Related:

India’s New Labour Codes: A critical appraisal

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 Workers Cry for Justice! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But what if we pause and think about the thousands of modern day slaves in India who continue to work under almost the same conditions? 

As India marks 50 years of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, cases of bonded labour still surface in states like Telangana. Many workers in sectors such as agriculture, brick kilns, fishing and construction remain trapped in debt and coercion. The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer the 3rd century BCE, but the 21st century. 

Pursala Lingamma’s story emerges from this reality. Once a bonded labourer, she later entered public life and today serves her village as its Sarpanch.

Pursala Lingamma, Sarpanch of Amaragiri village

“At night, our seth(master) locked our children in a separate room so that we would not run away. If we tried to escape, we would have to leave our children behind. That is how we remained trapped in slavery for nearly three decades.” – says Pursala Lingamma 

P Lingamma, once trapped in conditions of forced slavery, went on to become the Sarpanch of a village with hundreds of rescued individuals. Lingamma hails from Amaragiri village in Nagarkurnool district, Telangana. For over three decades, her family, along with 44 other families from the Chenchu tribe (an aboriginal community listed among the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in India) was trapped in bonded labour. 

“The community’s complete rescue was a miracle. We had to suffice in the given boat and equipment for fishery and had never imagined that we could ever be free. My parents and the whole community had lost all hope. ” – she adds. 

They were trapped by three local businesspersons who controlled most of the fishing trade in the area. Through debt and coercion, Lingamma’s family, along with many other families, were forced to sell the fish they caught at extremely low prices. While the market price was around Rs 60, they were made to sell it for just Rs5. They were denied access to fair markets and were even subjected to physical abuse, leaving constitutional guarantees only on paper.

Rescued from Bonded Labour 

However, the turning point came when a civil society organisation, the Foundation for Sustainable Development (FSD), stepped in. Established in 2004, FSD works to eradicate bonded labour across several Indian states, including Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal. 

“Due to migration and the search for a stable livelihood, these tribal groups, most of them illiterate, get trapped by local businessmen. They are often threatened and abused so that they do not speak against them.” – Dr. Kandasamy Krishnan, Executive Director of FSD and Convenor of the National Adivasi Solidarity Council (NASC)

Krishnan speaks about the deep fear among the survivors of Chenchu tribe in Amaragiri village. For generations, these families had been catching fish from the Krishna River and selling it locally for around Rs. 100 per kilogram. The same fish could earn up to Rs. 1,000 per kilogram in markets in West Bengal. In other words, they were getting barely one-tenth of its real value. Yet most of them were afraid to complain to officials, fearing they might lose even this small income, if they engage with officers. Krishnan adds that among the 106 people who were rescued, only two could read and write, which made it even harder for them to understand their constitutional rights and speak up against them in front of officers.

Lingamma’s Leadership Journey

Lingamma attended several leadership sessions conducted by the Foundation for Sustainable Development and waited for the right opportunity to show her abilities. She is one of the 2,900 rescued survivors by FSD, who has received leadership training. Today, many of them are leading participants in different fields such as local politics, markets, working at handicrafts and self-help groups. However, their journey, even after the rescue, is not easy. It is only their first step. 

For the first time, the position of Sarpanch in Amargiri village was reserved for a woman from a Scheduled Tribe. It was then that a cousin of Lingamma encouraged her to contest the election, thinking that the position could later be taken over by him. She hesitated at first, but eventually decided to step in and make use of the opportunity. However, she faced heavy criticism for contesting, especially because she was a woman and that too from the Chenchu tribe.

Lingamma says, “The village was already divided among different tribes. When I got nominated, it soon turned into a gender conflict as well. The toughest time for me was not the haunting decades of slavery, but the months before the election, when the men of my own community stood against me.” 

The villagers were deeply divided in their opinions about a woman’s capability to hold such a significant position in the political arena. They doubted a woman’s ability to conduct meetings with bureaucrats, negotiating and bargaining the interest of the community wisely. Many were sceptical, but she was confident. She went ahead and mobilised male voters by taking up their daily issues and also assured the women that she would be a strong and accountable leader. After conducting numerous local Sabhas to engage with opposing forces, the tribe slowly consolidated and she won the first election of her political journey. Later, despite being offered monetary bait of Rs10 lakh to transfer the real authority to her cousin, Lingamma declined to sell the trust of her own people. Today, she stands as an epitome of women’s empowerment for the whole of Amaragiri.

Developmental Road Ahead after Winning

Lingamma’s leadership as Sarpanch has played an important role in establishing the economic independence of Amaragiri. 

Lingamma is currently focusing on education and has been working to lay the foundation for school buildings in the village. She is also pushing for the establishment of a community hall for her community, which is still awaiting sanction. Along with this, she hopes to soon ensure access to drinking water and improve road infrastructure, as the village remains largely isolated from the outside world.

She says, “Amaragiri should not be known as a village of bondage, but for its progress and for the leadership of a tribal woman.”

Post-rescue, survivors have organised themselves into the Amaragiri Released Bonded Labourers Association (RBLA) in effort to secure government benefits, and launched initiatives like a fish-processing unit to ensure economic independence in their age-old profession. The Chenchu community of Amaragiri were able to obtain government funds as well, of approximately 40 lakh rupees, to start a Fishing Cooperative and purchase vehicles to take the fish to city markets. 

Her victory is historic, not just for her but for the entire community. It symbolises a complete reversal of decades of oppression and a beacon of hope for other marginalized communities. 

At the heart of this transformation stands Sarpanch P. Lingamma. 

Her journey is recently recognised in a feature by Eenadu, a Telugu newspaper, on March 18, 2026 titled “From Struggle to Recognition: An Inspiring Journey of Resilience.”

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, Lingamma was also among nine Elected Women Representatives from across the country who were felicitated by the Indian School of Democracy at the Constitution Club of India. ISD is a non-partisan organisation that works to nurture principled grassroots political leaders committed to strengthening Indian democracy.

(The author is a Political Science student at Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Delhi University, and an independent journalist writing on polity, governance, and social issues.)

Related:

Raid on Adivasi leader Manish Kunjam for ‘seeking investigation into the tendu patta bonu scam’, condemned by rights groups

Appeal to Political Parties, Visit Bastar, Initiate a Dialogue, Restore Fundamental Rights

Attack on Prof Sanjay Kumar Roundly Condemned

The post An Adivasi woman once in bonded labour now serves her village as a Sarpanch appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signatories to the Appeal include: senior activists, academics, scientists of Telangana such as Prof. Haragopal, Dr. K Babu Rao, Prof K. Laxminarayana; human rights activists Jeevan Kumar, Dr. Tirupathaiah, Vasantha Lakshmi; feminist activists V. Sandhya, V Rukmini Rao, S. Ashalatha, K. Sajaya, Bhanumathi, Meera Sanghamitra; social activists Venkat Reddy, Kanneganti Ravi, P. Shankar, Saraswati Kavula, Maria Tabassum, Shaikh Salauddin, Sreeharsha, Lateef Khan, Sowmya Kidambi; climate justice activists Ruchit Asha Kamal, Nikita Naidu, Deeksha; law researchers Akhil Surya, Raja Chandra etc.

The Abhaya Hastam Assembly Elections Manifesto (2023) of TPCC made multiple assurances including establishment of a welfare board and provision of social security for unorganised workers, a specific welfare board for Hamali workers, health cards to Hamali workers, establishment of a ‘Hamali Nagar’ in every mandal centre, where houses would be allocated to the workers. The letter describes the many challenges and exploitation faced by Hamali workers, across different godowns and markets. The activists said that State is bound to protect rights, dignity and livelihoods of all workers – whether belonging to Telangana or coming from other states, in search of livelihoods.

The communication also pointed out that 2026 marks 50 years of enactment of the Telangana Mutta, Jattu, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1976 and Rules, 1977 which provide the legal framework for setting up institutional mechanisms and upholding rights of the Hamali workers. The said Act and Rules mandate the state government to establish a Board (Section 6) as well as an Advisory Committee (Section 14) representing employers, unprotected workers, members of the legislature and the Government.  Effective implementation of the Act would be the least that can be done to secure the rights and interests of Hamali workers.

The signatories also appreciated that last week, Minister Dr. Dansari Anasuya (Seethakka), has assured them that the issue will be taken up with the Chief Minister, for establishment of Hamali Welfare Board when she addressed the Hamali Maha Garjana at Hanmakonda, a historic gathering of 7,000 Hamali workers from 30 districts of the state.

The signatories hoped the CM would immediately issue directions for constitution of a Statutory Welfare Board and Advisory Committee for Hamali Workers, along with necessary budgetary allocations and ensure fair wages and payments, PF, ESI, health rights and housing. The activists also pointed out statutory welfare boards and schemes in Kerala and Maharashtra for Hamali workers and urged that Telangana also must consider such measures at the state and district level.

The letter petition was jointly initiated by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and Telangana People’s Joint Action Committee (TP-JAC), in solidarity with the Telangana Hamali Workers Union (THWU).

Related:

February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India

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

As 30 crore workers, farmers join July 9 strike against govt.’s policies, will there be media coverage of the shut down?

The post Telangana: Safeguard lakhs of Hamali workers, set by welfare board, citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Besides these killings, a staggering 1,143 documented complaints of physical and mental harm against Bengali speaking migrants have also been reported. The harassment includes illegal or irregular detentions by the police authorities and labourers threatened or brutalised. This Bengali newspaper has documented these here.

As far back as September 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace, had submitted a comprehensive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), highlighting what it described as an “alarming and coordinated escalation of hate speech” across India. The complaint documents how Bengali-origin Muslims, many of whom are lawful Indian citizens, are being systematically vilified as “Bangladeshis” and “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) in election rallies, public protests, and online campaigns. The details of CJP’s submissions to the NCM Chairperson may be read here.

In this complaint, the notorious chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma’s hate speeches, the speeches by Situ Barua of Jatiya Sangrami Sena and Milan Buragohain of All Tai Ahom Students’ Union, both accused of stopping buses and threatening Muslim labourers to “vacate Upper Assam,” that by Bir Lachit Sen, whose followers reportedly conducted door-to-door “document checks” and forced evictions were included.

Besides there were other such targeted speeches made in Bihar, Delhi and Maharashtra. Maharashtra that has seen four such murders happening has both in the state and local bodies now got the BJP firmly in the saddle of power. Only last week, the newly sworn in Mayor of Mumbai (sworn in close to a month after the election results) vowed “to crackdown on hawkers in the city and ordered birth certificate checks” as part of a “crackdown on illegal Bangladeshi nationals living in the city,” reported India Today.

Related:

Under Suspicion: Bengali Migrant workers face mass detentions, fear, and statelessness in Gurugram crackdown

Under Siege for Speaking Bengali: Detentions, deportations and a rising pushback against the targeting of Bengali migrant workers across India

Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states

The post 12 Bengali migrant workers murdered in 6 states, Maharashtra tops the crime list appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Video of the General Strike

From the paddy fields of Punjab to industrial belts in Tamil Nadu, from tea gardens in West Bengal to transport hubs in Uttar Pradesh, and across the National Capital Region in New Delhi, workers and peasants converged in a rare display of coordinated dissent. Coal miners downed tools. Electricity employees joined demonstrations. Banking and insurance services reported disruptions. In ports, transport depots and manufacturing clusters, protest meetings and road blockades signaled a shared disquiet.

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) described the strike as “one of the largest ever General Strikes in the history of Independent India,” arguing that it cemented worker-peasant unity as the backbone of resistance to what it termed corporate-driven policies. Congratulating the Joint Platform of Central Trade Unions, the SKM said the action had instilled confidence among working people to resist “exploitative, corporate-oriented measures” and warned that if the Union government persisted with its trajectory, “more intensified, continuous, united pan-India struggles” would follow.

At the heart of the mobilisation was opposition to the four labour codes. But the anger spilled far beyond them. The SKM pointed to resentment against Free Trade Agreements, the proposed Electricity Bill, and the Seed Bill. Rural participation, it noted, was not symbolic but structural. “There was much more effective and widespread coordination than ever before,” the statement said, highlighting the large-scale involvement of women and rural workers. The issue of scheme workers — denied worker status and statutory minimum wages — figured prominently in protest speeches across states.

For the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), the strike was a “historic success,” with demonstrations reported at more than 2,000 locations nationwide. The organisation characterised the mobilisation as a warning to the ruling dispensation: withdraw what it called anti-people laws or face prolonged resistance. Participation, it emphasised, cut across organised and unorganised sectors, underlining the breadth of social discontent.

AIKS leader Vijoo Krishnan framed the moment as one of political clarity rather than episodic protest. “This unity of workers and peasants is not accidental,” he said. “It reflects deep anger against policies that privatise profits and socialise losses. The government must withdraw the anti-worker labour codes and anti-farmer measures. If it fails to listen, today’s strike will only be the beginning of a longer and stronger struggle.”

Significantly, the mobilisation was not confined to physical spaces. Social media became an extension of the protest ground. Hashtags trended across platforms, live videos from picket lines travelled instantly between states, and infographics explaining the labour codes and farm-related legislations were widely circulated in multiple languages. Leaders used digital tools not merely for publicity but for political education — simplifying complex policy questions into accessible, shareable content.

Farmers gather at Freedom Park in Bangalore on February 10 to launch an indefinite strike. Photo: Vijoo Krishnan/FB

Vijoo Krishnan and other SKM leaders conducted regular live briefings  in real time and amplified ground reports from district-level actions. Short video messages from protest sites in Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal created a sense of simultaneity — of a nation rising together rather than isolated pockets of unrest. In an era where narratives are shaped as much online as on the streets, the strike demonstrated that digital platforms can be harnessed to deepen organisational coordination and expand the moral reach of collective action.

Video of strike from Tamil Nadu

In Haryana’s Kurukshetra, where the SKM is scheduled to hold its National Council meeting on February 24, the emphasis is already shifting from assessment to escalation. The coming phase, leaders indicate, will be shaped both independently and in coordination with trade unions and agricultural workers’ platforms.

If the Modi led BJP – NDA government reads February 12 as a routine disruption, it may be misreading the mood. What unfolded across India was less a stoppage of work than a consolidation of resistance — an assertion that the grammar of economic reform cannot be written without the consent of those who labour in fields, factories and public services.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.