As India ushered in the new year on December 31 with celebrations and convenience-driven discounts, a significant segment of its workforce was gearing up for a different kind of reckoning. Gig workers across food delivery and ride-hailing platforms initiated a strike, a collective action born from mounting frustrations over long shifts, unpredictable earnings, relentless algorithmic pressure, and a stark lack of institutional safety nets.
The Platform Playbook and a Missed Narrative
The response from the digital platforms followed a predictable pattern. To maintain uninterrupted service, temporary incentive hikes were rolled out. A public relations effort was launched to minimise the scale of the discontent. Striking workers were dismissed as a small group of "miscreants". This narrative, focused on market disruption, conveniently sidestepped the core issue: the structural vulnerabilities faced by India's fastest-growing labour segment.
This conflict between efficiency and dignity is not new to India, having played out historically in factories and mines. The difference now lies in the sheer scale and visibility of the gig economy, which platforms often reframe as mere consumer inconvenience. It forces a uncomfortable realisation: the expectation of instant, cheap services is intrinsically linked to the precarious working conditions of millions.
The Legal Limbo of India's Gig Workforce
India's gig economy operates in a profound legal grey area. While the law acknowledges these workers, it stops short of granting them the certainty of traditional employment rights. Promises of social security remain largely unenforced. This ambiguity has predominantly benefited the platforms, allowing them to transfer operational and financial risks almost entirely onto the individual labourer.
Gig work has emerged as a pragmatic, though imperfect, solution in an economy struggling with formal job creation. Workers choose these platforms not for ideal conditions, but for the immediate availability and organised access to livelihood. With projections showing the sector growing from 7.7 million workers to over 23 million by 2030, it stands as one of the nation's largest job-creation engines. Yet, policy development remains sluggish and reactive.
Beyond Market Logic: The Moral Arithmetic of Convenience
Defenders of the platform model argue it simply reflects market dynamics, offering flexibility and enabling economic participation. While partially true, this view is incomplete. Market pricing does not erase moral responsibility. The current model allows key investors and entities to capture upside value while workers bear almost all the downside risk—be it injury, income fluctuation, or algorithmic penalisation.
A stark contradiction underpins the public debate. Many platforms are not yet profitable, workers argue pay is insufficient, and customers remain highly price-sensitive. Those expressing outrage online are often unwilling to pay more for the services. This selective "moral arithmetic" extends to valuations, which assume future dominance and pricing power, while appeals for worker protection are met with talk of thin margins and market discipline.
There are no simple villains here. Platforms did not create India's vast informal labour tradition but have digitised and scaled it at a pace that has outstripped regulatory adaptation. The government's role must evolve beyond indefinite arbitration. It requires crafting a balance that fosters growth while ensuring fairness, moving towards enforceable standards on safety nets, grievance redressal, and algorithmic transparency.
The strike ultimately exposes a cultural discomfort. The desire for frictionless innovation and market efficiency often ignores the social cost. As author and corporate advisor Srinath Sridharan notes, every economic system eventually faces its moral accounting. The gig economy is now at that crossroads. Labour can be flexible, but dignity must not be negotiable.
