Migrant Labour Crisis during Covid-19 Pandemic in India
An Analysis of the unintended consequences
By Rohit Shukla
During the first wave of COVID-19 in India, the Government implemented a nationwide lockdown in an abrupt and unplanned manner, resulting in severe humanitarian consequences. Although India reported its first COVID-19 case on 30 January 2020[1], the Government delayed initiating public awareness campaigns or preparing citizens for the impact of the pandemic. Instead, it enforced a sudden lockdown on 24 March 2020, just four hours after the announcement[2], leaving millions unprepared. This decision failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the approximately 139 million daily wage workers and migrant laborers in India[3], many of whom were forced to walk barefoot for hundreds of miles to reach their homes, with no provisions for food, water, or shelter[4]. Public transport had shut down, forcing these workers to take desperate measures, leading to crowding at stations and increasing the risk of spreading the virus[5]. Security personnel fined and mistreated many on their journeys, exacerbating their suffering.[6]
The complete lack of planning compounded the crisis. Migrants were arrested for violating lockdown rules; some died of exhaustion or were involved in fatal accidents on the roads.[7] To avoid police and roadblocks, many workers traveled along railway tracks, resulting in some of them being stuck by the goods trains.[8]
According to The Economic Times, over 350 deaths were reported by 10 May, attributed to starvation, suicides, exhaustion, road and rail accidents, police brutality, and denial of timely medical care. Most of these fatalities involved marginalized migrant laborers.[9]
This humanitarian disaster exposed the government’s failure to anticipate the harsh impact on vulnerable populations. Instead of containing the pandemic, the policy exacerbated suffering, leaving millions trapped between hunger, disease, and uncertainty, with little hope of relief. The situation laid bare the tragic consequences of ill-planned policies imposed without consideration for those living on the margins of society.
What Went Wrong?
1. Abrupt Implementation of Lockdown: The decision to enforce a nationwide lockdown with just four hours’ notice left millions unprepared. Many migrants were stranded far from their homes, with no means of transportation as public services were halted. This sudden announcement did not allow time for citizens to secure food, water, or shelter, exacerbating their plight. [10]
2. Lack of Planning and Coordination: India reported its first COVID-19 case on January 30, 2020[11], but for almost two months, no substantial action was taken to prepare for the possibility of a nationwide lockdown and its unintended outcomes. Public awareness campaigns were delayed, and local governments were unprepared to manage the sudden halt of economic activities.
3. Neglect of Vulnerable Populations: The government’s failure to anticipate the extensive disruption caused by the lockdown disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations, mainly migrant laborers and those on society’s margins, who make up a significant portion of India’s workforce. With industries shut down, these individuals lost their livelihoods overnight. Reports indicated that 96% of migrant workers had not received rations or wages during the lockdown[12]. The lack of a social security net for these people highlighted systemic inequalities that had long been ignored.
4. Inadequate Planning and Response: The lockdown was announced without consulting state governments, businesses, non-profits, or labor groups and with no plan to support vulnerable populations.[13] Many migrant workers, stranded in cities with no income, had to walk home — often hundreds of kilometers away — since public transport was immediately shut down. The government’s response was characterized by poor planning and execution. Initial measures included vague directives for landlords and employers regarding rent and wages, which were later retracted. Additionally, the absence of clear guidelines for providing food and shelter led to widespread starvation and suffering among migrants[14].
5. Human Rights Violations: Police were instructed to enforce the lockdown strictly, and it resorted to excessive force, beating people on the streets and fining those attempting to return home. This harsh response reflected a lack of empathy and further marginalized already vulnerable populations. Numerous reports emerged of migrants being beaten or arrested while trying to navigate inter-state borders. [15] For example, in Bareilly district, migrants were sprayed with disinfectants, causing outrage on social media and shedding light on the treatment meted out to the poor daily wage migrant laborers. [16]
6. Failure to Utilize Existing Frameworks: India has a history of migration and labor laws designed to protect workers, such as the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act of 1979. However, these protections could have been better implemented and were virtually non-existent during the crisis. The lack of coordination between states and the power tussle blame game further complicated efforts to provide relief. [17]
7. Humanitarian Disaster for Migrant Workers: According to reports, more than 350 deaths were recorded by May 10, attributed to starvation, suicides, exhaustion, road and rail accidents, police violence, and lack of timely medical assistance.[18] Migrant workers, desperate to return home, traveled along railway tracks to avoid police checkpoints, only to be struck and killed by passing trains.[19] The government failed to anticipate the plight of millions of workers living paycheck to paycheck, causing widespread suffering.
8. Poor Communication and Trust Deficit: There was little communication with the public regarding the lockdown’s timeline. The sudden enforcement sowed confusion and panic, with people crowding bus stops and railway stations attempting to leave cities, ironically worsening the risk of virus transmission.[20] The lack of coordination between central and provincial governments further eroded trust, as inconsistent policies left citizens uncertain what to expect[21].
What Could Have Been Done Differently
1. Gradual Implementation of Lockdown: A phased approach could have allowed individuals time to prepare adequately for the lockdown. The government could have announced the impending lockdown, enabling citizens to stock up on essentials and make transportation arrangements. The forewarning would have to deterred citizens from practicing cautionary measures such as using masks and avoiding visiting crowded places. It would have provided local governments time to plan for this impending lockdown and test inter-city migrants by a certain date. The government could have ensured public transportation was running with strict cautionary measures in a phased approach. Clear communication regarding safety measures, available resources, and government support systems would have mitigated confusion and panic.
2. Targeted Support for Vulnerable Groups: India’s vulnerability during lockdowns stems from a reliance on casual employment by 20% of households, an informal sector employing 80% of the workforce contributing over 50% of GDP, and low median household savings insufficient to sustain 38% of families through even a 21-day lockdown and 61.7% of families living in poverty.[22] Prioritizing support for vulnerable populations should have been central to any lockdown strategy. This could have included direct cash transfers and provisions for temporary housing in urban areas where many migrants were stranded. The government should have announced immediate cash transfers and food rations to support daily wage earners along with the announcement of lockdown to assuage public panic.
3. Coordination Between Central and State Governments: A coordinated response involving central and state governments would have facilitated better resource allocation and support systems for returning migrants. Establishing a centralized database to track migrant workers would have enabled more effective planning. A central task force, working closely with states before lockdown implementation, would have ensured uniform policies and consistent messaging nationwide. State governments could have arranged shelters, transport, and essential services for stranded workers. [23]
4. Compassionate Policing: Rather than enforcing the lockdown through punitive measures, the government could have trained security personnel to provide assistance and ensure safe passage for essential workers and travellers. Compassionate policing would have helped build trust with citizens and reduced instances of police brutality. The Policing in India during the Covid-19 Pandemic report by Common Cause NGO mentions that “Despite reports of excessive force, questionable arrests, and custodial deaths, many felt secure with increased police presence. However, poorer communities felt threatened by the police and doubted the fairness of rule enforcement.[24]
5. Public Communication and Awareness Campaigns:
The government could have launched early communication campaigns to prepare citizens for the lockdown. Transparent messaging would have reduced panic and encouraged cooperation from the public. Clear guidelines for essential services would have ensured citizens had access to food, medicine, and transport when needed.
Recommendations for Future Crises
1. Establishing a Comprehensive Disaster Response Framework: The Indian Constitution has no provision for public health Emergencies as the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 does not clearly define the purview of “epidemic disease”[25]. India needs a national emergency response framework to coordinate actions across sectors and governments, with specific provisions for vulnerable populations during public health emergencies or natural disasters. In August 2024, the NITI Aayog pitched for a Public Health Emergency Management Act (PHEMA), which remains to be discussed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.[26] This framework should include contingency plans for public health crises incorporating lessons from the COVID-19 experience. [27]
2. Strengthening Social Safety Nets: Expanding social security measures such as universal basic income or unemployment benefits can provide a safety net for low-income workers during future crises. Ensuring portability of benefits across states is crucial for migrant populations.[28]
3. Enhancing Infrastructure for Migrant Workers: Developing infrastructure such as affordable housing complexes designed explicitly for migrant workers can help reduce vulnerabilities in urban areas. Creating accessible shelters during emergencies can also mitigate risks associated with sudden evacuations or lockdowns.[29] The Indian government launched the Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHC) scheme in July 2020. Still, four years later, less than 7% of the 83,000+ government-constructed flats have been repurposed as low-cost rental housing for the urban poor[30].
4. Improving Health Infrastructure: Investing in healthcare infrastructure is essential for managing pandemics and ensuring general public health resilience. Increasing healthcare accessibility in rural areas can help address disparities marginalized communities face. According to WHO guidelines, one doctor should be for every 1,000 people. In stark contrast, Bihar has one doctor for every 43,788 people, and Delhi has one doctor per 2,208 people, which fares best[31]. Nearly 1 million Accredited Social Health Activists or Asha Workers were key actors in government efforts to control COVID-19, yet their jobs remain temporary and paid meagerly.[32]
5. Regular Training Programs for Law Enforcement: Training law enforcement personnel on human rights issues is essential to prevent abuses during emergencies. Ensuring police are equipped to handle crises with empathy rather than force can help protect vulnerable populations. In a report, the National Human Rights Commission has advocated that “Police training should be focused on bringing a change in the attitude of the force to make them more sensitive towards respecting the rights of citizens”[33].
Rohit Shukla is currently a student of the GCPP (Advanced Public Policy) Programme. Read the original piece here.
Cover Image credits: Manish Swarup/AP