Critique of the BJP’s Weakening of Labour Rights Compared to Ambedkar’s Labour Centric Vision

by Kumar Gaurav

B. R. Ambedkar’s contribution to the labour movement is foundational to India’s democratic and economic framework. As the country’s first Labour Minister under the Viceroy’s Executive Council and later the chief architect of the Constitution, he laid down essential principles that protected workers from exploitation and gave them rights that had never existed in colonial India. His work produced laws on working hours, minimum wages, maternity benefits, dispute resolution, and social security. Ambedkar believed that labour rights were not optional policy choices but essential guarantees that upheld dignity, equality, and economic justice. When this vision is placed alongside the labour code reforms introduced by the BJP government, the contrast is stark. Many of the reforms reverse or weaken the principles Ambedkar considered central to social and economic democracy.

Ambedkar viewed labour not as a commodity but as human effort shaped by social conditions and inequities. He argued that the state had a duty to protect workers because the power imbalance between employers and employees was too great to leave unregulated. His philosophy emerged from a framework that connected social justice with economic justice. He believed that workers deserved not only fair wages and humane conditions but also a voice in the decisions that shaped their lives. Labour rights, in his view, were a form of moral and political protection.

The BJP government’s labour codes, passed in 2020, consolidate 29 existing labour laws into four large codes. Supporters argue that these reforms modernize labour governance, simplify compliance, and encourage investment. Yet a closer analysis reveals that they dilute key protections Ambedkar fought to institutionalize. The Industrial Relations Code raises the threshold for employer permission during layoffs, retrenchment, and closures from 100 workers to 300 workers. This means that a much larger number of enterprises can dismiss workers without government approval. Ambedkar would have viewed this as a serious erosion of worker security. He consistently argued that employment stability was central to economic dignity and that workers should not be left at the mercy of market fluctuations.

The weakening of union rights is another major concern. Ambedkar believed unions were essential for balancing economic power. He played an important role in shaping early trade union protections and formal dispute resolution systems. Under the new labour codes, the rules for union recognition become more restrictive, and the conditions for going on strike become significantly harder. Workers now require prior notice of 14 days before striking, and this rule applies even to sectors where notice was not mandated earlier. Ambedkar saw the right to collective action as fundamental. Diluting this right shifts power decisively toward employers.

The Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions contains another worrying trend. It increases the threshold for mandatory safeguards. Smaller establishments, which already tend to have weaker oversight, are now exempt from several requirements. Ambedkar introduced the eight hour workday in India and fought to regulate factories precisely because smaller workplaces were often the most exploitative. He believed that safety and dignity should not depend on the size of an enterprise but on the rights of the worker. Removing smaller units from strict regulation contradicts this principle.

The Social Security Code also raises issues that Ambedkar would find troubling. While it claims to expand protections for gig and platform workers, many of the provisions are vague and do not guarantee clear benefits. Much of the responsibility is placed on state governments or on schemes yet to be established. Ambedkar believed that social security must be a firm legal commitment, not a policy possibility. The absence of guaranteed benefits goes against the certainty he demanded for worker protection.

A deeper issue lies in the economic philosophy driving the reforms. Ambedkar supported state intervention in the economy not to control industry, but to prevent exploitation and promote equal opportunity. He argued for state led development with clear labour safeguards. The BJP’s approach, however, privileges ease of doing business and investor confidence over worker protection. This represents a shift from a worker centric model to an employer centric model. Ambedkar would argue that economic growth without labour dignity creates inequality and weakens democracy.

Ambedkar’s critique would also extend to India’s expanding informal workforce. A majority of workers today lack formal contracts, social security, or stable income. The labour codes claim to address informal workers but in practice do not provide clear mechanisms for enforcement. Ambedkar introduced compulsory insurance schemes and minimum wage laws precisely because he believed that the state must protect those who fall outside the formal economy. The dilution of inspections through self certification and random checks reduces the state’s ability to safeguard these workers. Ambedkar would view this as a withdrawal of state responsibility at a time when workers need more protection, not less.

The weakening of accountability mechanisms is another problem. The labour codes replace mandatory inspections with a risk based system and allow for digital compliance instead of physical oversight. Ambedkar would argue that without strong inspection systems, labour laws become symbolic. He spent decades building the institutional framework for enforcement because he understood that rights on paper mean little without real monitoring. The shift toward employer driven compliance undermines this entire structure.

The BJP government often justifies these reforms by claiming that flexible labour laws will create more jobs. Ambedkar would question this assumption. He argued that real development comes from empowering workers, increasing productivity, and protecting their rights. Deregulation that favours only investors does not create a stable or skilled workforce. Development, in his view, must balance growth with justice. By weakening job security, social security, and collective bargaining, the labour codes may create short term flexibility but long term instability.

Ambedkar’s vision for labour was rooted in a clear moral position: every worker deserves dignity, stability, and protection. Labour rights are not obstacles to growth but foundations of a fair economy. The BJP’s labour reforms shift India away from this vision. They prioritize efficiency over equity, flexibility over security, and employer freedom over worker rights. Ambedkar would see this not as modernization but as a backward step in the struggle for economic democracy.

The contrast between Ambedkar’s labour centric policy framework and the BJP’s employer centric labour codes highlights a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of economic policy. Ambedkar believed that the state must act as a guardian of the vulnerable. The current reforms reduce that role significantly. In doing so, they weaken not only the rights of workers but the democratic principles that Ambedkar considered essential for India’s future.