Construction sites across Indian cities are filled with workers who labour through fever, pain, and exhaustion because one day off means one day without pay. For millions of migrant workers, economic survival and physical well-being are locked in direct opposition. They form a daily reality produced by policy design rather than personal choice.

This lived reality stands in sharp contrast to how migration is framed globally. This year, International Migrants Day was marked under the theme “My Great Story: Cultures and Development.” The United Nations celebrates migration as a driver of economic growth and cultural exchange, estimating remittances to low- and middle-income countries at USD 685 billion. Yet, even within this optimistic framing, the UN acknowledges a critical gap: institutions are often unwilling or unprepared to respond to the conditions under which migrants actually live and work.

Nowhere is this gap more visible than in India’s rural–urban divide. While migration is officially portrayed as a pathway to development, the informal economy that sustains urban life depends on the sustained physical depletion of socially invisible workers. Migration, for most, is not a choice but a compulsion. Rural employment systems fail to provide year-round livelihoods, forcing households to survive on barely 125 days of work and pushing millions toward cities under conditions shaped by desperation rather than opportunity.

From rural security to urban precarity

Migration in India remains poorly understood and weakly governed. Rural employment follows a harsh arithmetic of survival: even with 125 days of guaranteed work under the revamped Act, families face nearly 240 days of uncertainty every year. This persistent gap structures distress migration as a necessity, not a strategy.

The issue is not merely numerical. MGNREGA wages (₹220–300 per day) appear insufficient. But this analysis misses a crucial political function. MGNREGA operates as the most effective wage floor in India, limiting how cheaply labour can be procured and altering bargaining power at the bottom of the economy. Even at lower nominal rates, it allows rural workers to negotiate from a position of reduced desperation rather than absolute vulnerability.

The proposed restructuring raises guaranteed workdays to 125 but fundamentally alters the programme’s character. It introduces a 60:40 cost-sharing formula (90:10 for northeastern states) and replaces the demand-driven model with normative allocations, where the Centre pre-determines state budgets. A mandated 60-day agricultural rest period aims to ensure farm labour availability, but in practice, it constrains employment for landless workers and marginal farmers who require year-round income security.

For reforms to succeed, three conditions are essential. First, allocation formulas must be transparent and allow mid-year emergency revisions. Second, states require adequate fiscal transfers and technical capacity to meet new administrative demands. Third, agricultural breaks must be locally calibrated, with alternative livelihood options during blackout periods. Weekly wage payments, while promising, are viable only with a socially relevant digital infrastructure that does not exclude people and with strict enforcement of delay compensation.

More troubling are the exclusions embedded in the expansion. The framework offers no skill pathways, no protection from migration agents, and no buffers against climate distress. The 125-day cap reflects fiscal convenience, not livelihood security. Simultaneously, the rollout of four labour codes leaves major gaps: small enterprises, fixed-term workers, and vast informal populations remain outside meaningful protection. Together, these exclusions do not merely fail to prevent distress migration, they actively channel workers into the least regulated segments of urban labour markets.

It is into these unregulated urban labour markets that displaced rural workers are absorbed. Driven by farm mechanisation, climate shocks, and declining rural incomes, now compounded by weak rural safety nets, workers enter informal employment where nearly 90% lack written contracts, social security, or health benefits. Wages are so low that rent is barely affordable in overcrowded settlements, exposing households to illness, debt, and income shocks. Under such conditions, health ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege.

The body keeps a score

This insecurity is etched directly onto migrant bodies. Construction workers inhale cement dust without protective gear, leading to chronic respiratory disease and silicosis. Street vendors endure heat and cold, resulting in dehydration, joint disorders, and heatstroke. Domestic workers labour for long hours without rest. Injuries from scaffolding collapses, falls, and abrasions are common but rarely reported. Silence becomes a survival strategy when claiming compensation threatens future employment.

Administrative barriers further restrict access to public healthcare. Migrants often lack local identity documents, while caste- and language-based discrimination discourages service use. Even when care is available, costs related to medicines, diagnostics, and lost wages make treatment unaffordable. As a result, most migrants either pay out of pocket or delay care until illness becomes severe, compounding long-term health and financial consequences.

Urban migrants face a heightened risk of tuberculosis due to congested housing and delayed diagnosis driven by income insecurity. Mental health remains even more neglected. Prolonged separation from family, harsh work environments, wage theft, and constant precarity generate chronic stress, fueling depression, anxiety, and substance dependence, conditions that flourish in the absence of systemic support.

Urban labour markets: structural constraints

To understand why migrant workers remain trapped in cycles of disease and debt, one must examine the business logic governing their labour. India’s ₹7 lakh crore construction industry operates through layered contractor–subcontractor arrangements that diffuse responsibility. Intermediaries create plausible deniability when wages are withheld or safety norms violated. These outcomes are not accidental but structurally embedded.

Safety equipment, health insurance, and social security constitute fixed costs that companies routinely neglect. Scaffold collapses are reframed as individual negligence, silicosis due to pre-existing conditions, and wage theft as a contractual dispute. This reflects a deeper policy failure: while GDP and tax revenues rise, investment in and implementation of migrant welfare mechanisms are not prioritised.

How rural employment failures fuel urban exploitation

This arrangement is closely tied to the rural employment guarantee itself. MGNREGA wages, which remain lower than informal urban wages, sustain a gap that continues to push workers toward cities and replenish the supply of cheap labour in urban markets. If rural incomes were to rise substantially, or if year-round employment were available, this push would weaken. This is an adjustment that current urban growth models are not designed to absorb. Agricultural distress, therefore, is not just a rural policy failure; it actively supports low-wage systems in urban centres.

While the proposed changes do not reduce existing MGNREGA wage rates, they must address this imbalance through meaningful livelihood planning. The framework identifies opportunities for skill development in areas such as water security, rural infrastructure, livelihood assets, and climate adaptation. The 60-day agricultural breaks could be used for focused training, allowing workers to gain skills in construction, machinery operation, or supervision, and improve earning potential across both rural and urban labour markets.

Infrastructure priorities also matter. Rural roads that connect villages to markets, water systems that raise farm productivity, and storage facilities that reduce post-harvest losses can generate stable local employment beyond the 125-day limit. With proper planning and genuine involvement of the Gram Sabha, the employment guarantee can move beyond crisis relief and become a foundation for rural economic stability.

Seasonal migration is likely to persist even when rural employment improves. The aim, therefore, should not be to stop migration but to make it safer and less exploitative. This requires portable social security, coordination between states, and recognition of skills gained through rural work in urban labour markets. Employment guarantees must be part of a broader welfare system that follows workers across regions.

A system built on cheap and disposable labour

Climate shocks, mechanisation, and declining farm incomes are real pressures, but their effects are worsened by policy choices that consistently favour capital over labour. Minimum support prices for agricultural produce often fail to cover cultivation costs, input subsidies have declined, and irrigation gaps persist. Instead of correcting these structural problems, labour codes risk deepening them by weakening worker protections and expanding insecure forms of employment.

What we see today is the outcome of decades of policy choices that have kept wages low, labour highly mobile, and collective bargaining weak. The deeper problem is an economic model that treats workers as expendable inputs rather than as participants in development.

Who protects this invisible workforce? Who ensures that the hands that build India’s cities are not broken in the process?

Work, migration, and dignity

Recent policy shifts offer an opportunity to integrate rural employment into broader national development plans such as “Viksit Bharat” and “PM Gati Shakti.” But this must not come at the cost of local decision-making. The Gram Sabha, as mandated by the Constitution, must remain central, with technical support strengthening, not replacing, community control.

The value of employment guarantees goes far beyond wage payments. Stable incomes create steady demand in rural markets, helping small businesses survive and local economies function. This multiplier effect stabilises entire communities and challenges the idea that social protection and economic growth are in conflict.

Governance also matters. Wage payments must not fail due to technical barriers; systems should allow offline access and alternative verification. Social audits should be strengthened, not centralised, combining digital tools with community oversight. Allowing workers to access employment guarantees across states would further reduce vulnerability for migrant households.

Above all, work must be recognised as a right, not charity. The universality of employment guarantees reshapes power relations in labour markets long shaped by inequality. This principle must extend beyond villages to cities through portable health coverage, mobile social security, and functioning welfare boards for informal workers.

Success should not be measured through dashboards alone, but through lived outcomes: whether households gain stability, whether distress migration declines, and whether workers, rural and urban, are treated with dignity.

Migrant workers are not numbers in an economic model. They are human beings whose labour sustains cities and drives growth. A silent workforce has built India’s cities. It is time to build systems that protect their health, rights, and dignity.

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any organisation or institution with which the author is associated.)

Edited by Parth Sharma
Image by Gayatri