THE WEST BENGAL ASSEMBLY’S recent resolution on the safety of migrant workers has reignited an unresolved issue of ensuring the safety of migrant workers once they cross state borders in search of work. The resolution highlights the constitutional and human rights concerns about the safety, dignity, and equality of migrant workers who form the backbone of India’s informal economy and growth.
The West Bengal Assembly’s resolution comes in response to increasing incidents of violence, discrimination, and unsafe working conditions faced by its migrant workers in their host states, from construction workers in Kerala and Karnataka, to domestic labourers in Delhi, and industrial workers in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
Thus, the constitutional guarantee of free movement under Article 19(1)(d) and the right to reside and settle anywhere in India under Article 19(1)(e) are often violated in practice. In this context, the Assembly resolution calls for recognising these constitutional violations and demands accountability from the Centre and other state governments. The resolution is aimed at asserting the state identity and political dissent within the Indian federation, reinforcing the idea that they are not mere administrative units but active political entities with the power and ability to shape national discourse by raising their voice on significant matters regarding migrant safety and to prevent harassment based on cultural identity.
Migration is not always a matter of free choice but of economic compulsion. Once the migrant workers cross the borders of their states, they face a plethora of issues ranging from cases of physical attacks to unsafe housing. In the past, during the COVID-19 lockdown, thousands of migrants from many states, including West Bengal, were left vulnerable, walking back hundreds of kilometres, violating their dignity.
Bengali migrants continue to face ethnic and linguistic discrimination in post-pandemic India in non-Bengali-speaking states. They are routinely suspected of being illegal immigrants and stigmatised for changing the local demography in states like Assam, with threats of detention and further exclusion. Since many such migrants work in the informal labour market, they get low-paying jobs, work in unsafe conditions, and have little to no job security. As many migrants are registered to vote in their home states, they suffer from political invisibility and exclusion in their host states, making them more vulnerable to violence and harassment. Their concerns are seldom prioritised and voiced by the local leaders. The issue is not only economic but constitutional, as the lived experience of Bengal’s migrants shows a large gap between their rights as citizens and the protections they receive in practice.
The resolution is aimed at asserting the state identity and political dissent within the Indian federation, reinforcing the idea that they are not mere administrative units but active political entities.
Similarly, there have been rising tensions involving Hindi-speaking migrants in non-Hindi-speaking states like Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, where migrant workers, coming from Hindi-speaking states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, have been facing harassment, violence and exclusion and are accused of stealing jobs from the locals. The demands for reservation in employment for locals under the " sun of the soil " are rising.
Hindi-speaking migrants often face hostility, exclusion and cultural alienation in non-Hindi-speaking states, including semi-urban and rural areas, amidst the centre’s push for Hindi and states' push for preserving their language and cultural identity, due to the imposition of Hindi. There have been considerable tensions between state autonomy and individual rights provided under the Constitution, often triggering backlash. States are trying to preserve the local language, culture and collective identity. In contrast, individuals can move and reside in any part of India, expressing their language and cultural identity.
The issue faced by migrant workers highlighted above, despite being rooted in matters of language, identity, culture and regional politics, differs in its nature and implications. While the Hindi speakers face linguistic and cultural pushback from the local population due to the perceived imposition of Hindi, Bengali migrants face deeper issues of suspicion on account of illegal migration and fears of detention and loss of citizenship. While both groups of migrants deal with discrimination, exclusion, and marginalisation, the issues faced by Bengali migrants involve interconnected and intersectional questions of legal status, religion, nationality and various other ethno-political questions, where Hindi speakers' struggles in non-Hindi speaking states are primarily linguistic and cultural, in an environment of politicisation of identity in the context of migration debates in India.
The complex and intersectional challenges faced by migrants in India require a more nuanced examination of linguistic rights, cultural identity, constitutional freedoms, state autonomy, and the evolving nature of Indian federalism. Several constitutional provisions are relevant in such situations, including Article 14, which ensures that no migrant can be discriminated against based on origin or domicile. Article 15(1) explicitly prohibits discrimination based on place of birth. Article 19(1)(d) and (e) secure the right to move freely and settle anywhere in India. Article 21 has been interpreted to include livelihood, dignity, and humane working conditions.
From a human rights perspective, the vulnerabilities of migrant workers align with global concerns. Even the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasise that states must safeguard all rights within their territory, regardless of origin. Migrants’ rights to adequate housing, health, security, and non-discrimination are binding obligations. The plight of Bengal’s migrants illustrates the gap between international commitments and domestic realities.
At the domestic level, the legal framework is fragmented as the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 exists, but its enforcement has been negligible. Its replacement under the 2020 labour codes has been a matter of concern regarding accountability, affecting the Constitution’s assurance of fraternity and dignity.
For the millions of migrant workers from Bengal and beyond, the resolution must translate into a national framework.
Thus, protecting migrant workers requires a renewed framework based on cooperative federalism, which intends to implement the same. This holds for the Labour codes, which must be enforced entirely by including state labour departments, trade unions, civil society, and the National and State Human Rights Commissions, who must proactively monitor migrant safety and hold states accountable.
In this regard, the West Bengal Assembly’s resolution throws light on a constitutional acrimony for the workers who are Indian citizens but are treated as outsiders once they leave their state. This is not merely a failure of labour laws; it also violates the principles of equality and fraternity.
Going forward, reimagining migrant safety as a constitutional and human rights obligation, rather than a matter of state discretion, is essential. It can only be achieved through cooperative federalism, where the Centre and states jointly ensure that no citizen’s rights are violated due to migration. For the millions of migrant workers from Bengal and beyond, the resolution must translate into a national framework that affirms their safety, dignity and livelihoods as a constitutional right.