ASHA and Anganwadi Workers and the Crisis of India Welfare State
The ongoing protests by ASHA and anganwadi workers in West Bengal demanding a monthly wage of ₹15,000 are not merely an episodic labour agitation. They represent a deeper structural failure of the Indian welfare state to reconcile its expanding social policy ambitions with the constitutional promise of dignity of labour. These workers-central to public health, nutrition, and child development-remain trapped in a paradox where the state depends heavily on their services while simultaneously denying them the status, security, and remuneration accorded to formal workers.
Historical Roots of Institutionalised Informality
The origins of this contradiction can be traced to the early years of India’s welfare expansion. Under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) launched in 1975, anganwadi workers were designated as “honorary volunteers” rather than employees. This classification, first formalised during the Indira Gandhi era, allowed the state to bypass labour laws related to minimum wages, social security, and service conditions. Over time, this exception became the rule.
The judiciary reinforced this arrangement. In State of Karnataka vs Ameerbi, a tribunal decision later upheld, anganwadi workers were explicitly excluded from the definition of government employees. This occurred even as the Supreme Court, in the early 2000s, expanded the right to food, increasing the operational burden on ICDS functionaries. Thus, responsibility grew, but rights did not.
ASHA Workers and the Expansion of the Same Model
The mid-2000s saw the introduction of ASHA workers under the National Rural Health Mission (later subsumed under NHM). Once again, the state relied on semantic manoeuvring-labelling them “activists” rather than workers. While ASHAs became indispensable to immunization drives, maternal health, disease surveillance, and later pandemic response, their compensation remained incentive-based, irregular, and grossly inadequate.
This structural informality persisted despite consensus emerging across stakeholders. At the 45th Indian Labour Conference, representatives of government, employers, and trade unions jointly recommended regularisation, minimum wages, and social security benefits for ASHA workers. Successive governments-both UPA and NDA-chose not to implement these recommendations, reflecting a bipartisan reluctance to absorb fiscal and legal responsibility.
Fiscal Retrenchment and Burden Shifting
The crisis deepened after 2015 when the Centre reduced allocations for ICDS, followed by freezing its contribution to ASHA and anganwadi honoraria in 2018. This effectively shifted the burden of sustaining frontline welfare workers onto States. In a federal system marked by unequal fiscal capacity, the consequences were predictable.
Wealthier States or those facing sustained union pressure were able to top up payments or offer additional benefits. Poorer or fiscally constrained States could not. The result is a fragmented welfare workforce where workers performing identical national functions receive vastly different compensation based solely on geography. Such disparity undermines the idea of uniform citizenship and equal protection under the law.
Labour Codes and the Retreat of the Social Contract
The enactment of new labour codes was expected to correct long-standing exclusions. However, the Code on Social Security largely failed to guarantee enforceable rights for scheme workers and gig workers. By prioritising labour market “flexibility” and fiscal prudence, the state appears to be retreating from its social contract with its most vulnerable workers.
This retreat is especially troubling when viewed through the constitutional lens. Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, encompasses the right to live with dignity. Persistent underpayment, lack of job security, and denial of social protection to workers delivering essential public services directly violate this principle.
Gender, Care Work, and Structural Invisibility
It is also significant that ASHA and anganwadi workers are overwhelmingly women. Their work lies at the intersection of care, community service, and informal labour-sectors historically undervalued because they mirror unpaid domestic labour. The state’s reliance on moral rhetoric-service, sacrifice, voluntarism-has effectively normalised gendered exploitation.
During crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, these workers were hailed as “frontline warriors”. Yet this symbolic recognition did not translate into durable institutional rights. The gap between rhetoric and reality reveals how gendered care work remains structurally invisible in economic accounting and policy prioritisation.
The Way Forward: Legal Reclassification and Fiscal Responsibility
Meaningful reform requires a decisive break from the past. First, the Centre must legally reclassify ASHA and anganwadi workers as statutory employees under the Code on Social Security, with enforceable entitlements to minimum wages, pension, and health insurance. This is not an act of generosity but a constitutional obligation.
Second, Centre–State fiscal arrangements must be redesigned to ensure equitable pay across regions. Central schemes cannot rely on decentralised implementation while central funding stagnates. Bridging fiscal gaps is essential to prevent a race to the bottom in labour standards.
Third, grievance redressal mechanisms and collective bargaining rights must be strengthened. Denial of employee status has also meant denial of voice. A democratic welfare state cannot function on the silent labour of an insecure workforce.
Conclusion
The protests by ASHA and anganwadi workers are a moral and constitutional challenge to the Indian state. A welfare architecture built on the systematic denial of labour rights is neither sustainable nor just. If India aspires to inclusive development and social justice, it must move beyond symbolic appreciation and institutionalise dignity through law, wages, and social security. Recognising these workers as workers is the first step toward restoring the credibility of the social contract itself.
UPSC Prelims Question
With reference to ASHA and Anganwadi workers in India, consider the following statements:
- They are legally classified as permanent government employees under the Code on Social Security.
- The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme predates the National Rural Health Mission.
- Recommendations for regularisation of ASHA workers were made at the 45th Indian Labour Conference.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 2 and 3 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
UPSC Mains Question (GS-II)
“The denial of formal worker status to ASHA and Anganwadi workers reflects a deeper contradiction in India’s welfare state.”
Critically examine this statement in the context of constitutional values, labour reforms, and Centre–State fiscal relations
