India's Gig Economy Is Evolving—It Needs Transparency, Not More Tweets | The Reason Why

India’s X (formerly Twitter) turned into a boiling pot over the last few days—as it often does—but this time the topic was different. For once, the debate wasn’t about Nehru, Gandhi, or Modi. It was about the gig economy, workers, and capitalism.

The spark was a series of tweets by Deepinder Goyal, founder of Zomato and Blinkit, responding to delivery partner strikes during Christmas and New Year. Some riders joined the strike, some didn’t.

But Goyal’s defence of the gig model—and the backlash that followed—quickly turned into a broader debate on how India treats its workers.

I’ve long admired Goyal’s work: from early Zomato days to initiatives like period leave, his stand against religious discrimination, and even the 10‑minute ambulance service.

Precisely because of that admiration, this debate deserves to be examined without turning it into a personality contest.

Supporters of the gig model make a fair point: it has low entry barriers, offers flexibility, and absorbs workers who might otherwise be unemployed or stuck in informal, low‑paying jobs.

To top it all, delivery executives are even earning more than some other jobs. Using FY24 PLFS numbers and Goyal’s own disclosures, the average Zomato rider earned around Rs. 644 a day in 2024 — higher than casual labour (Rs. 418) and close to regular salaried workers (Rs. 690) in FY24. That’s quite impressive.

In a labour market long constrained by informality and rigid laws, platforms like Zomato and Swiggy have filled real gaps. But numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Many customers and riders feel the income doesn’t match the risks: traffic, weather, accidents, long hours, and algorithmic pressure.

But the debate quickly drifted into bigger themes: exploitation, capitalism, and political signalling. That’s where things got messy.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth. If delivery partners must earn more, customers must spend more. The unit economics don’t work otherwise.

Currently, the model is viable at around Rs. 700 Average Order Value (AOV). CNBC TV-18 noted that a Rs. 10 increase in delivery rider payouts requires an AOV of Rs. 800 to maintain margins, while another Rs. 10 hike raises the threshold to Rs. 1,000 AOV.

Increasing AOVs happens gradually. They cannot jump every year to absorb fixed increases in delivery costs. This is why Goyal argues that the delivery executives are paid well and taken care of.

This is the real tension: riders want higher pay, customers want low fees, and shareholders want profits. You can’t satisfy all three simultaneously.

However, there are further issues. For instance, if, as Goyal claims, the system is fair, then the real issue lies in perception and communication. He admitted he would have seen the system as exploitative from an outsider's perspective.

That underscores the main problem. More transparency, including clear information on pay, incentives, and algorithms, would help build trust. This concern extends beyond Zomato to all platform businesses.

I believe he unintentionally made the situation worse by fighting it on social media. The nuance dies on social media, and the conversation turns into a public spat. Bhavish Aggarwal’s spat with Kunal Kamra is a recent example.

A calm, official statement or a presentation, vetted by the legal team, would have done the job. Instead, the debate exploded into a public spectacle.

As always, the conversation drifted into ideological territory of capitalism vs. socialism and leftists vs. rightists, which I believe hardly anyone understands what it all means. But such a framing missed a few points:

• Markets are, undoubtedly, great at price discovery and innovation, but weak at protecting labour’s bargaining power. Even Adam Smith would admit this.

•  High pay doesn’t guarantee good working conditions. Finance and medicine are proof. Burnout and mental health crises exist despite high salaries.

•  The argument that “If people choose these jobs, it can’t be exploitation” is flawed. It’s like saying a marriage can’t be abusive if the spouse hasn’t left.

Workers demanding better conditions aren’t rejecting capitalism or turning communist. They want to make things better. Every major labour reform, such as working hours, child labour laws, workplace safety, and POSH, came from negotiation, protest, and pressure.

Markets didn’t deliver them automatically. The gig economy is still young. It will take some time and friction to stabilise.

A few things are clear:

• India’s food delivery and quick commerce are efficient because labour is cheaper and regulation is lighter. This is uncomfortable but true.

•  There is a constant tug‑of‑war between business viability and rider earnings. We don’t want mass unemployment, but we also don’t want unsafe, underpaid work.

• The gig economy isn’t broken — it’s evolving. What it needs now is transparency, better communication, and sustained negotiation between platforms, workers, and customers.

We don’t need more tweets and politics around it. We need a practical yet sensitive approach in dealing with this.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NDTV Profit or its affiliates. Readers are advised to conduct their own research or consult a qualified professional before making any investment or business decisions. NDTV Profit does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented in this article.