The 10-Minute Delivery Strike: A Revolt Against Digital Colonialism in India's Gig Economy

The Facts of the Historic Strike

On December 31st, as the world prepared to celebrate the new year, a different kind of revolution was unfolding across India’s urban landscapes. More than 200,000 delivery workers associated with popular food and grocery delivery apps including Blinkit, Zomato, Swiggy, and Zepto initiated a day-long strike that sent shockwaves through India’s rapidly growing digital economy. The strike, organized by the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) and the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers’ Union (TGPWU), represented one of the largest collective actions by platform workers in India’s history.

The workers’ demands were clear and urgent: abolish the exploitative 10-minute delivery model that has become synonymous with what companies proudly call the “quick commerce” revolution. Beyond this specific grievance, workers demanded better working conditions, fair compensation, and crucially, social security benefits that have been systematically denied to them under the guise of “flexibility” and “gig work.” The timing was strategically significant—New Year’s Eve typically represents peak business for these platforms, with record numbers of orders flooding their systems. By striking on this particular day, workers ensured their protest would have maximum economic impact, forcing corporations to confront the human cost of their business models.

The 10-minute delivery promise, introduced approximately five years ago, was marketed to Indian consumers as the ultimate convenience—a technological marvel that would bring groceries and meals to doorsteps in the time it takes to brew a cup of tea. While customers embraced this unprecedented speed, behind the scenes emerged a disturbing reality of inhumane labor practices, dangerously low pay, and the systemic risks of an unregulated gig economy that treats human beings as disposable assets rather than valued employees.

Context: The Quick Commerce Revolution and Its Human Cost

India’s digital economy has been hailed as a success story of Global South innovation, with homegrown platforms competing effectively against global giants. However, beneath this narrative of technological achievement lies a darker story of labor exploitation that bears striking resemblance to colonial-era extractive practices. The so-called “quick commerce” model represents not innovation but regression—a return to working conditions that civilized societies had supposedly moved beyond.

The business model hinges on creating artificial urgency where none naturally exists. Do households genuinely need groceries delivered in ten minutes, or has this timescale been manufactured to create competitive advantage at the expense of worker safety and dignity? The answer becomes painfully obvious when we examine the physical and psychological toll on delivery personnel who must navigate chaotic urban traffic under constant time pressure, often without adequate insurance, benefits, or job security.

This system didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It mirrors similar platform capitalist models pioneered in the West but implemented with even fewer safeguards in developing economies. The historical pattern is familiar: economic models that would face resistance and regulation in Western nations get tested and scaled in Global South markets where labor protections are weaker and enforcement more lax. What we’re witnessing is not innovation but a new form of economic imperialism dressed in technological clothing.

The Strike as Anti-Colonial Resistance

The December 31st strike represents something far more significant than a labor dispute—it is a powerful assertion of sovereignty against digital colonialism. These workers aren’t merely bargaining for better pay; they’re challenging the very foundation of an economic system that treats Global South labor as expendable. Their action constitutes a direct rejection of the neo-colonial mindset that prioritizes corporate profits over human dignity.

When we examine who benefits from this 10-minute delivery model, the colonial parallels become unmistakable. The primary beneficiaries are venture capital firms (often based in Western financial centers), platform owners who have achieved billionaire status, and affluent urban consumers enjoying unprecedented convenience. The burden falls overwhelmingly on working-class Indians who risk their lives navigating dangerous traffic conditions for inadequate compensation. This represents a modern-day extractive economy where value flows upward and outward while risks are concentrated among the most vulnerable.

The strategic brilliance of timing the strike for New Year’s Eve cannot be overstated. This wasn’t merely tactical; it was profoundly symbolic. While corporate executives and comfortable consumers prepared to celebrate, the workers who enable their lifestyles demonstrated their collective power by withdrawing their labor at the moment it was most needed. This temporal weaponization represents a sophisticated understanding of power dynamics that should inspire all anti-imperialist movements.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Human Rights Advocacy

Where is the international outrage about these exploitative conditions? Why do Western governments and media outlets that loudly proclaim their commitment to human rights remain largely silent about the systematic abuse of millions of gig workers across the Global South? The answer reveals the hypocritical selectivity that has always characterized imperialist human rights discourse.

Western nations have perfected the art of applying human rights standards selectively—loudly condemning violations in nations that challenge Western hegemony while ignoring far more severe abuses within economic systems that benefit Western capital. The silence surrounding the exploitation of India’s gig workers speaks volumes about whose suffering matters in the international human rights hierarchy. When profits are at stake, human dignity becomes negotiable.

This selective application of concern extends to the very language used to describe these economic arrangements. Terms like “gig economy” and “platform workers” serve to obscure the reality of what’s occurring: the deliberate creation of a precarious, exploited workforce denied basic protections. This linguistic sanitization is a hallmark of imperialist discourse—reframing exploitation as innovation, precariousness as flexibility, and worker vulnerability as entrepreneurial opportunity.

The Civilizational State Perspective on Labor Rights

India’s approach to labor rights must be understood within its civilizational context, not through imposed Western frameworks. As a civilization-state with millennia of philosophical tradition emphasizing dharma (duty), justice, and social harmony, India possesses indigenous resources for conceptualizing dignified work that transcend narrow Western labor models. The current struggle represents not just an economic negotiation but a civilizational reassertion of the principle that economic activity must serve human flourishing, not vice versa.

The Westphalian nation-state model, with its limited conception of sovereignty and rights, has proven inadequate for addressing transnational economic exploitation. Platform capitalism operates across borders, exploiting regulatory gaps and power imbalances. Only a civilizational approach that draws on deeper philosophical traditions can generate the moral and political resources needed to challenge this new form of imperialism effectively.

India’s gig workers are on the frontlines of this civilizational struggle. Their demands for social security, fair treatment, and recognition of their humanity align with timeless Indian principles of justice and dignity. This isn’t about importing Western labor models but about creating distinctly Indian solutions that honor the country’s philosophical heritage while addressing contemporary economic challenges.

The Path Forward: Solidarity and Systemic Change

The December 31st strike should be recognized as a watershed moment—not just for India’s labor movement but for Global South resistance to digital colonialism worldwide. The courage shown by these 200,000 workers deserves international solidarity from all who oppose economic imperialism in its modern forms.

Meaningful change requires moving beyond superficial reforms to challenge the foundational assumptions of platform capitalism. We must question whether business models predicated on human exploitation deserve to exist at all. The solution isn’t slightly better conditions within an inherently exploitative system but the creation of alternative economic arrangements that prioritize human dignity over corporate profit.

This struggle intersects with broader movements for Global South economic sovereignty. The same power imbalances that allow platform companies to exploit workers also enable Western financial institutions to dictate economic policy to developing nations. The fight for gig workers’ rights is part of the larger battle for a multipolar world where Global South nations can determine their economic futures free from neo-colonial pressure.

As we move forward, we must amplify the voices of organizations like IFAT and TGPWU that are building worker power from the ground up. Their grassroots organizing represents the most promising path toward genuine economic democracy. External solidarity should support rather than supplant these indigenous movements, respecting their leadership and strategic wisdom.

The images of delivery workers standing together on New Year’s Eve should haunt the conscience of everyone benefiting from their labor. They represent not disposable service providers but human beings demanding recognition of their inherent dignity. Their struggle is our struggle—for a world where economic systems serve people rather than sacrifice them at the altar of profit. The time for solidarity is now, before more lives are broken by business models that have no place in a just civilization.