Can Saudi Arabia’s Labour Reforms Usher in New Dawn for Indian Migrants?

The reforms promise progress but without enforcement, they will end up as nothing more than window-dressing.

Labour law reforms in Saudi Arabia could transform the lives of the Indian migrants there, if implemented right.

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

For the past three decades, Latheef Thechy, an Indian migrant and social worker in Saudi Arabia, has dedicated himself to addressing the grievances of fellow migrant workers. His team handles nearly 100 labour-related cases every month—ranging from wage theft and passport confiscation to workers being stranded without valid documents.

Thechy told Quint over the phone that despite Saudi Arabia reforming its labour laws, grievances were on the rise.

"The Kingdom mandates that workers' documents be renewed on time, salaries be paid without delay, and passports are not seized. Yet, just last week, I took in 14 Indian workers whose employer has not paid them for the last three months and has failed to renew their documents for the last five months."

Latheef Thechy

There are around 2.6 million Indians working in Saudi Arabia, according to a reply in the Lok Sabha. In 2024 itself, 1,60,000 Indians migrated to Saudi Arabia through government channels. Out of these, approximately 75,000 are from Uttar Pradesh (UP) and 28,000 from Bihar.

Thechy’s work highlights a troubling reality: despite policy changes, systemic issues persist. He estimates that more than 1,000 Indian migrant workers face similar grievances annually.

While interventions from both Saudi and Indian authorities have helped Thechy's team to resolve individual cases, he says the cycle of exploitation continues due to unaddressed root causes. Yet, people are hopeful that the upcoming Saudi labour reforms, set to take effect on 18 February, will bring meaningful change.

Step Towards Change?

Saudi Arabia’s amendments to its labour law have been lauded as transformative under the Vision 2030 agenda. Framed as a commitment to inclusivity, equity, and modernisation, these reforms seem poised to reshape the Kingdom’s labour landscape.

But behind the rhetoric lies a critical question: will these changes genuinely improve the lives of labour migrants, who remain the backbone of Saudi Arabia’s economy, or will they simply reinforce existing systemic inequalities under the guise of progress?

Labour migrants, constituting a significant portion of the Kingdom’s workforce, are often relegated to the periphery of labour rights conversations. According to Human Rights Watch, there are 13.4 million migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, representing 42 percent of the country’s population.

The introduction of renewable one-year fixed-term contracts offers some hope of stability and security, particularly for those who have been left vulnerable by the arbitrary expiration of work permits. But can this reform be trusted to work in practice?

Employers in Saudi Arabia have a long history of exploiting legal ambiguities to suppress workers’ rights. Loopholes in the system—such as terminating contracts prematurely or manipulating probation clauses—could render this reform another hollow promise.

The law’s explicit prohibition of discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, or marital status is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the entrenched inequalities within Saudi workplaces. Yet, this progressive veneer risks being nothing more than window dressing without robust enforcement. Migrants, especially those in low-wage sectors, face systemic racism, wage disparities, and inhumane working conditions daily.

They are frequently silenced by fear of retaliation, deportation, or blacklisting. Saudi authorities must go beyond symbolic gestures and implement meaningful accountability measures, ensuring that grievances are addressed without prejudice or intimidation.

Token Gestures or Real Empowerment?

The promise of enhanced grievance mechanisms is particularly significant. For decades, migrant workers have been denied justice, often dismissed or deported for merely voicing their concerns. These reforms, if implemented effectively, could empower migrants to challenge workplace abuses.

However, trust between workers and authorities is virtually non-existent. Unless there is an unwavering commitment to protecting whistleblowers and creating culturally and linguistically accessible grievance platforms, these measures will fail to dismantle the systemic oppression that has long characterised the Kingdom’s labour regime.

The reforms also emphasise training and development as part of the Saudisation agenda, ostensibly to prioritise Saudi citizens in the workforce.

While empowering local talent is a legitimate goal, this policy risks exacerbating the marginalisation of migrant workers, who are often the lifeblood of critical industries like construction, domestic work, and hospitality.

The Saudisation drive must not become an exclusionary strategy that sidelines migrants or reduces them to expendable commodities. Instead, it must recognise the indispensable contributions of expatriates and integrate their skills into the broader vision for economic growth.

Enforcement Remains Glaringly Challenging

On the surface, expanded maternity and paternity leave policies appear progressive. But, for many migrant workers—especially those in informal and semi-formal employment—these rights will remain a distant dream.

Migrants often lack the bargaining power to demand such benefits, leaving them trapped in a cycle of exploitation. If these reforms are to have any real impact, the Saudi government must enforce universal access to these provisions, ensuring that no worker is left behind, regardless of nationality or job role.

Stricter penalties for labour violations, including unauthorised employment practices and unlicensed manpower services, signal a commendable intent to regulate the labour market. Yet, enforcement remains a glaring challenge.

Without regular inspections, transparent reporting mechanisms, and swift punitive actions against violators, these penalties will remain largely symbolic.

Migrant workers continue to endure wage theft, illegal subcontracting, and deplorable living conditions. The Kingdom must prioritise genuine oversight rather than performative measures.

The requirement for employers to provide accommodation, transportation, or equivalent cash allowances could significantly improve the quality of life for migrant workers. However, cash allowances alone are insufficient if they fail to cover actual living costs. Employers could exploit this provision to shift the financial burden onto workers, perpetuating the very inequities these reforms aim to eliminate.

Clear and enforceable guidelines are critical to prevent such exploitation and ensure that all workers have access to safe and dignified living conditions.

For labour migrants, these reforms represent a glimmer of hope amidst a landscape of systemic neglect and exploitation. However, hope is not enough.

Saudi Arabia’s labour ecosystem has long been shaped by deep-rooted inequalities, exacerbated by the country’s unwavering prioritisation of its citizen workforce. Migrants have been treated as second-class participants in an economy they help sustain, denied the basic rights and dignity that should be universal.

Litmus Test for Saudi's Commitment to Human Rights 

As the Kingdom moves toward implementing these reforms, it stands at a critical crossroads. Will Saudi Arabia embrace a labour policy rooted in equity and justice, or will it continue to sacrifice the rights of its migrant workforce at the altar of national development? The answers lie in the government’s willingness to prioritise transparency, accountability, and genuine enforcement over performative reform.

Saudi Arabia’s labour law amendments are not merely about policy; they are a litmus test for the Kingdom’s commitment to human rights and labour justice. If implemented with integrity, these reforms could serve as a blueprint for the region. If not, they will only deepen the disillusionment of millions of labour migrants who have long borne the brunt of the Kingdom’s economic ambitions.

A recent Human Rights Watch report reveals that 884 Bangladeshi migrant workers died in Saudi Arabia between January and July 2024 alone, with 80 percent of these deaths conveniently categorised as “natural causes” and left without a probe depriving families of any compensation. The HRW report alleges that ‘giga-projects’ for Vision 2030 and FIFA 2034 are built on widespread labour abuses in Saudi Arabia.

A document in the Lok Sabha reveals that over 10,000 Indians died in the Kingdom between 2020 and 2023 end. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that the actual cause of death is rarely reported accurately in any Arab Gulf country, including Saudi Arabia.

Hosting 2034 FIFA World Cup

Saudi Arabia’s selection as the host of the 2034 FIFA World Cup is a glaring example of how global institutions prioritise profit and spectacle over human rights and accountability. This decision has ignited outrage, especially given the massive human cost tied to the infrastructure projects required for such events.

However, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has brazenly positioned the World Cup as a centerpiece of his sportswashing agenda, a deliberate strategy to mask the kingdom’s appalling human rights record with the sheen of global prestige.

In a 2023 interview with Fox News, he unapologetically declared, “If sportswashing is going to increase my GDP by 1 percent, then we will continue doing sportswashing. I don’t care.”

Such an admission lays bare the moral bankruptcy behind this strategy and FIFA’s complicity in enabling it. The lives of countless migrant workers remain at risk, sacrificed on the altar of economic gain and international acclaim. The world is watching, and so are the workers whose resilience has built Saudi Arabia’s future.

(The writer is an independent journalist, migrant rights activist, forced labour investigator and author of Undocumented-Penguin 2021. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)