A public exchange between Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha and leaders of India’s quick commerce and food delivery industry has reignited debate over the treatment of gig workers, the ethics of ultra-fast delivery models, and the power wielded by digital platforms over the people who keep them running. At the centre of the controversy is a strike by delivery partners across several cities and the sharply contrasting narratives offered by workers’ advocates and platform executives.

The immediate trigger was a post on X by Zomato and Blinkit founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal following New Year’s Eve operations. Goyal said the platforms had delivered at record levels despite calls for strikes in the days leading up to December 31. He thanked local law enforcement for support and described a small group of people involved in the protests as “miscreants,” suggesting that the overall system continued to function smoothly and retained the confidence of a large workforce.

Raghav Chadha responded with a lengthy post that did not name Goyal directly but left little doubt about its target. Chadha criticised what he described as the business model of quick commerce and food delivery platforms, arguing that the need for police presence to keep services running exposed deeper flaws. According to him, workers who were asking for fair wages, safer working conditions, predictable policies, and some form of social security were being unfairly portrayed as criminals.

In one of the most striking lines of his post, Chadha said that if platforms required police to ensure deliveries continued, then the workers were not truly independent partners or employees but “hostages with helmets.” The phrase quickly gained traction online, becoming a rallying cry for labour activists and critics of the gig economy. Chadha argued that turning a labour dispute into a law-and-order issue was not only insulting to workers but also dangerous, as it delegitimised peaceful demands for dignity and fair treatment.

Chadha’s critique went beyond the immediate strike. He drew historical parallels, comparing the current system to feudal-era zamindari arrangements that endured for centuries despite being deeply unequal. In his view, longevity alone cannot be used as proof of fairness or justice. He also alleged that delivery platforms had mounted a coordinated public relations campaign against striking workers and their supporters. According to Chadha, public relations firms, social media influencers, and paid hashtags were deployed to shape public opinion, while the workers at the heart of the dispute continued to wait for improved compensation and conditions. He did not, however, provide evidence to substantiate these claims.

The MP further claimed that the backlash had turned personal, with online attacks directed at his family and lifestyle. He said such tactics were used when substantive answers ran out. While asserting that his own life was transparent, he questioned whether the same could be said about the algorithms that determine a delivery worker’s pay, incentives, and penalties—systems that are often opaque even to those who depend on them for their livelihoods.

As of Saturday evening, Goyal had not publicly responded to Chadha’s remarks. His earlier post, however, laid out a clear defence of the gig economy model. Goyal argued that platforms like Zomato and Blinkit have created jobs at scale and that a fundamentally unfair system would not continue to attract and retain such a large number of delivery partners. He cautioned people against what he described as narratives driven by vested interests and emphasised the long-term benefits of organised gig work.

In his message, Goyal portrayed the gig economy as one of India’s largest engines of job creation, suggesting that its true impact would be felt over time. He spoke of delivery partners’ children benefiting from stable incomes and access to education, eventually entering the workforce and contributing to national growth. This framing positions gig work not merely as a stopgap or precarious arrangement, but as a stepping stone toward broader social mobility.

The clash between these perspectives reflects a deeper and ongoing debate about the nature of gig work in India. On one side are platform companies that emphasise flexibility, scale, and opportunity, arguing that millions choose gig work voluntarily and that the system offers earning potential unmatched by many traditional jobs. On the other side are workers, unions, and some policymakers who point to unpredictable incomes, long hours, safety risks, and the absence of benefits such as health insurance, paid leave, or retirement security.

Raghav Chadha has positioned himself firmly with the latter group. He reminded the public that he had raised the issue of gig workers in Parliament during the winter session and vowed to continue the fight both inside and outside the House. According to him, accountability is long overdue, and the workers who built these platforms “order by order, kilometre by kilometre” deserve respect rather than vilification.

This is not the first time Chadha has taken on quick commerce companies. Just last month, he called for an end to 10-minute delivery services, describing them as cruel and unsafe. Speaking in the Rajya Sabha, he argued that such aggressive timelines put immense pressure on delivery workers, forcing them to take risks on the road. He urged lawmakers to remember that delivery partners are not machines but people with families and responsibilities, and he appealed for a more humane approach to last-mile logistics.

The strike itself, while reportedly having limited impact on New Year’s Eve operations, has nonetheless brought these issues into sharper focus. Even if platforms can maintain delivery volumes during periods of protest, the underlying questions remain unresolved: What constitutes fair pay in a gig economy? How much risk should workers bear in the pursuit of speed and convenience? And where does responsibility lie when algorithms, rather than managers, determine working conditions?

As India’s urban consumers continue to embrace the convenience of app-based deliveries, these questions are unlikely to fade. The exchange between Raghav Chadha and Deepinder Goyal underscores how contested the future of gig work remains. Whether through legislation, regulation, or changes in corporate practice, the outcome of this debate will shape not only the lives of millions of delivery partners but also the ethical foundations of India’s rapidly expanding digital economy.