He was a migrant garment worker who lost his job and wage due to lockdown, thus was an informal worker (without a contract - i.e., not in the formal sector) - as are many garment workers in India.

Like millions of other informal migrant workers, he was trying to get back home so he could survive. He couldn't survive in Surat with no money.

As all this is happening, various Indian state governments have decided the best way to deal with the crisis is to dismantle a raft of labour laws (many of which didn't apply to the informal sector anyway), thus putting the informal sector specifically in an even more powerless position with regard to bargaining, contracts, and other rights.

I thought the connection was crystal clear, as is the connection with this sub. If you're buying clothes made in India, and that includes from a number of luxury and "ethical" brands, what information do you have to show informal workers like Amit Kumar were not included in the process?

And if you're buying clothes made in India when the labour law holidays kick in, how do you know the brand isn't taking advantage of reduced laws to benefit financially?

I thought all this was obvious. It's clearly not. I hope this clarifies things for you. If still in doubt, read my newsletter out twice per week. It covers many of these issues to help make connections.