Indian Women in the Workplace: Tokens, Triumphs and Thresholds

Indian workplaces, particularly the organised sector, celebrated International Women’s Day this year, with their usual share of fanfare and fatigue. The first comes from the long distance travelled to reach a seat at the table. The second is the realisation that women remain invisible and unheard at the table. For many, indeed, the celebrations remain tokenistic; yet this tokenism serves a purpose by reminding us why the triumphs remain lost in translation. Three key questions arise: first, why is women’s share of the workforce so small? Second, why do the rungs remain broken as women attempt to climb the ladder? And finally, why does the glass ceiling remain intact?

The share of the pie in the total workforce remains small for Indian women: compared to its Asian peers, India’s labour force participation (LFP) is relatively low. Despite increases in LFP over the years, female labour force participation (Figure 1) in India stands at a dismal 34.4%. (World Bank, 2026). The latest data (Annual Report, PLFS, 2026, Highlights)  puts the figure at 22.2% for urban women (Jan-Dec 2025): this implies if we pick four adult women in urban India, three are not in the labour force.

These women, who have educational attainment and skills and therefore potential job opportunities, are simply not in the workforce.

Why does labour force participation remain low in a country like India, where girls routinely outperform boys in board exams, creating a curious contrast with top women achievers across domains?  At the grassroots level, women may be constrained, rather than unwilling, to bring their share of talent and expertise to the workplace. Fewer women in the labour force means less economic output: a country underperforms if one arm is not put to use.

A key reason is the lack of safety in organised and unorganised sectors across India, as experienced by millions of women in everyday life and brought to the notice of others through a few horrific incidents of violence. Higher crime and violence against women in India constrain female labour supply, while improved transport and commuting can improve women’s employment opportunities.

Studies show how cultural norms play a role: the ‘marriage effect’ includes restrictions on the mobility of married women, leading to lower labour force participation. Empirical literature, supported by anecdotal evidence, suggests that education by itself does not necessarily improve labour force participation. Despite educational attainment, women remain underrepresented in the labour force.

Second, why do the rungs remain broken? Anecdotes, including those on social media, tell a story: women dropping out of the workforce often prioritise family and children’s education, and the twin burden of managing household responsibilities and work. This is supported by empirical studies: women pay a ‘marriage penalty’ in wages and employment, with marriage discouraging the prioritisation of work needed for career growth. The age at which careers typically take off coincides with the phase of childbearing, care for kin and extended family, and domestic priorities.

If caregiving at home suffers, will women negotiate or keep working? Evidence suggests that as income levels increase, and a woman’s work is no longer financially necessary, the ‘substitution effect’ may take hold if the woman’s career is considered secondary to that of her spouse. This explains why women from lower-income households have historically had higher workforce participation rates. A woman’s decision-making is often informed by her spouse’s preferences and constraints, such that “independent” choices may still reflect spousal influence and negotiated outcomes within the household.  The PLFS data for 2024  provide evidence of this trend: higher participation at lower income levels (proxied by consumption), greater involvement in unpaid work, and a stark gender difference.

Third, why does the glass ceiling remain intact? Workplaces welcome merit, dedication and the hard work women put in, yet often find it difficult to listen to women when they speak up. Indian corporate boards have one of the lowest shares of women leaders. Even with regulatory mandates requiring at least one woman director on listed company boards, women hold only around 17–19% of board seats, much below global benchmarks. While many women are present in junior and middle management, few women leaders have been able to make a mark in the corporate or government sector, especially without familial or political ties. When it comes to the upper echelons of power, few women are deemed suitable: too dowdy, or too pretty; too bossy or too submissive, with too many or too few connections.

What do our workplaces need? Three strategies may help: greater diversity, a focus on inclusion, and treating diversity as a conscious choice. Diversity should be inclusive: attempts at reservation and exclusivity do not work in the long run. For efficiency to increase, diversity in the truest sense should foster allyship. Diversity is a strategy: women bring crucial skills to the workforce, including collaboration, improved communication, and emotional intelligence, which can enable better decision-making, foster innovation and growth. Finally, diversity needs to be a conscious choice. It cannot remain a one-day token: each action and decision must underline a commitment to inclusion. Unless Indian workplaces choose “diversity” every day in every action, consciously and unapologetically, the historical thresholds in a strongly patriarchal setup like India will remain unchanged.