They Built the Gulf, But Where Will They Grow Old?
By WFY Bureau I Human Interest & Social Pursuits
Consider an Indian couple who arrived in Dubai in the early 1980s.
He found work in a trading company. She later joined a school office. Their first apartment was small, their salaries modest and their plan straightforward. They would work for several years, send money to their parents, educate their children and eventually return to India.
The years did not unfold according to that original plan.
Their children were born in the United Arab Emirates. Friendships grew around workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods and places of worship. India remained emotionally important, but everyday life belonged to Dubai. The couple visited India, bought a small property there and continued to describe it as home. Yet the longer they remained abroad, the less certain the meaning of home became.
Four decades later, retirement is approaching.
Employment has provided income, residence visas and health insurance. Once employment ends, all three may change. Their end-of-service gratuity appears substantial as a single amount, but it must support an uncertain number of years. Remaining in the UAE would keep them close to their children and grandchildren, but housing and healthcare may become unaffordable. Returning to India would reduce living costs, but it would also mean leaving the community in which they spent most of their adult lives.
This couple is illustrative rather than a single identified family. Their circumstances, however, reflect the experiences documented among long-term Indian residents in a new study of ageing and migration across the South Asia–Gulf corridor.
Published in August 2026 as part of a collection invited by the International Labour Organization’s STREAM Programme, the paper examines a question Gulf migration systems were never designed to answer.
What happens when temporary workers grow old in the place where they were always expected to remain temporary?
A Migration Model Built Around Return
The modern Gulf economy was shaped by migration.
From the 1970s onwards, rapid development created enormous demand for construction workers, drivers, nurses, teachers, engineers, accountants, technicians, shop employees, domestic workers and professionals. Millions arrived from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Philippines and other countries.
The underlying arrangement was based on work rather than settlement. Migrants would enter on renewable residence permits, remain while employed and leave when their contracts ended.
For many, this was also the original personal plan.
A worker could earn more in the Gulf than at home, even in a modestly paid position. Remittances supported parents, educated siblings, paid for marriages, built houses and transformed local economies. Migration was understood as a period of sacrifice that would eventually produce security in the country of origin.
But temporary arrangements continued for decades.
The Gulf Cooperation Council countries now host approximately 10 per cent of the world’s international migrant workers, making the region one of the world’s largest migration destinations. Non-nationals constitute around half of the GCC population and as much as 90 per cent in countries including the UAE and Qatar.
India’s relationship with the region is particularly significant. The ILO-commissioned paper estimates that more than nine million Indian nationals live across the Gulf, nearly half of them in the UAE. An Indian government response in December 2025 estimated the Indian population in the UAE at more than 4.3 million.
These are not socially uniform communities. They include wealthy investors, senior executives, doctors and entrepreneurs, but also sales workers, clerks, drivers, technicians, security personnel, domestic employees and labourers.
Their ability to prepare for retirement differs enormously.
Permanent Temporariness
Researchers have used the term “permanent temporariness” to describe the condition of people who may live in a country for decades while remaining on periodically renewed residence permits.
The phrase captures a contradiction at the heart of Gulf migration.
A person may spend nearly an entire working life in the UAE. Their children may be born and educated there. The family may establish businesses, friendships and community institutions. Yet residence generally remains connected to employment, family sponsorship, investment or another qualifying condition.
Long duration does not automatically become permanent status. Being born in the country does not ordinarily create an automatic path to citizenship.
For a working-age migrant, this insecurity may remain partly hidden. The employer sponsors the visa, provides health insurance and pays the salary. Retirement brings all three questions into view at once.
Where will the person live? How will they meet everyday expenses? Who will pay for healthcare?
In countries with contributory public pension systems, retirement is treated as a foreseeable stage of life. Workers and employers make payments over time, creating a regular income after employment ends.
Most non-national workers in the Gulf do not participate in the public pension systems available to citizens. Their primary statutory benefit is usually an end-of-service payment.
A gratuity is valuable, but it is not the same as a pension.
The Gratuity Gap
In the UAE, eligible private-sector employees generally receive an end-of-service gratuity after completing at least one year of continuous employment.
The conventional calculation is based on basic salary rather than the worker’s total earnings. It generally provides 21 days of basic salary for each of the first five years and 30 days for each subsequent year, subject to the applicable legal ceiling.
For someone who has worked for decades, the final figure may appear impressive. Yet it is paid as a lump sum and must often perform several different jobs.
It may be used to repay debt, finance a child’s education, purchase property in India, meet medical costs or fund relocation. What remains must then support the retiree through an unknown lifespan.
The August study notes that even after long service, conventional end-of-service benefits may replace only a small proportion of a worker’s previous earnings when considered as retirement income. It refers to growing concern about a “gratuity gap”, in which the benefit falls short of providing adequate, predictable security in old age.
The limitation is structural. A lump sum does not protect automatically against longevity, inflation or poor investment decisions. A person who lives for another 25 years may gradually exhaust it. A sudden medical emergency can consume a large part of it. An unsuccessful property investment may destroy it.
The payment also depends upon employment history. Workers who changed jobs, experienced periods without work or spent years on low basic salaries may retire with significantly less than expected.
Allowances can constitute an important part of an expatriate salary. Since gratuity calculations are ordinarily based on basic wage, the amount available at retirement may bear little relationship to the household’s actual cost of living.
This affects lower and middle-income families most severely. Their salaries have often supported two households, one in the Gulf and another in India. Savings have competed with rent, school fees, remittances, family emergencies and the rising cost of everyday life.
It is too easy to describe inadequate retirement savings as a failure of personal discipline. A person cannot save money that was never left after essential obligations were met.
Reforms Have Begun, But Coverage Remains Limited
The UAE has introduced alternatives intended to strengthen end-of-service protection.
The Dubai International Financial Centre established a workplace savings arrangement in 2020. A wider voluntary Alternative End-of-Service Benefits scheme was introduced in 2023 for participating private-sector and free-zone employees, with options for certain freelancers and self-employed people.
Under such arrangements, employers contribute regularly to approved investment funds instead of retaining the entire gratuity obligation until the employee leaves. The approach can protect workers from the risk that an employer becomes insolvent and may allow savings to grow over time.
Employees may also have access to different investment choices, including capital-protected, risk-based and Sharia-compliant options.
These developments are important. They recognise that deferred benefits should be funded progressively rather than treated only as a future liability.
Their present limitations are equally important.
Participation in the alternative scheme remains voluntary and depends largely on employer enrolment. Investment performance and fees affect the outcome. Workers with limited financial knowledge may struggle to compare options. A funded savings account may protect the value of the gratuity more effectively, but it does not necessarily provide an adequate pension.
The distinction matters. Improving the safety of a lump-sum benefit is not the same as creating regular retirement income for life.
Healthcare Becomes the Deciding Factor
For many families, retirement is ultimately determined not by the residence visa but by health insurance.
During employment, the worker may receive medical coverage from the employer. Retirement ends that arrangement. Anyone wishing to remain must secure alternative insurance, and the cost may rise sharply with age and existing medical conditions.
Affordable policies may provide only limited protection. A retiree can therefore be technically insured while still facing substantial expenses for specialist consultations, diagnostic tests, medicines, hospital treatment or long-term care.
The study describes cases in which premiums increased dramatically after illness or medical intervention. These examples should not be treated as universal prices, but they illustrate how quickly healthcare can become unaffordable for an older resident.
This creates a painful calculation for adult children.
They may be legally and emotionally willing to sponsor their parents. They may have sufficient income and suitable accommodation. But assuming responsibility for private health insurance, treatment and daily living expenses can place an enormous burden on a middle-income household already paying rent, school fees and loans.
The parent may continue working beyond the expected retirement age, not because employment remains fulfilling, but because work preserves the visa and medical insurance.
An older worker can therefore become trapped. Continuing to work protects access to healthcare, but age or declining health makes continued employment increasingly difficult.
Returning to India may provide more affordable medical treatment. Many Gulf residents already travel to India for dental work, cataract surgery, planned procedures and specialist consultations. Yet lower prices do not remove the emotional cost of separation from children and grandchildren.
Medical security and family unity become opposing choices.
Housing Determines Whether Staying Is Possible
Even when residency and insurance can be arranged, housing remains a major obstacle.
A retired person no longer receives a salary but continues to pay Gulf rents. Adult children may not have space for parents in an apartment designed for a smaller household. Moving to a larger home can increase rent significantly.
Property ownership offers security only to those able to afford it. Long-term residents who spent decades paying rent may reach retirement without an asset in the country where they lived.
The UAE has introduced residency pathways that reduce dependence on employment. The Golden Visa provides long-term renewable residence to qualifying investors, property owners, professionals and other designated groups. Retiree visas are also available to people above the qualifying age who meet specified thresholds relating to income, savings or property.
These routes provide meaningful options for those with sufficient resources.
They do not solve the problem for everyone.
A worker can have lived in the UAE for 35 years, obeyed the law, raised a family and contributed continuously to the economy but still fall below the financial threshold required for independent retirement residence.
Length of belonging and ability to pay are not always the same.
This divides the ageing expatriate population into those who can convert wealth into residential security and those whose residence ends when their labour is no longer required.
When the Children Become the Sponsors
Family sponsorship can allow retired parents to remain with adult children in the UAE. It is an important informal safety net, but it transfers considerable responsibility to the next generation.
The adult child must ordinarily demonstrate sufficient income, provide appropriate accommodation and arrange health insurance. Visas require renewal and continued compliance with applicable conditions.
This arrangement can be fragile.
If the adult child loses a job, accepts employment in another country, experiences a marital breakdown or faces financial difficulty, the parents’ residence may also become uncertain.
The family has reversed its original direction of support. Parents who spent their working lives financing their children’s education and security now depend on those children for their own legal residence, housing and healthcare.
There is dignity in intergenerational care, and many Indian families accept it willingly. The difficulty arises when family support becomes the substitute for an adequate social-protection system.
A family can provide love. It cannot always provide a pension, comprehensive medical insurance and secure housing.
Returning to a Home That Has Changed
The word “return” suggests familiarity.
For someone who left India at the age of 23 and comes back at 65, return may feel like another migration.
The country has changed. The neighbourhood has changed. Friends and relatives have built lives of their own. Parents may have died. Siblings may be scattered. The house constructed with remittances may stand in a place where the returnee no longer possesses a close social circle.
Daily habits acquired over decades abroad may no longer fit easily. Banking, transport, healthcare and local administration can feel unfamiliar. The person may speak the language fluently yet experience a quiet sense of displacement.
For Gulf-born children, the contradiction is even deeper. They may possess Indian citizenship while having little direct experience of living or working in India. If their parents return, the younger generation may remain in the Gulf, Europe, North America or elsewhere.
The parents then retire to the country of legal belonging while moving away from the country of lived belonging.
The financial argument for return can be powerful. Housing, domestic assistance and healthcare may cost less in India. Family property may already be available. Retirement savings may last longer.
But ageing is not only a financial calculation.
It involves friendships, routines, language, climate, mobility, healthcare relationships, religious communities and the ability to see one’s children without boarding an aircraft.
A retirement policy that assumes people can simply go “back home” fails to recognise how migration changes the meaning of home itself.
Kerala and the Long History of Gulf Return
No Indian state understands this transition more deeply than Kerala.
Migration to the Gulf transformed Kerala’s economy and society. Remittances financed homes, education, healthcare and consumption. Gulf employment became part of the life course for generations of families.
Kerala now also contains a substantial population of older return migrants. The ILO paper cites research estimating approximately 1.3 million elderly returnees in the state, many of them former Gulf migrants.
Their experiences reveal the cumulative effects of migration.
Some return with savings, property and strong family support. Others return because employment ended, health deteriorated or residence became impossible to maintain. Years of physical labour, occupational exposure or delayed medical care may emerge as chronic illness in retirement.
State-level initiatives provide limited pension support to eligible contributing migrant workers. India’s National Pension System is also open to qualifying NRIs and Overseas Citizens of India. Private retirement products are available.
Yet participation is voluntary and uneven. Many migrants began working abroad before such products were widely promoted or digitally accessible. Lower-income workers may never have possessed enough disposable income to make sustained contributions.
India previously experimented with a migrant-specific scheme combining pension savings and insurance for overseas workers. Low enrolment contributed to its discontinuation, illustrating the difficulty of designing a programme that migrants understand, trust and can afford.
The Missing Bridge Between Two Systems
India has signed Social Security Agreements with several countries, largely in Europe and Asia. Such agreements can help workers avoid double contributions, preserve benefits or combine periods of coverage across jurisdictions.
India does not have equivalent social-security agreements with GCC countries.
An Indian who worked in India before migrating may retain some earlier retirement savings, but years of employment in the Gulf do not ordinarily accumulate inside the Indian system. Gulf end-of-service benefits do not automatically become an Indian pension. A worker returning after several decades may therefore arrive with a lump sum but no predictable monthly income.
This is the central cross-border failure.
The destination country treats the worker as temporary and outside its citizen pension system. The origin country has not received contributions during the person’s years abroad. Each assumes that retirement security lies elsewhere.
The migrant falls between them.
Portability should mean more than the ability to transfer money through a bank. It should include regulated mechanisms through which retirement savings can continue across jobs and countries, remain protected from excessive fees and eventually provide a stable income wherever the worker chooses to live.
What Meaningful Reform Could Look Like
The August 2026 paper proposes moving progressively from conventional end-of-service gratuities towards mandatory, contributory retirement protection.
Regular employer contributions could be placed in regulated funds throughout the worker’s career. Workers would then be less exposed to employer insolvency and more likely to accumulate benefits consistently.
Above a defined level, part of the accumulated amount could be converted into periodic retirement income rather than paid entirely as cash. Returning migrants could continue receiving that income in their country of residence.
Such a system would require strong regulation, transparent fees, suitable default investments and protection against excessive risk. Low-income workers should not be expected to become investment specialists.
India and Gulf countries could also explore bilateral or regional arrangements for transferring and preserving retirement benefits. The enormous scale of the South Asia–Gulf labour corridor justifies cooperation specifically designed for mobile workers.
Healthcare requires equal attention. Affordable retiree insurance should include meaningful protection for chronic illness, diagnostics, hospital treatment and specialist care. A policy that satisfies a visa requirement but leaves essential treatment unaffordable provides administrative compliance rather than health security.
Long-term residents could be offered more predictable retirement pathways based partly on years of residence and contribution, not only wealth. A person with a documented history of several decades in the country has created social and economic ties that deserve consideration.
Affordable housing, assisted transport, community day centres and inclusive age-friendly services would also help retirees remain connected and independent.
Responsibility Cannot Rest Only on the Migrant
Individuals should plan for retirement as early as they can. They should understand how gratuity is calculated, maintain records, consider regulated savings options and discuss residence, healthcare and inheritance with their families.
But personal planning cannot repair every structural gap.
Financial literacy cannot compensate for a salary too low to save. Good intentions cannot create affordable health insurance. Family devotion cannot guarantee legal residence. Buying property in India cannot preserve a social life built elsewhere.
The retirement crisis facing long-term Gulf workers is not simply the consequence of people failing to plan. It is the consequence of systems that benefited from permanent labour while continuing to describe the labour force as temporary.
These workers helped build roads, airports, ports, hospitals, schools, hotels, offices and entire urban economies. They cared for children, staffed shops, drove taxis, managed accounts, repaired machinery and sustained households across borders.
Their contribution did not become temporary merely because their visas were.
The Right to Age with Dignity
The Gulf is changing. Governments are diversifying economies, reforming labour systems and creating new forms of long-term residence. These developments offer an opportunity to confront ageing before the crisis becomes larger.
India must also look beyond remittances and emergency consular assistance. Overseas workers should be understood not only as earners but as people moving through an entire life course. Migration policy must include retirement, chronic illness, care and return.
The central question is not whether every migrant should receive citizenship or identical benefits to citizens. It is whether people who have spent decades contributing to a society should reach old age without predictable income, affordable healthcare or secure residence.
That question concerns more than law. It concerns the kind of relationship a society creates with the people whose labour sustains it.
For the first generation of Gulf migrants, the dream was often expressed through a future house in India. The house represented return, achievement and rest.
Some built it and returned happily.
Others discovered that a building could wait for them while the life they understood remained elsewhere.
A worker may cross a border in a few hours. A life accumulated across 40 years cannot be moved so easily.
The Indians who helped build the modern Gulf are now approaching a stage that its migration system did not originally imagine. They no longer need to be viewed only as workers preparing to leave.
They need to be recognised as human beings preparing to grow old.
The measure of progress will not be how efficiently the Gulf accepted their labour when they were young. It will be how fairly the countries on both sides of the migration corridor protect their dignity when that labour is done.