Handloom Weavers’ Cooperatives in Neo-Liberal India: Need for Strengthening them | K Srinivasulu

Handloom weaving is a major employer after agriculture in India. It is spatially integrated with the diverse regional political economies and sociologically heterogeneous as caste- communities numerous and as diverse as backward castes, minorities like the Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis are engaged in handloom production for their livelihood.

The handloom weaving has historically been highly a decentralised sector spread over across the length and bread of the country and been known for regional specificities in terms of the raw materials, dyes, product varieties, designs and skills. Local specialisation have been characteristic of handloom production. Due to the capital and technology intensive development model pursued in the post-independence period and scaled up intensively in the post-liberalisation period the handloom industry has seen a pattern in its concentration in handloom centres in towns and urban centres with migrant weavers as a result of the decline of rural handlooms caused by the uncontrolled growth and competition from the mill and powerloom products and changes in the demand pattern.

The handloom sector during the independence struggle acquired a political and ideological significance as a symbol of Indian nationalism due to the centrality of swadeshi slogan as against the modernity and machine based development represented by the colonial powers. Thus as part of the nationalist and also the Left mobilisation in the countryside the weavers were sought to be politicized and organized. One important socio=economic dimension of this process was the formation of cooperatives to unite the unorganized handloom weavers and strengthen them against the entrenched exploitative system that was dominated by the moneylender-cum-trader and master-weaver combine. The cooperatives played a pivotal role in grounding and enhancing the social capital by building the self-image, self-confidence and mutual support among this large community of producers who otherwise are vulnerable to commercial profit driven market forces.

In the post- independence period, the context of the handloom sector has undergone some shift due to the state policy towards the small producers and especially those organised in the cooperatives. The textile policies pursued as a reminder if not renewal of the nationalist commitment continued to pronounce state support to this sector largely because of its being a major source of employment in the countryside. This is despite the fact that in term of the overall developmental perspective in the post-independence period the accent undoubtedly was on capital intensive and technology centric model. As a result, two factors stand out emerging from the context of development process that contrary to the stated policy pronouncement had a detrimental impact on the state of handloom production. They are: one, the green revolution and two, the proliferation of powerloom sector. The HYV seed, fertilizer and pesticide usage that was part of the green revolution model not only boosted the agricultural production and generated agrarian surplus leading to the emergence of a market related/ dependent rich peasant class but also induced the rural social change that had an impact on the handloom sector. Second the rise of powerloom sector whose menacing impact on the handlooms leading to the displacement of handloom weavers became clear by the early 1970s prompting the Planning Commission to constitute a committee to assess the impact and suggest the alleviation of the woes of the handloom weavers. The extent and serious impact can be gauged from the phenomenal increase in the powerlooms from 1.5 lakhs in 1963 to 3.09 lakhs in 1975. As estimated by the high-powered committee of the Planning Commission headed by Shivaraman the addition of one powerloom led to the displacement of six handlooms.

It is now a fairly established fact that the process of modernization and commercialization of agrarian economy, following the green revolution by transforming the rural economy and life in the countryside drastically impacted the rural farming classes and along with them led to the dislocation/ destabilisation of the artisanal and other traditional occupational communities. While the rural potters, blacksmith, etc., have more or less found to be displaced it is only the handloom weavers because of their sheer magnitude continue in the occupation despite the declining incomes and continual threat. There are no scarce instances of weavers putting their efforts and responses in the directions of restructuring of the sector for their survival.

As we are concerned with the handloom cooperative sector, to contextually perspective its place and role in the handloom production, we now turn to the organisational structure and the relations of production in the handloom industry and also to assess the changes in it in the context of the above processes in economy and society.

Handloom Industry - Structure:

On the basis of the organizational structure defined in terms of relations of production the handloom industry can be differentiated into the following three sectors: i) Independent weaver, ii) Master-weaver and iii) Co-operative sectors. The independent weavers are those who carry on production of cloth on their own, i.e., own the instruments of production purchase raw materials from the market and produce fabric with family labour and sell the products in the local market or to traders. With the proliferation of the powerloom sector since the 1960s, and its comparatively low priced products penetrating the market, especially in the countryside, the handlooms had to face stiff competition from the former. Further, the rising prices of cotton hank yarn and dyes rendered the handlooms vulnerable. The most impacted by this have been the independent weavers and small master-weavers-cum-traders owning few looms and employing wage labour. The displacement of independent weavers led to the growth of major urban powerloom and handloom centres under the master-weavers: with men weavers migrating to them and women weavers shifting to beedi making. In the urban areas where alternative employment opportunities are relatively better, we find the young weavers taking up jobs like that of shop assistants and also shifting to construction work, auto rickshaw driving, etc., as the skilled handloom weaving is found to be less attractive due to low wages and continual insecurity.

The second system of production, the master-weaver system over a period has become well entrenched and formidable. In this system the master-weaver-cum-entrepreneur employs wage labour to produce cloth. The cloth thus produced is either directly marketed by him or supplied to traders. Two kinds of practices can be found here on the basis of the conditions of work and nature and extent of dependence. They are: put-out system and kharkhana (factory) system. In the put-out system, weaver gets raw materials to his house, which is both his living and working place, prepares warp and spins cloth on his own loom as per master weaver’s specifications and gets paid price-wise. In the kharkhana system, weavers, mostly migrants work on the looms provided by master-weavers in the work sheds under one roof. With the decline of the independent weavers and the marginalisation of the co-operative sector, the master-weaver sector has acquired a major share in the handloom production.

Now let us consider the co-operative sector. Handloom co-operatives constitute a major segment accounting for a large proportion of weavers, next to the master-weaver segment. The emergence of the handloom cooperatives has to be seen as part of the history of cooperative movement in India as a principal constituent of it.

Idea and Practice of Cooperative:

The central ideas that inform the handloom movement, evolved through history as new challenges encountered in the process of its expansion and development, are that human activity in spite of the proliferation, divisions and eventual complexity in term of skills, techniques, production, labour processes, is inherently social and collective requiring cooperation between humans as both individuals and groups or classes to work in collaboration with each other to achieve their goals. Capitalism as a system based on the idea of private property and profit denies and denigrates this foundational idea. The basic fact and principle of cooperation in human existence is played havoc with in capitalism resulting in the alienation of humans from their activity, their labour, products of their labour and with other people. This process of alienation has deep impact on not only the economic activity though rooted in production and labour processes pervading and encompassing the social, cultural and political life. Capitalism thus has been a system that denies and denigrates the foundational ideas sociality, cooperation and harmony with nature and with fellow beings.

The idea and practice of cooperative is an anti-thesis of capitalism and its emphasis on private ownership, control and management to facilitate private accumulation through profit making premised on the distortion and negation of social nature of production. Thus cooperative movement sought to propagate the importance, necessity and possibility of alternative modes of ownership and management of production premised on collaboration, mutual support, trust and the sharing of resources and knowledge with the aim of protecting actual producers from the big players and benefiting everyone involved.

Handloom Cooperatives:

Seen thus the handloom co-operatives which were organized with the objective of protecting the weavers from the dominant interests like master-weavers and traders go back to the pre-Independence days and have been credited with a record of achievements in different parts of the country.

The handloom cooperatives have witnessed a decline since the 1980s which attained rapidity since the launching of economic reforms. If the rise of vested interests and the increasing use of the handloom co-operatives as channels for their political benefit by the community elite being in the leadership of the cooperatives led to the drifting of co-operatives away from their intended purpose, then the increasing political and governmental interference, development of bureaucratic tendencies and corruption hindered their autonomous functioning eventually paving the way for their deterioration. Further, the ineffectiveness of the co-operatives in ensuring regular supply of the raw materials and the inordinate delay in the payment of wages, has forced the average weaver to shift to the master-weaver system for work. Because of this, a number of co-operatives, which once had a successful record, have been rendered dysfunctional. Bogus co-operatives, floated by influential master-weavers/ traders/ local politicians (and also by powerloom owners) to corner the subsidies and marketing facilities extended by the government and state apex cooperative body, have restricted/ denied the genuine co-operatives of their access to governmental support and robbed them of their due share in it. This has significantly contributed to the credibility crisis and decline of the co-operatives.

Economic Liberalisation and Handlooms

In the context of neo-liberal economic reforms in India, pursued since 1990s, the countryside has witnessed a deeper socio-economic transformation. Two facets of this being the agrarian and handloom crises manifest in the unparalleled occurrence of suicides and starvation deaths among the small and medium farmers and traditional weavers in large parts of rural India.

The history of cooperatives in the post-Independence period is an evidence of the disastrous role of the state facilitating and leading to bureaucratisation, corruption and political abuse. This is best illustrated by the experience of the handloom cooperatives, which have a long and successful history in the post-Independence period. Now they are witness to the disastrous impact of state intervention and in context of the neoliberal economic reforms they have seen further worsening of their condition. [1]
The economic liberalisation marks a more aggressive and formalised anti-rural thrust of the state policy. Perhaps the policy thinking on handloom sector represents the shift in the policy commitment much more clearly and rather unequivocally. For instance, the report of the Mira Seth Committee [2] of the Planning Commission could be seen as reflecting the official thinking on the future of the handlooms. The principal thrust of the report was on reorienting the handlooms to meet the challenges of the globalisation process, which are assumed to be inevitable and therefore need to be prepared for. In its view, the strength of the handloom sector lies in its “ability to commercially produce the goods in small volumes, quick switch over to new designs and creation of exquisite designs which cannot be made on the powerlooms.” For this the Committee recommended extension of governmental support to handlooms to “develop new designs, new fabrics and new products having market acceptance and commercial viability…which may not be easily replicated on powerlooms.” [3] On the basis of the above perception, Mira Seth Committee Report recommended an export-growth strategy as the most advisable perhaps also assumed to be a viable solution for survival of handlooms.

The anti-handloom dispensation in the official thinking in the context of economic liberalisation becomes clearer in the report of the Satyam Committee [4] on handlooms as evident from the following statement that “generally the handloom weavers remain tradition-bound and are averse to change… For more than five decades, the poor handloom weavers remained spoon-fed through government schemes and they continue to look up the government for anything and everything”. This is the premise, though paraded as a conclusion, which in fact served as the basis of the Satyam Committee Report’s recommendations.

Thus with the state prioritising corporate driven development there could be seen a clear shift in the policy statements and discourse from the hitherto emphasis on handlooms seen as a second major productive sector in the human resource surplus India providing livelihoods to handlooms as ‘a symbol of Indian tradition and culture’. This ‘elevation’ to the status of historical cultural heritage can be read as a diminution of the productive role of the handlooms. The impact of this policy shift and its practice could be seen resulting in the crisis in the handloom sector almost immediately as a result of the export of the yarn in 40s count used as raw material by a large majority of weavers – the manifestation of the crisis being starvation deaths and suicides by the vulnerable weavers. This needless to add led to a radical shift in the social relations of production in the sector and further decline of cooperatives.

Why Handlooms Need to be Strengthened?

Quite contrary to the assumptions of neo-liberal stand, an entirely convincing argument could be built on socio-economic desirability and viability of the handlooms as a system of production appropriate to Indian specificity. Firstly, that if one of the principal objectives of any developmental strategy is to generate employment and overall socio-economic well-being then in a predominantly rural and agrarian society like India handlooms can only be a viable source of employment that can ensure reasonable wages. This is all the more vindicated by the developments in the green revolution areas which though have seen tremendous growth in productivity but actually a considerably worrisome decline in employment. It is these people displaced (but may be under-employed and disguisedly employed), along with the traditional weavers, instead of being pushed into the urban unorganized sector with its low wages and high insecurity, could be provided gainful employment in the agriculture allied sectors like handlooms.

Secondly, since the paucity of investible resources is said to be the major impediment in the course of development in the country, the reason why the governments since the mid-1980s and increasingly since the 1990s in the context of liberalization are overstretching themselves to woo the foreign investors (needless to say these efforts could only lead to attracting investments in consumer sector and capital intensive low employment potential sectors) the handlooms can hold out an ecologically sound and self-reliant strategy of development with assured employment so that the scarce natural resources and investible capital could be utilised and vagaries and unpredictable consequences associated with foreign capital investment loaded with speculative profit interest and its concomitant debt burden could be avoided.

Thirdly, the handlooms with its rich depository of skills and flexibility to shift quickly in terms of designs and patterns to cater to the high value added niche market can be major earner of the much needed foreign exchange for which the neo-liberal regimes advocate export led growth as the only solution. This is irrespective of domestic demand and requirements.

Cooperative Movement as People’s Movement:

In view of the above analysed ruling neo-liberal thinking the people have to evolve their own strategies of development and self-reliance – self-organisation on cooperative lines being an important choice. The idea of cooperation emphasising on the need for mutual support based on trust and self-help as the basis of rejuvenation of the traditional artisanal production for the reconstruction of the local society and its production base against the forces unleashed by the globalisation process leading to the aggressive and unrestrained entry of global products into the local markets and mobilisation of grassroot community support in favour of the local producers when the state support in the form of policy and implementation has not merely declined but in fact turned adverse.

In fact the urban concentration of handlooms should be seen as an opportunity to set up cooperatives replacing the greedy master weaver- trader combine whose exploitation of the vulnerable migrant weavers coming to these centres displaced from their native places has been well recorded and little done.

In the context of neo-liberal globalisation, there is a wider recognition of the need for self-help based on trust and reciprocity as the basis of coping up with harsh realities resulting from the withdrawal of state support. The recognition of the importance of creating enabling institutional environments for the creation and sustenance of social capital – defined as the social relationships that facilitate collective action of the underprivileged social groups that hardly have any access to resources – is an important move in this direction.

The concept of social capital echoes the ideas of community spirit and cooperation that emerged in the context of anti-colonial struggle. The idea of community spirit in the face of colonialism-induced rural disintegration – must be seen as an important intellectual and experimental (for instance, Rabindranath Tagore’s Sriniketan model) legacy and assumes importance in the context of neo-liberalism and needs to be revived and furthered.

(Author: K Srinivasulu, Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi, Professor (Retd) Department of Political Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad)