In this article we will discuss about the Emergence of Labour Force in India:- 1. Meaning of Labour Force 2. Pre-Modern Industry Labour 3. Non-Contractual Labour 4. Labour in Rural Industry 5. Urban Labour Force 6. Emergence of Labour on Railways.
Contents:
- Meaning of Labour Force
- Pre-Modern Industry Labour
- Non-Contractual Labour
- Labour in Rural Industry
- Urban Labour Force
- Emergence of Labour on Railways
1. Meaning of Labour Force:
Labour was not a new phenomenon in modern India. In technical terms, labour is constituted by those who do not possess means of production. They sell their physical labour—skilled or unskilled—to earn their livelihood.
Assuming this, it can safely be said that in the Sanskritized society in India, Shudra constituted the labour force. This Shudra population went on increasing, and by the time the British obtained power, all the professionals, especially at lower level, became touchable and untouchable labourers. They worked for the bureaucracy, landlords and moneyed classes.
Since in the western terminology, the term labour has become synonymous with the factory labour only, these labourers did not fit into modern labour force, because according to the modern concept, industrial and commercial labour force is dependent for wages and employment upon the entrepreneurs.
It is not, however, correct to say that workers in the pre-British India did not constitute a labour force as they were “self-employed” in a trade and not available for hire. Though in many instances, extremely difficult to distinguish, the ‘wage-earner’ were treated as a labour in statistical inquiry.
The modern labour force emerged, after the change in British policy facilitated the growth of modern industry. In this sense we can agree that the labour force, as it is understood in European terminology, emerged only in the second half of the British rule.
2. Pre-Modern Industry Labour:
After the ruin of indigenous industry till the building of new industrial sector, the labour force existed round the pivot of land. In almost all through the entire Gangetic belt, now comprising of Bengal, Orissa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the land-lords system prevailed. The tenants had definite tenancy rights only at some places.
But all the tenants paid revenue to their respective land-lords only, who were assessed by the Government. Besides, the revenue to be paid by the land-lords was fixed once for all in Bengal and Bihar and was revised after every thirty years. In the Punjab and Haryana there were small holdings and generally the holders cultivated themselves.
In western and southern India, it was ryotwari system. The land-holders paid their taxes direct to the Government. A large minority of these ryots or ‘pattadars’ did not cultivate the land themselves and employed sub-tenants. In some parts, the land-lords acted as ‘zamindars’ like those of Bengal. The true cultivators put their services of the whole families including women and children.
They also employed extra labour during the sowing and harvesting seasons. This labour was offered by those land-holders whose holdings were small in size and their families were obliged to hire themselves out during their spare hours to the more prosperous neighbouring landlords. The ruin of industry and the rapid growth of population brought about pressure on land and led to the emergence of increasing landless labourers.
This class of landless labourers was permitted to stay in the villages on the understanding that their services would be available to the cultivators. In majority of the cases they were paid in kind. The economic position of this landless class depended on the agricultural prosperity and the needs of the tenants.
They earned good wages in prosperous agricultural sector of the Punjab but extremely low in the eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where the pressure on the soil was great. This labour was designed as agricultural labour and still exists in India.
3. Non-Contractual Labour:
The second type of labour was provided by the women-folk of the agriculturists, especially in North India, who engaged their spare hours and slack times in hand spinning and cotton weaving. Raw cotton was obtained by them either from their own fields or on payment of their services rendered by their families in cultivation.
This labour still exists in the villages. Besides, fishing in eastern Bengal, gur making in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, basket and rope-making was also done by the peasantry in the villages in all parts of the country.
4. Labour in Rural Industry:
The principal occupation in the villages was agriculture, including subsidiary employment engaged in the agricultural products. Non-agriculturalists pursued their traditional occupations and were known by the caste of their work.
The weavers (dhanak) put their labour in handloom weaving, shoe-makers (chamar) in leather goods such as bags and shoes; blacksmith (lohar) in carts, wheels and the shoes for the cattle; carpenter (badhai) in house-building and wood-work.
The potter (kumhar) made the utensils. The goldsmith (sonar) worked on golden and silver ornaments. The washer man (dhobi) washed the clothes. In this way all those goods needed especially by the poor village community were manufactured by this kind of proprietor-labourer within their respective villages.
The goods such as salt, tobacco, matches etc. which could not be produced by the village artisans were supplied by a small shopkeeper (bania). This bania was also money-lender or the village banker.
The organisation of the village artisans was quite simple. They produced for the needs of other villagers who supplied the food to them. This system preserved the barter system. Their prosperity depended on the agriculture on which the peasantry, landlord, artisans and even bania all depended.
Thus with no fixed payment in coins, this type of village labourer is not generally included in the labour force. This type of labour force was the product of the modern type of industry.
5. Urban Labour Force:
The urban industries in the pre- British times consisted of cottages and karkhanas which produced variegated muslins, calicoes, chintz, silk goods, saltpetre etc. This indigenous industry flourished around the Courts, the administrative headquarters and the pilgrimage centres. Normally the urban industries produced for the rich and middle classes living in those urban centres and also for exports.
“Catering for a limited and well-to-do class of consumers, the artisans attained wonderful skill and aptitude in their respective trades” but their base was political stability of semi-feudal character having a stake in the soil of India. Once this political stability was disturbed by a commercial nation viz., Britain having a stake in their mother soil, this urban industry was first to bear the brunt.
Ruin of the industries forced the urban population to fall back upon agricultural economy. Only labour that remained in urban centres was mostly in domestic service. The labour force which emerged in India thereafter was different from the labour of pre-British India.
6. Emergence of Labour on Railways:
The growth of modern industries in India remained always in background. It was because of the policy adopted by the East India Company. The Company was more interested in trade.
Though, as the Indian Industrial Commission pointed out, attempts were frequently made throughout the period of its domination, and even subsequently, to introduce into India various manufactures with State support and encouragement”, the main policy of the Company was to increase its trade.
Due to their policy, trade had become the hub of all the economic activities of the country during the Company rule. In order, therefore, to increase the commercial activities and also effectively administer the country, the Company initiated the building of road-railway network. (It is apparent from the geography of the railways built during their rule that the railway lines connected the centres of raw materials with the administrative headquarters.)
The railway system and peace brought about by the Pax-Britannica, even if the British might not have expected, were a sine-qua-non of industrial progress. As a consequence thereof, the jute industry, textile mills, coal mines, iron-mines had started growing from 1850’s onward. The foundation of these modern type of industries caused the emergence of a new labour force in India.
The railway network was the most vital factor in creating a labour force. The growth of the railway system in India was phenomenal. Just 32 kms. in 1853, it rose to 7,678 kms. in 1870; 39,835 kms. in 1900; 57,119 kms. in 1919-20 and 66,185 kms. in 1947.2 Each kilo meter of railway line covered about 61.9 square mile of area and served about 5,878 people.
The expansion of railways not only became instrumental in helping to increase the internal and external trade of India, their construction and maintenance have given employment to large numbers and have afforded an excellent alternative in times of harvests.
Besides, the railways brought about the mobility of labour. Large industrial centres like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras emerged because the railways facilitated procurement of labour which could not be obtained locally.
Though the urbanization was very slow, but the increase in urban population was very phenomenal. This increasing urban population facilitated in its own way the growth of industrialization and emergence of labour force.
The growth of factories and the opening up of the mines created an increasing demand for the labour not only of men, but also of women, and children. There are no statistics available for the labour before 1892 in factories and 1902 in the mines. However, the latter statistics tell the volume of the emerging labour force.