Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:16:07.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Workers' Politics and the Mill Districts in Bombay between the Wars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Rajnarayan Chandavarkar
Rajnarayan Chandavarkar
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between the wars, the development of a labour movement in Bombay reflected a growing polarization in social and political relations in the city. This period, which saw an intensification of social conflict, also witnessed changes in the character of industrial action. Until 1914, strikes in the cotton textile industry were largely confined to particular departments and mills; increasingly after the war, they were coordinated across the industry as a whole. Rising prices and unprecedented profits which accompanied the post-war boom led to the demand for higher wages supported by two general strikes. In the mid 1920s, as the industry's markets slumped, attempts to cut wages were once again strongly resisted. With a slight improvement in their fortunes in the later 1920s, the millowners introduced ‘rationalization’ schemes; for the workforce this meant more work, less wages and higher chances of unemployment. Between April 1928 and September 1929, two general strikes crippled the industry for about eleven months, and the extension of these schemes and a further round of wage cuts led to another strike wave in 1933-34. Apart from several one-day closures, eight general strikes occurred in the industry between 1919 and 1940. The impact of this militancy was felt not only in other occupations in Bombay but also in other industrial centres, such as Sholapur and Ahmedabad. As Bombay became the scene of militant working-class action in India, its labour movement, under communist leadership since 1928, acquired an explicitly political direction.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 603 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 After the 1919 general strike, the Government of Bombay believed that ‘while the workers had no accepted leaders’ the conduct of the dispute ‘appeared to indicate the probability of some controlling organisation’. J. Crerar, Sec. to Government of Bombay [GOB], to Sec. to Government of India [GOI], Home, Delhi, 7/15 February 1919, in Bombay Confidential Proceedings, vol. 46, 1919, India Office Library [IOL], London. This riddle of leadership bemused the Bombay Chronicle, too, in 1924 when it commented: ‘it is absurd to suppose that the men are lacking in leadership … it is clear that there is good sound leadership among them somewhere.’ Bombay Chronicle, 21 February 1924.Google Scholar

2 The first cotton mill was built in 1856, see Morris, M. D., The Emergence of an Industrial Labour Force in India (California, 1965), p. 17.Google Scholar

3 Newman, R., ‘Labour Organisation in the Bombay Cotton Mills, 1918–1929’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Sussex 1970;Google ScholarKooiman, D., ‘Jobbers and the Emergence of Trade Unions in Bombay City’, International Review of Social History, vol. xxii (1977), pt 3, pp. 313–28. Morris attributes the growth of labour militancy to ‘the role of the middle-class intellectual appearing in his first full-blown opposition to British rule’, in Industrial Labour Force, p. 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Coneybeare, H., Report on the Sanitary State and Requirements of Bombay (Bombay, 1855), p. 2; Selections from the records of the Bombay Government, new series, vol. XI.Google Scholar

5 Labour Gazette, vol. IV, no. 7 (March 1925), pp. 745–7. This survey was based on a sample of 1,349 male and 715 female mill hands.Google Scholar

6 J. Sandilands, ‘The Health of the Bombay Workers’, ibid., vol. I, no. 2 (October 1921), pp. 14–16.

7 Pradhan, G. R., ‘The Untouchable Workers of Bombay City’, unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Bombay, 1936.Google Scholar

8 Report of the Rent Enquiry Committee (Bombay, 1939), vol. I, p. 9. The Committee noted pertinently that the minimum space required by the Bombay Jail Manual for a prisoner was double that which was stipulated as permissible under the Bombay Municipal Act of 1888. It also reported that 256,379 people lived in rooms occupied by six or more persons and 15,490 lived in rooms with at least twenty others, see pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

9 For a description of the social life of the mill districts in this period see Bhor, Parvatibai, Eka Rannaraginichi Hakikat, as told to Padmakar Chitale (Bombay, 1977).Google Scholar

10 Patel, K., Rural Labour in Industrial Bombay (Bombay, 1963), p. 150.Google Scholar

11 General Department, Order no. 3253/62-Confl; 15 May 1917 in Bombay Confidential Proceedings (1917), vol. 25, p. 15, IOL.Google Scholar

12 Proceedings of the Meerut Conspiracy Case [henceforth MCC], statement by Jhabvala, S. H. vol. II, non-communist series, pp. 786–7. The fact that the Bible—as Jhabvala told the Meerut court—was ‘one of my daily readings’ perhaps explains his prose style.Google Scholar

13 For the organization of the handloom weaving workshops in the city see Enthoven, R. E., The Cotton Fabrics of the Bombay Presidency (Bombay, 1897). The separation of workplace and neighbourhood in the mill district also had its physical aspect. The mill compounds resembled fortresses in the mill district, protected by high walls, iron gates and sentries equipped with lathis.Google Scholar

14 Labour Office, Bombay, General Wage Census, Part I; the Perennial Factories: Report on the Wages, Hours of Work, and Conditions of Industry in the Textile Industries (Cotton, Silk, Wool and Hosiery) in the Bombay Presidency (including Sind), May 1934 (Bombay, 1937), p. 20.Google Scholar

15 Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, compiled by Edwardes, S. M. (Bombay, 1909), vol. I, p. 493.Google Scholar

16 Burnett-Hurst, A. R., Labour and Housing in Bombay: A Study in the Economic Conditions of the Wage Earning Classes in Bombay (London, 1928), pp. 46–7.Google Scholar

17 Bombay Disturbances Enquiry Committee, 1938 [henceforth BDEC] oral evidence of Dhaku Janu Lad, pp. 103–5; Mathura Kuber, p. 499, Daji Sakharam, p. 507 and several others in GOB, Home (special [sp]) file 550(25) III B of 1938, Maharashtra State Archives [MSA]. Such evidence should modify the widely accepted picture of the jobber's awesome personal control, which has tended to neglect the institutional basis of his power.Google Scholar

18 Royal Commission on Labour in India, [henceforth RCLI], Evidence, Bombay Presidency (including Sind), 1929–31 (London, 1931), vol. I, pt i, written evidence, Seth Ambalal Sarabhai, Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd, p. 277.Google Scholar

19 Proceedings of the Bombay Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, 1929–1931, file 12 c, Replies to the questionnaire … submitted by the Currimbhoy Ebrahim Workmen's Institute, MSA.Google Scholar

20 See Patel, Rural Labour in Industrial Bombay, p. 72. The most noted example of such organization was the ‘clubs’ established among the Goanese in Bombay. They were financed by subscription and operated as a welfare system, giving preference to the unemployed among them, see RCLI, Evidence, I, i, The Bombay Seamen's Union, p. 293.Google Scholar

21 Pradhan, ‘The Untouchable Workers’, pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

22 Report of the Rent Enquiry Committee, vol. I, p. 20.Google Scholar

23 Of course these relationships were not stagnant. Between the wars, the jobber's authority at the workplace diminished. This was partly because the growth of labour militancy made it increasingly difficult for him to reconcile the demands of his men with the imperatives of management. As the jobber's influence at work declined, it became more necessary and, at the same time, more difficult for him to entrench himself within the neighbourhoods. It was probably the case that, by the late 1930s the jobber's position became less crucial to political and commercial advance in the neighbourhood. The extent of the jobber's decline should not, however, be exaggerated. In the mid-1930s, the Bombay Millowners' Association, in response to the declining efficacy of the jobber, introduced schemes to revamp the system of labour recruitment and control in the industry. However, individual mill managements remained the jobber's last defender. At the level of the individual mill, the jobber still retained his uses for management. Ineffective in countering industry-wide action, the jobber attempted to entrench himself in the neighbourhood in order to dominate more completely the politics of the particular mill. At this level, BMOA schemes to control the jobber met with considerable initial resistance from some of its own members. For a summary of the BMOA schemes to control badli hiring and the jobber system in generalGoogle Scholar see the Report of the Textile Labour Inquiry Committee, vol. II, Final Report (Bombay, 1953), pp. 337–50; BMOA, Annual Report (1935), pp. 27–9 and BMOA Annual Report (1936), pp. 37–40.Google Scholar

24 BDEC, oral evidence, Ravji Devakram in GOB, HD (sp) file 550 (25) IIIB of 1938, pp. 277–9, MSA.Google Scholar

25 Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, vol. I, p. 185.Google Scholar

26 Commissioner of Police, Bombay to Secretary, Judicial Department, Bombay, No. 545-C, 20 January 1911, reprinted in Edwardes, S. M., The Bombay City Police 1672–1916: A Historical Sketch (London, 1923), Appendix, p. 198. Edwardes' account of Mohurram related largely to areas of the city outside the mill district. But some of these relationships described for these areas were equally applicable to the mill district.Google Scholar

27 See J. Masselos, ‘Power in the Bombay “Moholla” 1904–1915: An Initial Exploration into the World of the Indian Urban Muslim’, South Asia, no. 6 (1976), pp. 75–95.Google Scholar

28 Edwardes, Bombay City Police, Appendix, p. 198.Google Scholar

29 Bombay Chronicle, 13 January 1919.Google Scholar

30 Police Report on the Riots in Bombay, February 1929 (Bombay, 1929);Google ScholarReport of the Bombay Riots Inquiry Committee (Bombay, 1929).Google Scholar

31 Bombay Chronicle, 7 February 1940.Google Scholar

32 BDEC, evidence of Tukaram Laxman, in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 517 MSA.Google Scholar

33 BDEC, evidence, Baijnath Bahadur in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 639 MSA.Google Scholar

34 BDEC, evidence, W. R. G. Smith, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 1049, MSA.Google Scholar

35 Burnett-Hurst, Labour and Housing in Bombay, p. 49.Google Scholar

36 Bombay Riots Inquiry Committee, 1929 [henceforth BRIC], oral evidence, Balubhai Desai, file 8, and A. R. Dimitimkar and S. Nabiullah, file 7, MSA.Google Scholar

37 BRIC, oral evidence, G. L. Kandalkar and V. H. Joshi, p. 71, MSA.Google Scholar

38 BRIC, oral evidence, G. L. Kandalkar and V. H. Joshi, file 16, p. 69, MSA.Google Scholar

39 ibid., p. s61.

40 BRIC, oral evidence, Balubhai T. Desai, file 8 p. 29–31, MSA.Google Scholar

41 ibid., p. 29.

42 Interview, V. B. Karnik, April 1979.Google Scholar

43 BDEC, evidence, Dhaku Janu Lad, GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, pp. 103–17, MSA.Google Scholar

44 See Cashman, R. I., The Myth of the Lokamamya: Tilak and Mass Politics in Maharashtra (California, 1975), pp. 75–97; Masselos, ‘Power in the Bombay “Moholla”’, pp. 75–95.Google Scholar

45 Raghunathji, K., The Hindu Temples of Bombay (Bombay, 1900).Google Scholar

46 Cited by the Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, vol. I, pp. 187–8.Google Scholar

47 BRIC, oral evidence, Balubhai T. Desai, file 8, pp. 69–71, MSA.Google Scholar

48 BRIC, oral evidence, Syed Munawar, file 3, p. 279, MSA.Google Scholar

49 BRIC, oral evidence, A. R. Dimtimkar and S. Nabiullah, p. 271, MSA.Google Scholar

50 Interview, V. B. Karnik, April 1979.Google Scholar

51 Nava Kal, 6 January 1928.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.

53 One mill manager told B. Shiva Rao, ‘For every one who goes out of this gate there are nine more waiting outside who would be grateful for the wages I am paying.’ Rao, B. Shiva, The Industrial Worker in India (London, 1939), p. 55.Google Scholar

54 RCLI, Evidence, Bombay Presidency, I, i, written evidence, The Social Service League, p. 445.Google Scholar

55 Dissatisfaction in this regard was often expressed in the speeches of the chairmen of the Bombay Millowners' Association at their annual general meetings; see, for instance, the BMOA, Annual Report, (1934), Chairman's speech, p. ii.Google Scholar

56 BMOA, Annual Report, 1893, p. 16.Google Scholar

57 BRIC, oral evidence, Milton Kubes, file 5, p. 241–3, MSA.Google Scholar

58 ibid., p. 201.

59 BRIC, oral evidence, Syed Munawar, file 3, p. 269, MSA.Google Scholar

60 BDEC, evidence, extracts from the monthly reports of the Labour Officer, BMOA, in GOB Home (sp) file 550 (25) III of 1938, pp. 173–245, MSA.Google Scholar

61 Times of India, 8 August 1929.Google Scholar

62 RCLI, evidence, Bombay Presidency I, i, written evidence, Mr M. S. Bhumgara, p. 499.Google Scholar

63 In January 1928, during the strike wave which finally launched the general strike, the police observed: ‘The strikers were determined not to work the new system and are gradually leaving for the native places by the coasting steamers and trains after receiving their wages’. Bombay Presidency Police [henceforth BPP], Secret Abstracts of Intelligence [SAI], 1928, no. 3, 21 January, para. 61.Google Scholar

64 BRIC, oral evidence, S. K. Bolc, file 3, p. 217, MSA.Google Scholar

65 Interview, V. B. Karnik, April, 1979.Google Scholar

66 BRIC, oral evidence, G. L. Kandalkar and V. H. Joshi, file 16, p. 71, MSA.Google Scholar

67 BRIC, oral evidence, S. K. Bole, file 3, p. 247, MSA.Google Scholar

68 MCC, statement by S. A. Dange, pp. 2447–8.Google Scholar

69 Commissioner of Police, Bombay, Daily Report, 6 April 1940 in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (23) C-I of 1940, p. 83, MSA.Google Scholar

70 BDEC, evidence, Girni Kamgar Union, Bombay (Kandalkar) in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III of 1938, p. 431, MSA.Google Scholar

71 See leaflets collected in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (46) of 1934 and 543 (46) pt I of 1934, MSA.Google Scholar

72 BDEC, confidential statement submitted by the Bombay Millowners' Association in GOB Home (sp) file 550 III of 1938, p. 315, MSA.Google Scholar

73 Commissioner of Police, Bombay, Daily Reports, 1 April 1940 in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (23) C-I of 1940, p. 21, MSA.Google Scholar

74 BDEC, confidential statement submitted by the BMOA, Annexure B-I in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III of 1938, pp. 317–43, MSA.Google Scholar

75 BDEC, oral evidence, S. K. Patil in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 401, MSA.Google Scholar

76 BDEC, oral evidence, Mr U'ren, Deputy Commissioner of Police in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, pp. 681–3, MSA.Google Scholar

77 Bombay Strike Enquiry Committee. 1928–1929, Proceedings [henceforth BSEC], vol. I, p. 121, MSA.Google Scholar

78 BDEC, oral evidence, Jayasingrao Bajirao in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 553; see also the evidence of Dhaku Janu Lad, p. 105, MSA.Google Scholar

79 BMOA, Annual Report, 1928, Chairman's speech, AGM, p. iii.Google Scholar

80 BDEC, BMOA answers to the questionnaire in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III of 1938 pp. 141–5, MSA.Google Scholar

81 BMOA, Annual Report, 1928, Chairman's speech, AGM, pp. v–vii; BMOA, Annual Report, 1933, Chairman's speech, AGM, p. v.Google Scholar

82 BDEC, oral evidence of Dhaku Janu Lad, in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III B of 1938, p. 105, MSA.Google Scholar

83 BRIC, oral evidence, J. Addyman, file I, p. 85, MSA.Google Scholar

84 BSEC, vol. I, p. 122, MSA.Google Scholar

85 BRIC, oral evidence of K. F. Nariman, file 6, p. 85, MSA.Google Scholar

86 Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, GOB, Home (sp) Secret no. 3757 B, 8 August 1935 in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (77) of 1935, p. 77, MSA.Google Scholar

87 Departmental note in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (42) of 1940, p. 16, MSA.Google Scholar

88 During the 1930s, three unions adopted this name.Google Scholar

89 BRIC, oral evidence, Syed Munawar, file 3, p. 267, MSA.Google Scholar

90 See Confidential Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, 1917, vol. 25, pp. 15–19, IOL.Google Scholar

91 RCLI, evidence, I, i, written evidence, the Bombay Textile Labour Union, p. 353. The outcome of these agonies was that by 1931 the Union's membership figure stood at 56 and was to fall further to 20 in 1938; see Labour Gazette, ‘Principal trade unions in the Bombay Presidency’, passim.Google Scholar

92 Labour Gazette, vol. II, no. 7, March 1923, p. 26.Google Scholar

93 Departmental note in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (10) E Pt D of 1929, p. 25, MSA.Google Scholar

94 BSEC, vol. I, p. 71, MSA.Google Scholar

95 MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, pp. 2413–15.Google Scholar

96 MCC, examination of Arjun A. Alwe, p. 961; BPP, SAI, 1928, no. 20, 19 May, para. 793; GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (18) C of 1928, MSA.Google Scholar

97 MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, p. 2424.Google Scholar

98 ibid., p. 2507.

99 Report of the Court of Inquiry into a Trade Dispute Between Several Textile Mills and their Workmen (Bombay, 1929), p. 11.Google Scholar

100 See BRIC, oral evidence, file 5, Milton Kubes, pp. 209–13, MSA.; see also MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, pp. 2498–537.Google Scholar

101 BRIC, oral evidence, file 2, Sir M. M. Ramji, p. 367, MSA.Google Scholar

102 MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, p. 2514.Google Scholar

103 Ibid.

104 MCC, vol. 10, Marathi Exhibits, Girni Kamgar Union Minute Book, Public Meetings, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

105 BDEC, evidence, extract from monthly report of the Labour Officer, BMOA, August 1935, in GOB, Home (sp) file 550 (25) III, of 1938, p. 181, MSA.Google Scholar

106 GOB, HD (sp) file 546 (13) B (1) of 1937–1938, p. 7, MSA.Google Scholar

107 Smith, W. R. G., Commissioner of Police to R. M. Maxwell, Secretary, GOB, Home (sp), no. 3035 L, 20 June 1935, in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (48) L, pp. 99–101, MSA.Google Scholar

108 MCC, examination of Arjun A. Alwe, 12 August 1931, p. 972.Google Scholar

109 See, for instance, Edwardes, Bombay City Police, Appendix, p. 197.Google Scholar

110 ‘Statement relating to the disturbances in the City of Bombay in April 1919’, in Bombay Confidential Proceedings, 1920, vol. 53, pp. 13–27 IOL; ‘A Report from the Commissioner of Police, Bombay to the Government of Bombay Concerning Political Developments before and during 1919’ in Curry Papers, Box IV, item nos 54 and 55, Centre of South Asian Studies, Cambridge; BPP, SAI, 1917, no. 29, 21 July para. 794.Google Scholar

111 MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, p. 2404.Google Scholar

112 ibid., pp. 2438–9; BRIC, oral evidence, K. F. Nariman, p. 87, MSA.

113 GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (18) C of 1928, MSA.Google Scholar

114 BRIC, oral evidence, W. T. Halai, file 5, p. 81, MSA.Google Scholar

115 BRIC, file 6, oral evidence, Dr P. G. Solanki, p. 165; see also, file 16, oral evidence of G. L. Kandalkar and V. H. Joshi of the Girni Kamgar Union, pp. 65–7, MSA.Google Scholar

116 Indian National Herald, 7 December 1928.Google Scholar

117 Letter, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, GOB, Home, Bombay no. 5395 L, 13 December 1928, in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, MSA.Google Scholar

118 Ibid.

119 Indian National Herald, 7 December 1928. Mayekar, claimed the paper, only ‘masquerades as a labour leader and is, in fact, alleged to be an agent of the Criminal Investigation Department.’Google Scholar

120 GOB, Home (sp), file 543 (18) C of 1928, MSA.Google Scholar

121 MCC, statement submitted by S. A. Dange, p. 2522.Google Scholar

122 Telegram, Police Commissioner to Secretary, GOB, Home (sp) no. 5368 L, 12 December 1928 in GOB Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, MSA.Google Scholar

123 Letter, Commissioner of Police to Secretary, GOB, Home, Bombay no. 5395 L, 13 December 1928, in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, pp. 41–5, MSA.Google Scholar

124 Report of H. C. Stokes, Inspector, Byculla Police Station, D. Division in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, pp. 13–15, MSA; Times of India, 21 December 1928.Google Scholar

125 Report by Inspector Klein, Bhoiwada Police Station to Superintendent of Police, E. Division, Bombay in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, pp. 21–5, MSA.Google Scholar

126 Letter of Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, GOB, Home, Bombay no. 5395 L, 13 December 1928 in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, pp. 41–5, MSA.Google Scholar

127 Report by W. D. R. Spiers, Superintendent, E. Division, in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, pp. 27–31, MSA.Google Scholar

128 Letter Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, GOB, Home, Bombay no. 5395 L, 13 December 1928 in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, p. 41–5, MSA.Google Scholar

129 Indian National Herald, 7 December 1928.Google Scholar

130 Ibid.

131 Letter, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, GOB, Home, Bombay no 5395 L, 13 December 1928 in GOB, Home (Poll) file 265 of 1928, p. 45, MSA.Google Scholar

132 Their leaflets, fly-sheets and public meetings dealt with such questions as jobber tyranny, methods of wage calculations, the shortcomings of ‘efficiency’ schemes which increased workloads without improving machinery, the use of the rotation of shifts to weed out troublesome workers and the causes of unemployment. See, for instance, the communist fly-sheets and leaflets collected in GOB, Home (sp) file 543 (46) of 1934 and file 543 (46) Pt 1 of 1934, MSA.Google Scholar

133 Times of India, 8 August 1929.Google Scholar

134 MCC, statements made by the accused, non-communist series, examination of S. H. Jhabvala, p. 756. This comment must also be read in the light that Jhabvala by his own admission ‘knew very little Mahratti’ and was, when he spoke these words, apparently isolated within the labour movement.Google Scholar

135 Memorandum by Director of Information, Government of Bombay, 3 May 1929 in GOB, Home (Poll) file 344 of 1929, pp. 113–15, MSA.Google Scholar