Bombay Textile Mill Strike of 1982-83

The Case of Bombay Textile Mill Strike of 1982-83: An Analytical Study

"Nothing moves in the city, without our say-so. Let the bosses curse, let the papers cry. This morning I saw it happen with these ancient eyes of mine. Without our say-so nothing moves but the tide!" -- Rob Rosenthal, written during the Seattle General Strike of 1919

Introduction:
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The world has seen growing atrocities of the capitalist on the working class. The working class keeps its head down and its eyes closed while creating the wealth that makes the capitalist have warm nights and opulent days. The labour is the hen that lays golden eggs, but the capitalist is not the impatient butcher. He is the extortionist who gets as many golden eggs as he wants out of a seemingly docile Labour force. But now and then the docility of the working class gets tested, and that breeds contempt amongst those oppressed and ultimately the indignation and the discontent bursts out in the way of protest and revolution. The history of the industrialized world is teeming with such examples that show the periodic outbursts of the working class against the oppressing and tyrannical nature of the capitalists. Much of these outbursts have come in the form of Labour organizing together against the industrial class. Their revolt was in the form of strikes organized by the Trade Unions of which the labour force was a part. These trade unions helped organize the labour force for collective bargaining against their employers for better wages and working conditions in the spaces they operated. Freedom of association is the corner stone of society. It is this freedom that defines humans as a social animal, as a creature able to have complex communication. It gives freedom and scope for the formation of purposes, the freedom for the formation of opinions (educational freedom and freedom of conscience), freedom of speech, or the right to decide by resort to experience, to deliberate in public and to combine as a group with a common motive. These form part of the endeavors of the working class to achieve liberty in the modern industrial state. The control of political power in a state lies to a large extent in the hands of those who control economic power, and power lying in the hand of a minority, the ruling class, restricts justice and fairness for those who do not hold that power. To maintain balance between classes this concentration needs to be diffused and redistributed. The majority of voluntary societies known today have arisen out of the conditions of the Capitalist system. The removal of labour protection from the workers by the laws during the time of Queen Elizabeth and combined together with the rise of industrialism and the burgeoning commodification of the labour force resulted in extreme hardships for workers and their families(Goswami & Goswami, 2004). The capitalist have

always believed in extracting by all means possible, every penny invested in the production process by taxing the labour force, making them work overtime, in dangerous working conditions and being absolutely nonchalant towards their wellbeing. The trade union movement has hence been a front created against the centralization of power in the hands of the capitalists and the misuse of that power in denying the right of a fair and dignified life to the working class (Goswami & Goswami, 2004). The more highly paid a worker is, the more satisfied and secure he is, then the democracy becomes to him a reality and political democracy in particular of positive values (Allen, 1954). The history of organized labour movement has been no less than an epic in itself. Be it the Seattle General Strike of 1919, or the 1912 Brisbane General Strike, or the very famous Winter of Discontent of 197889 when the James Callaghan government fell because of widespread strikes bringing Margaret Thatcher into power, the strength and the say-so of the labour force has always shown the way ahead for the general public. But these were strikes organized by the labour force of the developed world. The obvious question arises about the way organized labour has existed in developing countries. Research pointed out that there was a definite lack of the westernized collective bargaining in the labour unions of the third world. There was more of political unionism rather than an economic bargaining on the part of the trade unions (Bhattacharjee, 1989). However, one incidence stands out as a triumph of the organized labour movement in India over the industrial class even though the yield of the effort was questionable. The Bombay Textile Mill strike of 1982-83 stands out in history as an event of reckoning when the labour force showed its might and strength and that numbers do matter. This paper looks at the passage and dimensions of the Strike of 1982-83 in an attempt to account for the dynamics of the event itself and the aftermath.

Emergence of the Bombay Textile Mill Struggle:

The issue at hand is the outbreak of a struggle in the textile industry in the early half of the 8th decade of the last century. All strikes that have ever happened in any industrial society have been linked to the welfare of workers of that particular industry and have mostly been centered on fair wages and not just minimum or living wages. The issue also pertains to the payment of bonuses which has been seen as an integral part of working class benefits and welfare. It also shows that the labour force has a part to play in the profit generation of the firm and paying of bonus is an acknowledgement of the same. Before 1965 there was no statutory basis of paying bonuses, but with the legislation of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 Section 8 of the Act made entitlements for all employees of factories and other industrial establishments to receive bonus from the employer (Goswami & Goswami, 2004). The reason for the strike was the aspect of payment of bonus where the mill workers were agitating to receive the same (Bhattacharjee, 1989). The history of Bombay, or what it is now officially known as, Mumbai, it coruscant and written over the years by a heavy ingress of capitalist Britons. This brought a trend that divided the working class from the ruling or the industrial class. There was a clear spatial divided between the two classes as was the class itself. The industrial class lived in spaces which were remarkably clean and beautiful as compared to the slums where the labour force lived which were filthy and constantly reminded the workers of the depravity they suffered compared to their employers. This divide would also cause s sense of complacency amongst the employers causing a huge backlog of demands unmet. The workers had to give a jolt to the employers to meet that backlog of demands and for that have occasional strikes. The demands that were put forth were regarding the low wages and other monetary benefits the workers were entitled to. Datta Samant amassed support of the workforce on these issues and this mass attained a staggering size by the time the strike reached its crescendo (Bakshi, 1986). The strike began in January 1982 and was sustained for a one and a half

years. There were around two and a half lakh participant workers of around 60 mills from all over Bombay. This sort of General Strike is rarely seen in history of organized labour however very less has been spoken about it (Nair, 1993). The Bombay working class of textile mills was suffering with disproportionately low wages, some of the lowest wage rates for one of the hardest textile mill works in the world. It was a question of the meagerly, undignified survival of the textile mill working class. The issue of the textile mill workers was also a challenge to the axiomatically accepted fact that the organized sector is responsible for the deplorable conditions of the unorganized sector. Even the Ramanujan Committee accepted this fact while it criticized the organized labour and the capitalists to hold off benefits from the unorganized sector (Nair, 1993). However, one of the main reasons for the fall in the working conditions of the labour force was the sickening of the textile industry itself. 1980s was the year when the shift of demand from cotton based products to synthetic and mixed textiles happened. Looking at the high price elasticity of textiles a small reduction in the prices of the newer man-made fibers caused a great fall in the demand for cotton based products in both urban and rural markets. This caused mass sickening of the mills. This was further aggravated with the introduction of the Powerloom. The Powerloom outperformed the handloom and the competition of course beat the textile mills. It was an epochal change where the powerlooms revolutionized the production of cotton, synthetic, and the blended cloths. This reduced the cost of the products greatly and the cost reduction affected the employment of workers in the powerloom powered mills. Will the handloom mills suffering the direct hit was suffered by the workers whose wages were immediately cut and the living standards fell drastically (Goswami O. , 1990). One of the main features of this strike was the emergence of Datta Samant as a trade union leader when all the mill worker issues were settled by the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS). This however will be discussed in a later section of the paper. But it is an interesting aspect that the workers were ready to go any distance for their demands and that the bittering relation with RMMS was very evident and one of the reasons behind the strength with which the strike was sustained and fuelled. For years RMMS constantly overlooked the fundamental needs of the workers and the core labour issues played second fiddle to the overarching macro issues which were used to cover up the elemental problems (Nair, 1993).

Ideology and the Nature of Leadership:

Ideology: The ideology behind this struggle was clearly a struggle between the working class and the capitalists. But it was not limited to that. There was also an underlying struggle between modernization and traditional way of manufacturing. The working conditions of the labour force of the textile mills were bad and

were deteriorating at a fast pace. There was a profound sense of depravity amongst those who worked in the hell holes of handloom mills like sweatshops to the great textile industry of India which one of the earliest liberalized and globalized industries in our modern country. It is said that when a nation globalizes it not only globalizes in the sense of its capital and opportunities, but also in regards of its inequalities and depravities. But this was not a standalone situation where the class difference could be seen in isolation of everything else. The changes in the textile industry and the early liberalization of the industry brought newer and better innovations to the sector. With innovation and mechanization of any industry there is a marked reduction of labour intensity of the sector. This is what plagued the handloom version of the industry the most because of its heavy reliance on manpower. This dented the chances of revival since the demand pattern of the consumer was changing in a way to benefit the powerloom (Goswami O. , 1990). Hence it is very evident that not only the class difference but globalization and modernization was also in part responsible for the strike to culminate, consolidate and become the Goliath as it turned out to be. But ultimately it also proved to be the downfall of the struggle in a way no one thought it would be. The fall of the struggle did not have the same grandeur as the struggle itself. One of the reasons for this, again, was the modernization of the industry which caused the sickening of the mills to the point that the owners preferred closing them down than to saving them and reconciling with the workers. Rise of Datta Samant: The nature of the leadership would always be seen as a step to break free from the organized and systematic control of the state and the ruling class. Datta Samant was that beacon of hope that the workers had to achieve their demands and win their dignity from their industrial lords. He was the most unlikely of leaders, yet the most appropriate choice as there was a voice of dissent and resentment echoing in unison from all sides of the workforce congregation. Datta Samant as a leader of the strike had quite the opposite feelings initially towards the whole issue. In his own words he was never keen to enter into a confrontation with the textile employers but that the workers and they pressed him hard enough to call the strike (Tulpule, 1982). Datta Samant had a history of fighting for the workers and organizing them against their atrocious employers. This reputation came with his family background where his elder brother, P.N. Samant, or better known as Dada Samant, was a part of trade unionism and was regarded as a hero, someone who stood for the demands of the harrowed workers and was known for this bargaining skills, someone who would get the job done. Datta Samants image was that of a hot headed and sometimes a militant trade union goon, but a messiah of the mill workers who were themselves considered as the vanguard of the Indian working class(Bakshi, 1986). Samant was ready to walk the extra mile and organize workers from their slum houses. His elder brother fought hard for slum dwellers and so did Dr. Datta Samant who was a medical practitioner by profession but had taken up unionism as his ultimate path of life. Datta Samants upfront nature and his fearless ability to face his adversary was one of the biggest reasons why he was chosen as the leader of the strike. His fracas with a Congress leader on tenancy issues and a false indictment brought him to the limelight. Later Samants work with quarry workers brought him further accolades. One of the positive aspects of Samant was the fact he was not getting attracted towards party politics even when both Congress and the Communist parties were hell bent on getting him in. He had a stint with Congress when he started working as a union leader for INTUC but a bloody encounter with the police left him in jail. However, this boosted his popularity all the more. His notoriety got him disaffiliated from the INTUC and Congress in January 1980 when Congress won in huge majority after their loss after the infamous emergency. Samant could be defined as a scourge of the industrialists and the state. The situation was so bad that he was getting arrested with blank charge sheets and the Gujarat government was trying to find ways to restrict his entry into their state. The militancy and the notoriety of Dr. Datta Samant was actually in favour of the working

class who saw him as someone who can win them anything they demanded and hence chose to support him over anyone. His fame had outrun any union leader of that time. He was in fact running campaigns against other trade unions exposing their false countenance. (Bakshi, 1986) Rejection of RMMS: But these were not the only reasons of why Samant was chosen as the messianic icon of the working class of the textile mills of Bombay. One of the greatest reasons for him being chosen was the systematic failure of the other trade unions to crack a deal for the mill workers. In fact the other unions were cracking deals in favour of the ruling class than the workers. This is the reason why the union initially formulated to serve the mill workers was completely rejected. As the famous labour lawyer and columnist, Radha Iyer observes, all the brouhaha behind Datta Samant was to be directly attributed to the failure of the established trade unionists and employers to solve problems quickly and expeditiously and the failure of the legal system to help them out (Bakshi, 1986). The RMMS is the congress supported union in the textile industry which has exclusive bargaining rights as enshrined statutorily in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946 (BIRA). It contravenes the convention of the Trade Unions Act where none of the trade unions attain legal recognition. This act in itself shows a ploy of the ruling class to create a divide by putting their own amongst the working class to decide what is right for them. The Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) formed and pressed for the legalization of the RMMS to check the rise of the communist trade unions in the country. Moreover the membership of RMMS was through the verification of its memberships due receipts by the congress appointed Registrar of Trade Unions. The lack of openness in the election of its members made it suspicious for everyone to take the word of RMMS. With BIRA in place the Mill Owners Association would not listen to other unions who could not prove their majority in front of the RMMS and RMMS was sitting in the lap of the Mill Owners doing what the bosses wanted. The number of complaints made by the RMMS to the Chief Labour Officer from 1962 to 1979 came down from 600 to 40. Moreover, BIRA made it extremely difficult to stage protests as it made a legal strike virtually impossible. They made arbitration compulsory over industrial disputes. The Act stipulated that any strike called without giving a 14 day notice to the government, or one that occurred during conciliation or arbitration or one called after the adjudication of award, would be illegal. This rendered RMMS virtually redundant which had to sacrifice the right to strike to attain de facto rights to exclusive bargaining (Bhattacharjee, 1989). For long the leaders of RMMS had sold out the interests of the mill workers, both in collective and individual bargaining to the mill management. There were also various cases of corruption and abuse of power by the union leaders, especially of the special statutory status it enjoyed was very popular amongst the management honchos. RMMS was an entrenched disease protected by the infamous BIRA which showed no commitment to the inner union democracy, where none of the members were elected through ha democratic fashion (Nair, 1993). These factors were enough for the masses to reject RMMS as their savior and adopt other ways to vent their grievances and get them heard by the management. Even though at a macro level Samants ways were not all that acceptable, these issues made him the ultimately choice for the mill workers to represent their case to the industrialists (Bakshi, 1986). Short Comings of Dr. Datta Samant

Datta Samant lacked the ability to have a formal organizational base to this furrows into revolt and struggle against the management. According to Tulpule, Datta Samant had very less knowledge of the industry that he was fighting for. He did not have a correct estimate of the number of workers present in the industry. It was merely the sheer belief amongst the people that he would lead them to success that got him to the position he was in. Tulpule also mentions the fact that a number of strikes called by Samant had dragged longer than they should have. This showed a lack in ability to negotiate and bargaining. This caused a gross failure of quite a few of his agitations. He had the impeccable ability to amass support and lead people into agitation but did not do it in an organized fashion. It was his militancy that caused bloodshed in many of his struggles and agitations. To have the ability to mobilize workers is necessary, but the outcome mattered more and how the outcome was achieved. Not always does the end justify the means, at least not in the case of Datta Samant (Tulpule, 1982). Datta Samant had the habit of leaping without looking into a strike or a lock-out. However, there were very little follow up actions from his side. This caused the management to regain the position of advantage making the workers passive victims. Datta also lacked the skills of a democrat. He did not have the skills to better organizational ordering and systematization. Therefore, with him, the decisions were always made within small groups and imposed onto others, who, fortunately for him, followed him blindly. The work stoppages caused by Samant ended up more in failure than success and caused more monetary loss to the workers than gains. S.A. Dange dismissed Samant calling him an anarcho-syndicalist capturing factories and workshops one by one under the combined force of the workmen. It was Samants whim and fancies to which the whole struggle out be inclined and ultimately played out. His rigidity was his greatest shortcoming and also his biggest weapon considering the fact that he was rigid at both the ends (Bakshi, 1986).

Conclusion The Impact of the Strike:

Most mill owners believed that the workers were grossly misled by Datta Samant and that they chased into the wishful strike thinking of raises which would be somewhere between 40% and 80%. The kind of hike asked by Datta Samant was enormous and astronomical. He asked for hikes which would have incurred costs of nearly 115 crore per annum on the Bombay Mills. There was also a 239% hike in the dearness allowance in that period worsening the situation. The powerlooms where more than capable of meeting all the shortfalls of the industry and were ready to replace the handloom mill (Bakshi, 1986). The strike resulted in massive layoffs and job losses of nearly 75,000 people. The mill owners actually welcomed the strike, if not provoke it because they had large unsold stocks which were piling up because of the disease the industry had contracted in the age of modernization. The strike caused the policy makers to come up with laws which benefitted the mill owners as the legislations were directed against the powerlooms. However, the powerlooms continued to enjoy the advantage they had over the handlooms. The strike was a costly affair for the mill workers but was definitely a landmark in the history of trade unionism in India. Many workers managed to sustain on the assets they had in their villages. Many others moved to alternative professions and lost whatever they had made during their time as mill workers. Most of these transitions were from the organized sector to the unorganized sector. Many cases were filed against Samants Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union (Nair, 1993). The most pitiable situation was the loss of jobs that caused unaccountable number of households to lose their livelihoods. There was just showy triumph out of the strike; neither the government nor the industrialists did anything to help the workers who were still disillusioned with the strike which had run longer than it could sustain itself. Nothing had changed. By the

end of the strike the Samant brigade just wanted a way back into the mills as all their hopes to get BIRA repealed were lost. However, the meeting of Samant and the commerce minister was rigged by Vasantdada Patil and the Mill Owners and by none other than Mrs. Gandhi who did not allow any deal to be broken between Samant and the minister (Bakshi, 1986). The mill workers disillusionment with the BIRA and the RMMS proved to be fatal and the hopes were smashed under the heave stately hands of congress both at state and the center (Baruah, 1982). However, this loss, from a distance, may not look like a loss. It was definitely a loss for the workers who although celebrated their triumph of holding onto their strike for one and a half years knew what they had lost. It did etch on history a new facet of the Indian labour movement. However, the next decade made it worse for the labour force with the unorganized sector growing, post the structural reforms in India. It is however, important to mark that this effort on the part of the mill workers made it possible for the work force all over the country to realize their strength and the strength of the union. Even though many legal changes were made to the status of the unions, the sheer strength of the workers who are organized and together brought the grand textile industry of Bombay to its knees.