No. 26 21

From the Mill to the Streets -A Study of Retrenchment of Women from Ahmedabad

Textile Mills

RENANA JHABVALATHE textile mills of Ahmedabad werefounded at the turn of the century andsince then have grown, prospered anddominated Ahmedabad’s economic andsocial life. The 65 textile mills today givedirect employment to about 1.5 lakhworkers and indirect employment to lakhsmore. Over the last two years theindustry has been going through a crisisand so far 14 mills have shut down,leaving about 40,000 workersunemployed.

Until 25 years ago, textile mills werepractically the only industry in the citybut since then small-scale industry hasbeen rapidly growing and in 1931accounted for one third of the industriallabour force, employing about 75,000workers.

Ahmedabad, like all other big cities,has an unorganised workforce coveringa range of activities from petty trades tohome production to casual labour. Thissector constituted 46.5 percent of thework force in 1971, out of which 50,000were estimated to be women, and aboutone third of these women belonged toscheduled castes or harijan community.*

Harijans in Ahmedabad can bedivided into three main subcastes, thevankars or weavers, the chamars orleather workers and the bhangis orsweepers. The vankars and chamarshave successfully taken to trades otherthan traditional ones. Both thesesubcastes have a relatively highereducation rate and have benefitedsomewhat more from the reservation

policy. Most of the extremely small,newly emerging harijan middle classbelongs to these two subcastes. About50 years ago, many women of thesecommunities used to work alongside themen in the textile mills but as the numberof women in the mills decreased themajority of these vankar and chamarwomen drifted into the unorganisedsector.

Women in the Work ForceThe workers in the textile mills are

fully organised into one union. Theirwages range from Rs 600 to Rs 1,200 permonth. They have all the legal benefitsof provident fund, gratuity, ESI and soon. Most live in pukka houses, many ofthese houses provided by governmentschemes. Often, their children have whitecollar jobs and many workers are partnersin small businesses. There are less than3,000 women workers, that is, less thantwo per cent of the workforce.

The workers in the small factories arestill building their unions and there aremany rival unions fighting for a hold inthis sector. Their wages range from Rs 8to Rs 25 per day and they work from eight

to 12 hours a day. Depending on thestrength of their union, they get some ornone of their legal benefits. About 12 percent of the workforce is female.

The unorganised sector has nounions worth the name. The workers earnfrom Rs 2 to Rs 12 per day but theemployment is very insecure and theysuffer from the constant threat ofunemployment. They live mainly in theslums, and have a high rate ofindebtedness. There are over 50,000women workers in the unorganisedsector.

This picture of Ahmedabad cityreveals the low status of women in theworkforce. Most women workers areconcentrated in the lowest paying, mostinsecure and most exploitative sectorwhereas the organised mill sector hasabsolutely and percentage wise the leastnumber of women. If we further analysethe position of women workers, we wouldfind that they are concentrated at thelowest economic levels within eachsector.

The picture in Ahmedabad is part ofa national trend. Most women who are

*The Indian economy can bedivided into the organised andunorganised sectors. The organisedsector comprises all public sectorestablishments, all services undercentral, state and local government andoccupations in public undertakingsand non-agricultural private sectorestablishments which employ 10 ormore persons. The workers in thissector are governed by certain lawsand regulations that provide aframework of requirements,

procedures and conditions whichensure them a greater degree of legalprotection than other workers obtain.

The unorganised sector is thennegatively defined as the working forcewhich is left out of the purview of theabove definition, In contrast to theorganised sector, there is very littledata regarding conditions ofemployment in the unorganised sector.Likewise, conditions of work are notgoverned by rules and regulations.This leaves the workers without

protection under law. Yet the majorityof women are employed in this sector.Only six per cent of the female workforce are employed in the organisedsector while1 94 per cent are in theunorganised sector.

Within the female work force thework participation rate of scheduledcaste women is generally higher thanthe average. According to the 1971census, female scheduled casteparticipation in the work force was morethan double the general rate.

22 MANUSHI

employed are self employed or casualworkers and very few are wage earners.

Industrialisation in India beganaround the middle of the last century andby the first decade of this century cottontextiles, jute textiles and mining emergedas the three dominant nonagriculturalindustries. From the beginning, womenplayed an important role in buildingthese industries, and by the 1920swomen constituted about 20 per cent ofthe workforce in cotton textiles, 15 percent in jute products and 38 per cent incollieries.

The young girl in Ahmedabad’s millslearned her mother’s trade, and aftersome time she was enrolled as a workerin the mill. This method of recruitingthrough the mother was such anaccepted part of mill life that womenaffixed their mothers’ names rather thantheir fathers’ or husbands’ names to theirown. Thus Ratanben was listed in themill as Ratanben Motiben Farmer afterher mother, Motiben. This custom waslater changed and women recruited after1955 affixed their husbands’ names.Kankuben, who joined the mill in 1960,is listed as Kankuben Gandabhai Rathodafter her husband Gandabhai.

A woman whose mother was notworking in a mill learned the trade if shemarried into a mill family, and workedalongside her husband or mother-in-law.

Throwing Women OutThe 1930s saw a shift in the attitude

of these big national industries towardstheir women workers. While bigindustries were still struggling to growthey welcomed women workers and usedtheir labour to the fullest. However, oncethey had acquired a powerful hold in theeconomy they no longer wanted thewomen workers and began to expel themtill in the 1970s the percentage of womenworkers was 2.5 in cotton textiles, 2 injute textiles and 5 in collieries.

The decline of women workers tooka different form in each industry. Incotton textiles, the decrease was gradualwith a few hundred workers laid off eachyear. The jute industry, however, saw a

sudden and sharp decrease within ashort time span. From 1950 to 1956, forexample, there was a decrease of 16,000women workers, the female workforcedeclining from about 37,000 to 21,000.

A sudden decline means a great dealof suffering for a large number ofunemployed workers. Slower declinemeans suffering for some workers everyyear and a slow choking off ofopportunity. However, whether thedecline be slow or sudden, the long termeffect is the same - closing betteropportunities to women and pushingthem into the lowest paying, mostinsecure, least dignified jobs.

When the textile industry was stillvery young three quarters of a centuryago, women constituted a substantial

In the factorysection of the workforce. The 1911census, for example, counts 7,629 womenin the Ahmedabad textile mills. This was18.6 per cent of the work force of 40,847workers.

The industry grew steadily in thefollowing decade and the 1921 censusshows an increase in the total work forceas well as in the number of femaleworkers. Interestingly, whereas the totalwork force had grown by 15.5 per centfrom 40,847 to 47,346, the female workforce had grown at a faster rate of 26.3per cent, from 7,629 to 9,649.

The decade from 1921 to 1931 saw a

consolidation of the industry as well asa rise in union activity. This was perhapsthe decade of the most militant labouraction in the history of the Ahmedabadtextile mills. In spite of the labourmilitancy the industry grew. The femalework force was 18.3 per cent, asubstantial percentage of the total workforce.

1931 to 1941 was a period of dramaticincrease for the industry. The major partof the increase was in the first half of thedecade. The labour force nearly doubledduring the four years from 1931 to 1935,when it grew from 53,776 to 97,218. Thefemale work force also grew but by a mere646 - from 9,848 to 10,694. Here, thediscrimination against recruitment ofwomen workers becomes increasingly

evident. Whereas the labour force grewby over 80 per cent the female work forcegrew by a negligible 6.6 per cent.

The rest of the decade saw a furtherrise in the total labour force but the femalework force declined by nearly 600workers. Thereafter, there was a steadydecrease in the percentage of womenworkers, from 7.9 per cent in 1941 to 5percent in 1951 to 3 per cent of all textileworkers in 1971.

Phoney ReasonsThere are two main types of reasons

suggested for the decrease in womenworkers in the industrial sector. One is

No. 26 23

protective legislation and the other istechnological change.

There have been a number of lawsenacted to protect the woman workeragainst serious risk or bodily injury, hardlabour and the double burden ofmotherhood and work.

For example, the Factories Act, 1948,and the Factories And Mines Act, 1952,prohibit handling of excessively heavyweights by women. The Mines Actprohibits employment of womenunderground. According to a tripartitecommittee set up in West Bengal, thedecline of employment in the juteindustry was mainly due to the limitationof the maximum load that a woman cancarry. According tc the present rule, awoman can lift a maximum of 65 poundswhereas jute rolls weigh 80 to 100pounds. One wonders whether any realrepresentative of women workers waspresent when the limit was fixed orwhether the trade union and thegovernment made any serious attemptsto make the owners adjust to this limit,other than their just throwing out thewomen.

Trade unions and government, intheir anxiety to “protect” women, forgotat the same time to protect their meansof livelihood. They cured the headacheby cutting off the head.

Another often cited reason fordecrease of women workers is thatwomen are an extra cost to ownersbecause of the maternity benefits andcreche costs that the latter have to pay.This argument, however, cannot besubstantiated as the total expenditureunder the Maternity Benefits Actbetween 1961 and 1971 during whichtime there was a substantial decrease ofwomen workers in the organised sector,is negligible. For factories, the amountpaid under the Act varied between 7.27and 11.77 lakhs as compared to over 1.75crores under ESI. “As for the otherwelfare provisions, for example, crechesand sanitary facilities, the expenditureinvolved is negligible. Many employersdo not provide separate toilets or

restrooms. Where they do exist, thearrangements are inadequate. Crechesare very often only a room withoutproper arrangements.”

Similarly, a study done by the labourministry in 1964 on the reasons for thedecline of women workers in cottontextiles states that retrenchment showsa positive correlation with change oftechnology, not with maternity benefitspaid.

In spite of the lack of a factual basis,the workers in the textile industry firmlybelieve that maternity benefit paymentsand provision of creches are the mainreasons for expelling women workers. Itis unfortunate that the union officialsand the workers, both male and female,accept this justification without protest.This easy acceptance indicates a two-fold betrayal of women workers’interests. First, it shows an acceptanceof the supremacy of profit over the needsand welfare of the workers. Second, itaccepts that women should completelybear all the responsibility of maternityand be penalised if they fail to do so.This is to assume that a woman’s role asa mother is her individual problem andmust not interfere with her role as aworker. If it does interfere, she will bepunished.

Technological change is anotherreason for decline in women’semployment. The report of the committeeon the status of women cites it as thesingle most important factor for thetrend. The report adds: “The initialadverse impact of more sophisticatedtechnology in industry on theemployment of women had been a globaltrend.” In cotton textiles, the introductionof new spinning machines and highspeed winding machines resulted indisplacement of women. Similarly, newmethods of surface screening and coalhandling in collieries causedretreuchment of many women workers.Generally, as the industry modernises, itproduces new technology needing ahigher level of skill and payscorrespondingly higher wages. At this

stage, women, who are considered fitonly for manual work, are displaced, andthe decline begins.

This idea of new machines replacingwomen workers is repeated in a resignedand melancholy tone by union officials.Technology is made out to be a demongod whose hunger is satisfied only bythe sacrifice of women workers. Or is itthat industry’s choice of capital intensivetechnology inevitably results inrationalisation? Do our unions andprogressive forces, unable to fight thegrowing monster of unemployment, savetheir own skins by throwing out thewomen workers as its first victims?

Main QuestionsWe have already discussed reasons

for the displacement but to halt thedecline we must know how it ishappening, who is involved, what are themechanisms and behaviour patternsresponsible. We must try and answer thefollowing questions:

1. Who are the groups and interestsresponsible for the decline?

2. What is the ideology, reasoning,philosophy at work?

3. What are/were the mechanismsand behaviour patterns at work?

4. How do/did the women react andfeel ?

5. What is happening/has happenedto these displaced women?

The answer to all these questions willvary from area to area, industry toindustry, period to period depending onthe economic, social and politicalsituation. We will confine ourselves tothe situation in the Ahmedabad cottontextile mills and the decline in womenworkers since 1925.

We will concentrate mainly on thepoint of view of the women workers andtheir male counterparts. We choose thismethod because first, we are strategicallyplaced for maximum accessibility to howthe workers feel, what they did, theiraspirations and hopes anddisappointments. Second, since the mainaim of the study is to facilitateorganisation of women workers, it is

24 MANUSHI

fitting that we see the world from theirpoint of view.

Union HistoryIn 1917, Gandhiji led a 22 day strike

of weavers which resulted in a 35 percent bonus for the workers. From thenon, the idea of a union was in the air, andfinally in February 1920 spinners in onemill got together and formed the throstleworkers’ union. Over the next five years,12 other occupational unions wereformed. All these unions were federatedinto the TLA, known in Gujarati asMajoor Mahajan. The membership ofTLA has continuously increased overthe last 60 years. Today, with itsmembership of 90 per cent of the textilework force, it is the only effective unionin the Gujarat cotton textile industry.

Relations between TLA and AMA(Ahmedabad Millowners’ Association)evolved through different stages overthe 15 years from 1920 to 1935. Underthe inspiration of Gandhi, the leaders ofTLA had, from the beginning, beenclosely associated with the nationalistmovement led by Gandhi. Ahmedabad,where Gandhi lived at Sabarmati Ashramfor seven years, was a centre ofnationalist activity during this period.

This first stage of relations betweenTLA and AMA coincided with the firstphase of Gandhi’s non-cooperationmovement. It was marked byconfrontation between workers andowners, leading to seven major strikesand 26 minor ones in the years 1920-23.

“Gandhi, in his talk to the mill owners’association in January 1920, linked theworkers’problems to the problems of thenation. He asked the mill owners to helpboth the workers and the nation...in aspeech to the workers soon after, Gandhiasked the workers to continue to striketo obtain their basic rights.”

During the depression of 1923, theunion called for a general strike againsta wage cut. Unfortunately, the strike wasa failure and workers had to agree to thewage cut without any demand beingfulfilled. TLA’s defeat in this show ofstrength resulted in a drastic decrease inmembership. TLA then withdrew from its

strategy of confrontation.During the next stage, 1923 to 1928,

since TLA did not raise wage demands,there was practically no interactionbetween AMA and TLA. Instead, TLAconcentrated on other areas of workers’welfare. It opened over 20 schools forworkers’ children, and a cooperativesavings and lending society, a hospitaland dispensary, and fought againstabuse of workers by jobbers.

The AMA underwent a change ofpolicy in the period 1923 to 1928. Before1923, mill owners were hesitant about

At the machine

supporting the nationalists. But whenimported goods from Japan andLancashire began flooding the marketthey found that they needed thenationalists’ support. The trauma theindustry was facing made them perceivethe role the colonial government wasplaying in supporting the Lancashireinterests. Not only did Ahmedabad millowners express nationalist sentimentsbut they also actively participated inpolitics. In 1936, they passed a resolutioncondemning the arrests of Nehru andGandhi, and decided to boycott theelections to the legislative assembly.

The participation of both TLA andAMA in nationalist politics served as abridge between them. 1928 to 1933 saw anew stage of their relations—thedevelopment of arbitration. Thearbitration awarded a wage increase toworkers. As a result of the award,membership figures between January1928 and May 1930 increased by over 90per cent.

The major office bearers of TLA andAMA were active first in local, then instate and later in national politics in theCongress party. TLA was able tocombine nationalist sentiments with itsrepresentation of labour and firmlyestablish itself as a major union. Itsposition was made practicallyinvulnerable in 1947 with the assumptionof power in Delhi by the CongressParty.

Union Sacrifices WomenOne of the issues that has come up

again and again for negotiation has beenthe issue of rationalisation, newtechnology and retrenchment.

During the 1920s, Japanese clothentered the Indian market, providing stiffcompetition to Indian textile mills. TheJapanese mills, since they had newtechnology, were more cost effective. Forexample, in 1928, there were 63 weaversper 100 looms and six spinners per 1,000spindles in Japanese mills whereasIndian mills had 100 workers per 100looms and 15 spinners per 1,000 spindles.Hence from 1920 onwards the mills weretrying to bring in new machines.

The move was resisted by TLA onthe ground that it would lead to largescale unemployment. They said: “Whilediscussing the question ofrationalisation employers and the peopleof their line of thinking are veryenthusiastic about the conditionsprevailing in Japan. Such propagandistsplace only one side of the picture whileconveniently forgetting the other sidewhich is peculiar and inherent in theobjective social and national conditionsin Japan which makes rationalisationthere not only inevitable butadvantageous to all concerned. It is aquestion whether such objective andsocial conditions exist in this countryand particularly in our province. Ifrationalisation is allowed to proceed herewithout check, we shall be adding to ourvast problem of rural unemploymentanother relating to urban population.Organised unemployment relief in othercountries mitigates the hardships arisingfrom unemployment. Till we make some

No. 26 25

similar arrangements here, the speed ofrationalisation should not exceed thecapacity of the industry for reabsorptionof those thrown out of employment inconsequence.”

TLA tried to meet the pressure fromemployers not merely by resistance butby positive suggestions forimprovements within the industry whichmight enable it to avoid retrenchment. Inthe TLA’s view, “Rationalisationproperly understood connotes more thanwhat has been understood by theemployers. Most of the textile employersin the province misrepresent the wordrationalisation and use it as a synonymfor reducing the number of workersemployed, all other factors remainingconstant. Rationalisation, we believe,has much broader and wider significanceand includes all forms of industrialreorganisation and scientificmanagement, resulting in betterefficiency, cheaper costs, higher wagesand lesser strain. The first step the textileindustry ought to take is to standardiseproduction. After rationalising in thedirection we have mentioned above, itwill be the proper time to consider theadvisability of pushing schemes ofrationalisation as far as the number ofworkers are concerned.”

Between 1922 and 1935, however, thetextile industry was expanding from 56to 84 mills and so it was possible for millsto rationalise and still not retrenchworkers. However, as the rate of growthslowed down, new technologyinevitably meant retrenchment.

TLA was able successfully to resistretrenchment in the weaving departmentand even as late as 1940 employers werecomplaining that “It was not possible tomake any effort even as an experiment inrationalisation, owing to a lack ofsufficient response from labour.”

However, the spinning departmentwas a different story. There were manywomen spinners and TLA’s scruplesabout avoiding unemployment wereconsiderably lax,as far as women wereconcerned.

In 1935 the TLA and MOA signed anagreement called the Delhi Agreement.The clauses 5 and 6 dealing withrationalisation say:

5. “The principle of rationalisation isaccepted subject to the safeguards thatthe process of rationalisation would becarried out in such a manner as to avoidunemployment among the existingemployees of Ahmedabad mills exept inthe directions indicated in the clausebelow. Suitable machinery will be createdfor the proper regulation of the process.

6. Unemployment incidental torationalisation will be confined to:

1. Married women whose husbandsare benefitted by the rationalisationprocess.

2. Persons whose connection withthe industry is of less than a year’sduration.”

The union sacrified its womenworkers to the principle of rationalisation.The Delhi Agreement clearly states theposition that rationalisation shouldavoid creating unemployment except formarried women and, since most workingwomen are married, unemployment is allright for women. In fact, the DelhiAgreement was only a formalisation ofwhat had been going on for the eightyears prior to its signing. It was the TLA’sformal acknowledgment of what it hadtolerated in practice since 1926.

TLA justified the Delhi Agreement bysaying it was only women who wereretrenched. In response to a question putby the Textile Labour Inquiry Committeeabout unemployment caused byrationalisation, the TLA stated:“...rationalisation was confined to thespinning section only to a limited extent.According to the terms of the saidagreement roughly 2,000 persons havebeen displaced...Most of the workersdisplaced were women workers.”

Gospel of Women’sUnemployment

The sacrifice of women workers hadsomehow to be justified within the unionand among the workers and so a set of

values was evolved which continued infora 1975, when the beginning of thewomen’s decade forced some newthinking in the labour movement. First,the union preached that the woman’splace was in her home “I remember abig meeting of women workers—spinners, reel winders, all were there”,recalled Ratanben, a spinner in her 40s.“We all had a dinner together and thenwe had bhajans. T Vasavada saheb (oneof secretaries of TLA) gave a speech.He said: ‘Why are you working in themills? You should be at home, lookingafter children. Your men come home tiredand you are not there to serve them. Myadvice to you is that all of you shouldleave the mills.’”

Jethabhai, a spinner and member ofthe TLA executive committee during thelate 30s and early 40s, says: “We oftendiscussed retrenchment in thecommittee. In fact, it was one of ourmajor concerns. Of course we felt thatwomen should not have to work, andshould look after their men and childrenat home. Usually, if it was a man’s case,we would try to save him employment,though often, We had to oppose themill management. But when it came toa woman whose husband was working,we usually advised that she should beretrenched. With proper compensation,of course. However, often, there werecases of widows or women who had nomeans of support. In such cases, wewere compassionate and tried to see thatshe continued to be employed at themill.”

This attitude towards women wasexplicitly expressed in a resolutionpassed by the representative council ofthe throstle spinners’ union as early as1924. The resolution says: “Many millshave already closed down somemachines and other mills have alsodecided similarly to close theirmachines. This council thereforeresolves that wherever workers haveto be retrenched, if there are womenworking in that department then themarried women should be retrenched inpreference to the men. The representative

26 MANUSHI

council of TLA recommends the aboveprocedure of retrenchment.”

The reasons behind this decision areexplained by TLA newspaper MajdoorSandesh: “The above resolution waspassed unanimously by therepresentative council of throstledepartment. In the present circumstancesevery worker brother will understand theneed for this resolution. If it is necessaryto reduce the number of workers in anymill due to rationalisation then theimportant question is which workers toreduce? If a man is retrenched and he isthe sole earner in his family then theemployment of the whole family is lostand it would face starvation. And if in afamily a man and his wife are bothworking and the man is retrenched thenhow bad will that look. So whereverpossible, it is necessary not to retrenchmen.”

The union visualises two possiblesituations—either the man is the soleearner in the family or both man andwoman are earners. The union does notacknowledge the existence of womenwho are sole earners in their families northat of men who do not support families.Unfortunately, there are no studies toindicate the proportion of women whowere single earners in their families inAhmedabad mills at the time but a studydone in Bombay around this time showsthat the situation could not be ignored.“Roughly 30 per cent of the womenworkers were married to men working inthe cotton textile industry, slightly over30 per cent were married to men employedin other enterprises and almost 40 per centof them were widows.”

It was unfortunate that the unionchose to retrench women. TheAhmedabad family budget surveyshows that most women workers werefrom poorer families with incomes of lessthan Rs 50 a month. Retrenching suchwomen made poor families even worseoff. Further, what about cases where men,though earning, did not support theirfamilies? How common were situationslike Asiben’s: “My husband was in the

spinning department and I was in reelingin the same mill. He earned much morethan I did, but we never saw a paisa ofhis money. As soon as he got his wageshe would go and start drinking. If I askedhim for money he would beat me andsay: ‘Spend your own money. You areearning enough.’”

Laxmiben says : “My husband had adisease in his lungs. If he went to workone day he would feel weak and startgasping for breath. So, although he wasa permanent worker he went to the millhardly 10 days in a month. If I had notbeen working what would we haveeaten?”

It was widely propagated that womenwould not be able to run the newmachines. As Nathalal, a spinner in NewManek Chowk mill said: “The newspinning machines are much toocomplicated for women to run. How canthey learn it? The bobbins are too heavyfor them and the work is too strenuous.You see, the work you can do dependson your body build and mental strength.For example, we harijans can do spinningbut weaving is done only by patels andMuslims. They have a different bodybuild, they are much stronger, you see.We are thin and weak. It is the same withwomen. They cannot do heavy or

complicated work.”After the passing of the Maternity

Benefit Act, women were blamed forneeding maternity benefit and henceharming the profitability of the industry.This is a very common belief amongworkers even today. In every one of myinterviews, whether with female workers,male workers, union representatives orunion officials, the answer to myquestion: “Why has the number ofwomen been decreased in the textilemills?” was “Because the employers hadto pay maternity benefit.”

“Women were decreased becauseowners had to pay so much extra forthem. They have to pay for everypregnancy in addition to giving themthree months’ leave. Then there is theextra cost of the creches. There weremany women in the mills so they neededbig creches. And they had to pay for theayahs. And also for separate latrines.Naturally, with so much extra expense,who would want to keep women?”

Voiceless in the UnionThese rather anti-women values

pervaded the whole textile working class.The TLA is organised in such a way thatdecisions from the top percolate downto individual workers through a wholesystem of representatives who also

Women do heavier, less skilled work

No. 26 27

bring up the feelings and expectationsof the workers. For every 250 workersthere is one representative and every 50representatives elect one member of theworking committee. The workingcommittee then elects the whole timeexecutive committee.

The representatives as also theworking committee have a generalmeeting every month. During thesemeetings, major decisions are explainedand reactions sought. Major issues arediscussed. Apart from the monthlymeetings, representatives often meetformally and informally amongthemselves and with TLA full timers. TheMajdoor Sandesh, a biweekly, alsoexplains union policy and invitesreactions.

Although there were some women inthe representatives’ body they were fewin number. In departments where therewere women and men, men were preferredas representatives. The womenrepresentatives were rarely encouragedto speak. “I remember Shaikh saheb (oneof the secretaries) would tell us to coverour heads and be modest in public”,recalls Revaben, a representative in the40s and 50s.

In the working committee there wereusually not more than five women andnone in the executive committee so thewomen’s point of view was rarelyrepresented in the decision-makingbodies. The values which excludedwomen from the workforce were beingconstantly spread through the workforceby the TLA network.

Pressures on MenThe strongest pressures perhaps

came on the male worker whose wife ordaughter or mother was also in the mill.There were constant assaults on his maleego, or his sense of “fair play.”

Jaisinghbhai, whose wife wasretrenched in 1945, says: “Our mukadamin the mill often told me: ‘Why are youmaking your wife work? You had sixchildren and two have died. If your wifedoesn’t stay home and look after thechildren, what will happen to them? They

I used to feel bad. When my wife hadher last pregnancy she was in hospitaland when she got better I did not let hergo to work.”

Then, of course, there was the lureof money. Every worker who wasretrenched was given Rs 3,000 to Rs7,000 in the 30s and 40s. This wasincreased up to Rs 12,000 in the early60s. The husband, being the controllerof his wife’s income, received the moneyif she was retrenched.

Manilal says: “We were heavily indebt. I had gotten my youngest brothermarried, the roof of my house wasleaking and I had no money to repair it.So we were a poor family with nowhereto turn. So once, when my wife had goneto her village for a wedding, I filled outher retrenchment form and made her signit when she returned. We got Rs 7,000.”

The union officials, the unionworking committee and representatives,and the individual male workers allunited to sacrifice the employment ofwomen workers.

The women workers were sacrificedto rationalisation. Many employedwomen were retrenched, women badliworkers were laid off and potential newentrants were turned away. Theindividual woman worker saw heremployment ebb away. But few womenworkers were aware of this as anindustrywide phenomenon. Each woman

saw her suffering as an individual mishapand most of them tried to deal with it atan individual level.

Lone StruggleA woman worker generally has a

world view limited to her immediatesurroundings. The double burden ofhome and mill absorbs all her time andenergy. Her world is confined to her homeand her work. Her home is herhousework, her relationships withhusband, immediate family, extendedfamily and neighbours. Her work is herdepartment, her coworkers and herimmediate superior. Her dealing with thecompany are confined to the mukadamand an occasional saheb.

Her knowledge of the union is limitedto the representative who collects theregular subscription, occasional visits ofthe union inspector and infrequent visitsto the union office to make complaints.Unlike the men, women workers do notcongregate in tea shops, public chowksor outside the mill gates. They do notattend union meetings nor are theyencouraged to do so. So they do nothear the mill gossip, do not see the trends.Policy decisions and agreementsbetween union and owners do not filterdown to them via any grapevine.

From the 1930s onwards theatmosphere in the industry becameprogressively more anti-women.Decisions were taken at the higher levelsto preclude women from the mills andthis decision was conveyed to the unionstructure and the mill managements. Butthe women could not detect this as achange in atmosphere. When a womanwas dismissed she saw it as an individualmisfortune in which the mill or her familywas to blame. Either the mill did not wanther or her husband asserted his right overher and prevented her from working.

The woman worker saw the union asa helpless bystander who, in spite ofcollecting her subscription, could notrescue her either from retrenchment bymanagement or from victimisation by herhusband. The union told her that themill’s decision to retrench her was

will not be healthy. They will get badhabits. Are you not enough of a man toearn for your family?’ It was all right forhim to talk. He had a partnership in acontract as well as a regular job so hiswife could afford to sit at home. But still

28 MANUSHI

justified and that it could not interfere inthe “internal” dispute between her andthe mill. It also told her that her husbandhad complete right over her, that she wasfirst a wife, then a worker.

The individual woman worker couldnot realise that the “cold” atmosphereshe faced when she tried to fight for herjob was not an accident. She did notrealise that there was a deliberate policyto exclude her and that there was analliance between the mill, the union andthe male worker to keep her out of themill sector. There was no one who wouldexplain to her. No one who would speakfor her. No organisation, no union tovoice her needs. So each womanstruggled alone and inevitably lost.

Women Not WantedBabuben was born in a chamar

family of construction workers inVadodara around 1930. She was marriedat the age of 12 to a mill worker and cameto live with his family in Ahmedabad.

“My in-laws were all mill workers andas soon as I came to Ahmedabad, myhusband started taking me to his mill—Bordi mill. I began to learn work in thereeling section. Many of us wereunderaged and if the inspector came, themukadam would tell us to go and hide inan inside room, or he would send us outof the mill.

“In those days, it was easy to getwork. If one mill stopped giving workyou could go to another. I worked inBordi for two years. Then they closedthe reeling section and gave the reelingout on contract. So I was at home for afew days. Then one of the women wholived in my mohalla took me with her toDholka mill where I worked a year or two.Then that mill shut down and I moved toChaudasi mill.

“I worked there two years in reelingand then Pannalal Sheth, the owner, diedin an air crash so they decreased ourwork. I was getting five annas for a smallbundle of thread, four for a big bundle. Iwas earning about Rs 250 a month. Itwas good money for that time.

“After I left Chaudasi mill, I was at

home for a while and I went back toVadodara. My father-in-law came tofetch me and when I returned I startedworking in Laxmi mill where he was thesupervisor. I worked in Laxmi mill in thereeling section for eight years but theynever made me permanent. Why ? Well,it was because of my father-in-law. Mysupervisor was Nathu, a Muslim, and healways used to take Rs 25 or 30 as a bribeto make anyone permanent. Of course, Iwould have given him that but then, oneday, he saw my father-in-law bringingmy rice to the mill. He asked someone:‘Why has Master brought Babu’s rice?’

went to Majoor Mahajan and noted acomplaint but the inspector said to me:‘You are only a badli worker. If the millhas no work for you we can’t doanything.’

“I went regularly to the mill for twomonths but there was no work. One day,the saheb said to me: ‘We do not needyou. We don’t need women in the mill.’So I stopped going. If someone tells meI am unwanted how can I keep going?My husband never stopped me fromgoing to the mill to look for work. But hewould say : ‘Why are you wasting yourtime? They’ll never take you back. They

So then he came to know that I was thesupervisor’s bahu and he said : ‘I cannottake Rs 25 from you. It will look bad.’ Sohe never made me permanent. Of course,in those days, it didn’t matter so muchbecause there were not so many badliworkers.

“Once, I went back to Vadodara fortwo months. When I returned, mysupervisor said: ‘There is no work foryou right now.’ So I went home and againwent back to the mill the next day. Everyday, he would tell me: ‘There is no work.’Then I went to the saheb. I said: ‘I haveworked for eight years. Please give mework.’ But he said: ‘There is no work now.When there is work we will call you.’ I

don’t want women in the mill anymore.Never mind, we’ll find some other workfor you to do.’ But I never did get anotherjob in a mill.”

Declared IncapableBabuben was a badli worker and

could easily be dismissed by the simplemethod of not giving her work. ButJhaverben was a permanent worker.

“I am from the harijan communityfrom Bijapur in Maharashtra. My fatherused to beg but he was very keen oneducating us and I studied upto eighthclass. After marriage, I moved toAhmedabad and got a job as a teacher.But my husband, who was a mill worker,didn’t like it. He said: ‘How can my wife

No. 26 29

be higher than me?’ So he made me leavethe school and took me with him to hismill, Aryodaya Ginning, where he wasthe mukadam. He taught me how to be adoffer.

“I was in Aryodaya Ginning for acouple of years and then I joined BharatSuryodaya as a doffer. In 1941, I becamea spinner in Bharat Suryodaya. I wasabout 17 years old then, and I washandling a single spinning machine.Later, when the double one came, Ihandled that too.

“I had 10 children, and all of themdied except one. They died of smallpox. Ispent so much money on doctors. Ipawned all my jewellery but nothingsaved them. I would work till my seventhmonth, then I would come back to worka month after delivery, and would putthe child in the mill creche. I only gotmaternity benefit for my last twochildren— Rs 14 and then Rs 28.

“In 1962,1 had to leave the mill. I wasnot yet 40 years old and I had worked 21years in the mill. I was earning Rs 60 every12 days and my dearness allowance wasRs 100. My husband ? The whole millknew his bad habits—he was notoriousfor drinking. I never saw a paisa of hismoney. But now he is dead. I don’t wantto say negative things about him.

“One day, our factory manager calledthe nine women of our section and said:‘You are running the double spinningmachine. Now the chaukadi machine isgoing to be installed so you will have toleave.’ We felt very bad. We said: ‘Saheb,please give us some other work in somedepartment.’ But he said: ‘There is noother work. If you can run the chaukadiyou can stay otherwise you must leave.’We said we would run the chaukadi.

“When I saw the chaukadi I wasamazed. I had not seen such a machineeven in my dreams. Such huge bobbins!In the double machine, I could carry 25bobbins, but in this one, I could not evenlift four. I tried to learn it on my own butit was difficult. The threads kept breakingand I could not fix them. After threeweeks, I got a warning from my

mukadam that my work was not up tothe mark.

“I went to the saheb. I wrote him apetition. I said: ‘Saheb please give mework in another department. In jharoo,bobbin, anything. I am ready to do themost menial work.’ But he said: ‘If I giveyou work what about the other eightwomen ?’ I said: ‘Saheb, they can managesomehow but my home situation is verybad. My husband does not earn. He is adrunkard. If you make me leave, wherewill I go?’ But the saheb would notanswer my petition.

“Then I went to the Majoor Mahajan.I often used to go to Majoor Mahajanfor complaints— if the cotton was toobad or if the mukadam scolded us. I hadvery good relations with Jaisinhbhai andBhailabhai, the inspector. I always filledsubscription and told others to fillsubscription. My department wanted meto stand for election as a MajoorMahajan representative but my son, whowas studying in ninth class, forbade me.He said: ‘If you become a representativeyou will have to hear the complaints ofall the workers. If they are unsatisfiedthey will come and fight at our house.’So I did not stand.

“Majoor Mahajan has been verygood to us. Bhailabhai brought electricity

and water into our chali. Even today ifsomeone says anything against MajoorMahajan I say: ‘ It is only after MajoorMahajan came that workers’ conditionhas improved. Before that we weremiserable.’ So many people had to sufferto build the Majoor Mahajan. When Ifirstt joined the mill there was a veryactive worker who was a Majoor Mahajanrepresentative. Once he go beaten up bymillowners’ ruffians just ouside the millgates. Majoor Mahajan was not allowedto collect subscriptions inside the gatesbut we would go and fill subscriptionsecretly. If the saheb came to know hewould show us the gate. First we wereonly a few, then we grew from two tothree to four to 50 and now the base isfirmly planted and now we cannot beremoved.

When I went to Majoor Mahajan tocomplain that I was being dismissed,they said: ‘Can you run the chaukadi?’I said: ‘ No, threads keep breaking and Ican’t fix them.’ They said: ‘If you can’trun the chaukadi we can’t do anythingfor you. According to the law, you mustleave.’ So all doors were closed to me.

“Next month, I got another warningfrom the mill. I knew that if I got a thirdwarning I would be dismissed. So ratherthan be humiliated by a dismissal I sent

Women sorting junk

30 MANUSHI

in my resignation. They had a big partyfor me on the day I left, and garlandedme. They gave me three big boxes ofsweets and I left, honoured andrespected. I got Rs 5,000 as gratuity.

“I never got another job in a mill. Wewere about nine women and 13 men wholeft the mill. The men got jobs elsewhere.But none of us women got another job.”

Not only was Jhaverben retrenchedbut she was blamed for her retrenchment!She was told to run a machine she hadnever seen. She was not given anytraining. She was discouraged when shemade the attempt, called a failure andmade to resign.

Husband’s RoleSome women, however, refused to

leave in spite of such discouragement.Ratanben was confident that she couldrun the four sided spinning machine butshe encountered another unexpectedobstacle.

“I was born in Ahrnedabad. I amabout 50 years old. Both my mother andfather worked in the mill but my fathernever gave any money in the house sowe lived only on our mother’s earningsand we were very poor.

“I used to go with my mother toSwadeshi mills to look after my babysister and brother in the creche while shewas working. The reeling section wasnear the creche and sometimes I wouldgo there and learn reeling. One day, themukadam saw me and gave me a jobthere. I was 12 or 13. I worked for twoyears when one day the saheb, who wasa Parsi, came to our section and said:‘We need workers in the throstle socome along.’ I protested that I didn’tknow that work but he said: ‘You willlearn.’ In a week I had learnt doffing andlater how to run the spinning machine.

“I was married into a mill workerfamily in Ahrnedabad. My father-in-lawwas in throstle and so was my husband.My mother-in-law died a year after mymarriage. My father-in-law was often ill.He drank a lot and ruined his liver.

“I continued working in Swadeshi millafter my marriage. In my section there

were 22 men and eight women spinners,and five men and five women doffers.The wage was Rs 9 every 15 days fordoffers and Rs 20 for spinners.

“At the time when my fifth and lastchild was to be born, the chaukadi wascoming in. Already two women from oursection had left because they could notrun the chaukadi. In those days, theywere reducing the number of womenworkers. Women work harder and betterthan men, but the mill has to pay Rs 200or Rs 300 for maternity so they don’twant women. Of course, I never got thatmuch money. For my earlier pregnanciesI got Rs 28 and then, Rs 42. I would workup to the first week of my eighth monthbut I could not work any more after thatbecause for doffing you have to supportthe basket on your stomach.

“During my fifth pregnancy I wenton leave in the eighth month. After I hadbeen on leave for about two weeks oneof my colleagues came to visit me. Shesaid: ‘Ratna, they have put a permanentworker in your place.’ If a permanentworker is put in your place, it is bad foryou because the permanent worker canclaim a right to your place if he worksthere for six weeks. So I went to the milland met the mukadam and protested:‘You must put a badli worker in myplace.’ But the mukadam protested: ‘Achaukadi machine will be coming. Canyou run it?’ I said: ‘Yes, I can. You willonly have to give me some time duringthe day to feed my baby and then yousee how well I run the machine.’ I had along argument with him. It was my right!Finally, he put a badli worker in my place.

“Next month, I had a son in thehospital. I was rather weak from thatpregnancy so I stayed home for a longertime. Then one day, I felt better so Ithought it was time to return to the mill.Next day, I got up early, cooked the mealand got ready to go, with my baby andmy tiffin. ‘Where are you going?’ askedmy husband. ‘Back to work’, I replied.‘You are no longer in the mill. I have givenin your resignation.’ I was stunned. I hadfought so hard to stay in the mill. I started

crying. I called my mother and my sistersto reason with him. But he was adamant.‘She should stay at home and look aftermy children’, he said, ‘already, two havedied because of her neglect.’ I cried andcried, I beat my breast and tore my hair.All the neighbouring women tried toreason with him.

“At that time, he had left the mill andwas working as a peon in VadilalHospital. ‘How will you manage on Rs60 a month?’ my mother asked him. ‘Ihave no vices and no extra expense andno debts’, he replied, ‘For a while, wewon’t live so well but my salary willincrease. And Ratan can try to managethe house with more thrift.’

“Then I went to Majoor Mahajan.That was the first time I had ever beenthere though I used to pay mysubscription most regularly—four annasevery 15 days. The inspector in MajoorMahajan took out all my papers. He said:‘All your resignation papers are here.Your husband said you were not welland gave in your resignation.’ I said:‘You didn’t take my signature.’ ‘Yourhusband’s signature is as good asyours’, he replied.

“I also went to the saheb in the mill.He said: ‘You are a crazy girl. Why haveyou left a good job?’ I said: ‘Saheb, Ididn’t even know. My husband gave inmy resignation. I don’t want to resign,Please help me to stay.’ But the sahebsaid: ‘It’s too late now. All the papersare passed. There is a permanent workerin your place. Even your provident fundand gratuity are ready to be withdrawn.’I cried a lot and abused my husband.But what could I do? All procedureswere complete so I helplesslycountersigned the forms and left the mill.My husband took Rs 7,000. I got it andput it in the bank.”

Harijans FirstThe women workers did attempt to

resist their retrenchment with whatevermeans were available to them. Theycould either struggle with confrontationtactics or they could use whatever legalor negotiating machinery was available.

No. 26 31

However, the means they had were verylimited.

Confrontation in some form hasalways been inevitable when strugglingfor an issue. Even TLA, the bastion ofindustrial peace, was founded by a strikeand led many strikes in its early stages.

The 1930s and early 40s were yearsof labour unrest in the textile industry inAhmedabad. The communists who hadbeen active in Bombay industry sincethe 20s began to organise in Ahmedabadin 1933 when they formed the MazdoorUnion and began publishing a papercalled Kamdar. They actively led manystrikes. Especially well known is the strikeof 1933 around the Delhi pact. The AMAhad promised to standardise wage ratesbut not only did they not do so, theymade clandestine wage cuts, especiallyin the weaving departments. Thecommunists organised a strike in 37 millsand 30,000 workers participated.

In spite of so much unrest and theatmosphere of struggle, the women’sissue was never considered importantenough to be taken up by the TLA or thecommunists. Although the communistsactively opposed some sections of theDelhi Agreement the retrenchment ofwomen was not considered acontroversial issue.

Furthermore, most of the womenworkers were harijans and in the spinningdepartments. All the harijans were strongadherents of TLA. The communists wereable to organise only among the weavers.

The workers of the mill industry inAhmedabad have always been dividedalong caste lines. The workers of thespinning and related departments havetraditionally been harijans and theworkers in the weaving departments havebeen Muslims, patels or bhaiyyas fromUP.

The spinning departments have beensolidly with TLA since its inception. TLAhad defined its role as not only to fightfor the economic rights of its membersbut for their social rights as well. Itregarded members as “whole humanbeings” and not just economic animals.

Deeply influenced by Gandhi, one of thefour basic tenets of TLA was removal ofuntouchability. It organised continuousprogrammes of common meals andcommon prayers culminating in thefamous mandir pravesh in theSwaminarayan temple in 1948.

Babuben, who was present there,recalls: “TLA led a movement for us.In those days, we were openly calledderogatory names like dhed. High casteswould not eat with us. Then TLA decidedthis was wrong, and as part of Gandhiji’sprogramme, we had a dharna outsidethe mandir gates. All of us harijans satoutside the gates. The spinningdepartments in all the mills were shut.We sat there all day, hungry and thirsty.The first two days, some ruffians cameand beat the men with lathis but TLAwas with us so we were not afraid. Everyday, Vasavada saheb made a speech.Once, Sardar Patel also came. Finally, wewere successful and they said theywould open the doors to us also.”Kankuben says: “We always had to eatseparately and the higher caste workerstried to avoid touching us. When wewent to TLA meetings the patels andother high castes would sit far from us.Whenever TLA organised a feast thehigh castes refused to join if we werepresent. Some patels also left TLAbecause of us. But the leaders, Nandaji(Gulzarilal Nanda), Vasavada saheb(Shyam Prasad Vasavada) and Khandu-bhai always sat and ate with us. Theyorganised meetings and told all theworkers that untouchability was wrong.They said union strength meansworker-unity and among workers noone is high or low. Every six months orso, we would have common prayersand common meals. Today, high castes,low castes, we all sit together and it isbecause of TLA.”

Women Most LoyalUnions generally complain that they

have difficulty organising women but therecord shows that women were TLA’smost loyal members, as shown in tables1and 2 comparing the membership

percentage of women to overall TLAmembership. Why is this so? I think theloyalty is a function of both their sexand their caste.

As already discussed, most harijanworkers attribute the improvement intheir condition to the beliefs and positiveaction of TLA leaders.

The other reason for the continuousloyalty of women workers is wellexpressed by Dhanjibhai, who has beenwith TLA since 1941. He says: “Womenare always more faithful than men. Wecollect subscriptions every month. Wehave to chase the men but the womenthemselves come and give it to us. If youdo something for them they are gratefuland remember it all their lives. Men seethe union as just a means that gets thembenefits as their family.”

There is social pressure too. “Therewere two women in our chali who leftTLA and joined Red Flag union”, saysRatanben. “We boycotted them. Onewoman had to get her daughter marriedbut we said.’ ‘Come back to TLA andthen we will give our sons.’ Finally, shemarried her to a boy oul of town but wedid not go to the wedding. Later, theyleft Red Flag and came back to TLA.”Nathiben, a retired woman worker, says:“How can we leave TLA and goelsewhere? The leaders have sacrificed

Year Total No. TLA %age of workers membership1921 47436 24060 511931 53775 24365 451941 115999 49268 431951 127133 75410 591961 140765 104046 741971 148242 99019 67

Year Total No. No of Women of Women workers in %age workers TLA

1951 6227 6089 981961 5235 4974 951971 4498 3187 71

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

32 MANUSHI

so much for us. Nandaji used to come toour chalis on his bicycle every day.Ansuyaben (Ansuyaben Sarabhai) usedto hug our children to her and she neverminded if she got dirty. Because of TLAwe got electricity and running water andpukka houses. Our wages have gone upand we have provident fund. After allthis, how can we forsake TLA? It is likeour mother.”

Attempts to ResistThe women workers were thus cut

off from the more militant unions and TLAlost its early militancy quite soon. Duringthe early 30s TLA adopted a fairlyconfrontationist stand and led severalstrikes. In 1942, TLA actively joined thenon-cooperation movement and allmilitant activity was directed into thenationalist struggle. After 1947, the TLAwas closely associated with the rulingCongress Government and gave up allforms of militancy. They proudly statethat they have not called a single strikefor the last 28 years.

Most of the women workers were inTLA and thus had no experience ofstruggle. Further, in the TLA philosophy,struggle was regarded as unjustified asthey prided themselves on their“peaceful cooperation” withmanagement. The women workers werealso subject to social pressures whichmade them more timid and less outspokenthan men. They regarded the companywith awe and fear and approached themill management as pleaders.

Jhaverben, who was dismissed in1962, still remembers very vividly hermajor act of protest. During the courseof a one and a half hour interview withme, she repeated eight times: “I thoughtI should approach the saheb. I didn’twant to leave the mill. So I talked to myeight colleagues who were also beingdismissed and we decided to go together.When we went to the saheb he said: ‘Ican’t help you. You must either learn torun the four sided machine or leave.’Then I went to a man I knew. I told him towrite a letter. I wrote: ‘I have worked inthe mill for 22 years. I have a right to be

in the mill. Please give me a job in anotherdepartment if you can’t accommodate mein the spinning department.’ But therewas no response.” For Jhaverben, evenraising her voice and writing a letter tothe mill was a major act of defiance whichshe remembers even now, 20 years later.

An Activist’s ExperienceThe union was, by policy,

unsympathetic and unhelpful to thewomen who had been retrenched. On thewhole, women workers were not able toassert themselves within the union. Therewere, however, some women who wereactive TLA members and representativesor membranis in the union. Thesewomen, being a little more aware of therole a union is supposed to play, wereable to use the negotiating and legalmachinery available to TLA. But thiswas a long drawn-out and hard struggle.

Asiben says: “When I joined Bordimill in 1939, my reeling department hadabout 35 women and 100 men. Slowly,the department began to close down.Around the early 50s, only 10 womenand two men were left.

“The mill began to give out more andmore work on contract. They said: ‘Whyshould we keep a whole department onlyfor 12 people?’ They shut down the

department and told us: ‘There is no morework. Go home.’ One of the women theydismissed like this was a membranicalled Maniben. So, one day, she calleda meeting of all of us. We went to theTLA to register a complaint. First, theinspector tried to convince us not to filea complaint. He said: ‘How can they runa department just for 12 people?’ Thenhe said: ‘You know the mills don’t like tokeep women because they have to paymaternity benefit. I will see that you geta good compensation. Why don’t youjust take it and leave?’ But Maniben said:‘We all fill memberships regularly. I am amembrani and have worked faithfully forTLA for so many years. You have tolisten to us, fight for us.’ So the inspectornoted our complaint.

“After that, it was such a longstruggle. We met all the executivecommittee members we knew. One of myrelatives was in the executive committee.I met him and cried in his house. I said:‘Please help me.’ He promised to raisethe matter in the executive committee. Wealso went to meet Vasavada saheb, thegeneral secretary of TLA. All 12 of usmet in TLA hall and we went and satoutside his room. Then he admitted usand we told him our problem. Hepromised that TLA would take up thecase. Finally, the case was filed in thelabour court.

“The case went on for six years! Someof us lost heart in the middle. The twomen and one of the women left and joinedthe Red Flag union. The case went onand on. Every time there was a hearingwe would have to go to court. We alsokept on meeting members of the executivecommittee.

“Then, four years later, we won thecase! And the court ordered the mill tore-employ us. But the mill said it wouldnot re-open the department. Again wewent to Vasavada saheb. He said: ‘If wehave won the case we can try to settleyou in another department.’ By this time,my relative was no longer in the executivecommittee. But one member,Phoolchandbhai, who lived in my chali,

No. 26 33

said: ‘I know how difficult life is for you.How you have struggled for four yearsand your husband is unemployed. I willdefinitely speak in your favour.’

“Maniben also contacted theexecutive members she knew. Then thetopic came up in the committee. We knewit was going to come up. So on the dayof the committee meeting we all gatheredat TLA and sat outside the door andwaited. We could hear voices but did notknow what they were talking about. Wewaited four hours. When they came out,I met Phoolchandbhai. He told me: ‘Wehave decided to tell the mill to stop thecontract they are running and to reopenthe department. Anyway, the contract isillegal.’

“So, some days later, Vasavada sahebwrote a letter to the mill and a TLArepresentative came and talked to themanager of Bordi mill. The manageragreed to close the contract when itexpired at the end of the year.

“But they did not do so. At the endof the year, they just gave the contractto another contractor. We had gottenready to go back to the mill when wefound they had not done anything aboutre-opening our department. Then weheard they were engaging anothercontractor.

‘We went back to Vasavada saheb.He phoned up the manager and shoutedat him: ‘We have made an agreement.How dare you break the agreement?’ Thecontractor was working on the mill’spremises with mill machines. So theyoiled the machines and we could go backto work. The day we rejoined was such ajoyful day. We went to the department,put up a picture of Devi and did her puja.Then we did puja of all the machines.Then we distributed sweets. We alsowent to TLA and distributed sweets andI gave a whole box to Phoolchandbhai.

“The three people who had left TLAand joined Red Flag did not get their jobsback. They came to TLA and Vasavadasaheb ordered them to write a letter ofapology. So they did, and they got jobsas badli workers.

At a union meeting

stable family is a survival income, and inmost working class families one wageearner was not enough to support theextended households.

Furthermore, given the workingconditions in the mill male wage earnerwould often lose his health and hisincome would become irregular.Sometimes he would spend the moneyon his own pursuits like drinks or asecond wife. Occasionally, the death ofthe male wage earner would cause acomplete loss of income. In manyfamilies, the woman for all practicalpurposes, was the head of thehousehold, and in many more, she wasan important contributor to thehousehold survival income.

Retrenching of women would causea definite decrease in the family budget.According to a report on family budgetsin Ahmedabad “the average earnings ofcotton mill workers in Ahmedabadadvanced from 1.4.10 in May 1926 to Rs1.6.0 in December 1933, or by 5.6 percent... But...even though the increasescontinued they are reflected in thefigures of family income, owing partlyto...reduction in the average numbers of

“Those six years were so hard for me.My husband is the only son of his motherand has always been very spoilt. He justrefuses to go to work and earn money.So my earnings supported both of usand our four children. In days, I used todo odd work. I would pick paper, I wouldwash people’s clothes, clean their grain.I even borrowed a little and began sellingvegetables. My father used to help meregularly. He sent me grain every monthand vegetables every week.

“Maniben, the membrani gave us allcourage. She showed us how to useTLA.”

Declining Living StandardPerhaps TLA believed that by

increasing the men’s wages and sendingthe women home to look after the housethey would improve the standard of livingof the family. This, however, did nothappen.

The social reformers believed thatwomen should leave the textile mills anddevote themselves to the welfare of thefamily. They believed that if the womenstay home, it would build a strong andstable family life. However, the firstprerequisite for building a strong and

34 MANUSHI

Since this system is illegal andsurreptitious, there have been fewreliable statistics on its size and scope.However, the labour investigationcommittee in 1943 estimated that 10 percent of the work force in Ahmedabad wasemployed by contractors.

The mill generally gave out labourcontracts in reeling, opening bobbins,printing, cleaning and waste. Thecontractor uses the mill premises andmachines (usually old, discarded ones)and brings the labour himself. He is rarelyofficially recorded. As Gelabhai says: “Iused to work in spinning in the Swadeshimills. Then my brother, who is a MajoorMahajan representative, said the sahebin his mill was looking for a contractorfor reeling. So, he and I went intopartnership and took the contract. Themill does not record me as a contractorbut as a worker. They also recorded mywife and two sons as workers. Then theypaid us all a ‘salary’ along with overtime.That way, they paid us a total of aboutRs 2,000 a month. I used to keep aboutseven women and boys at Rs 6 each perday and I would make a profit of aboutRs 600 a month.”

The workers in the labour contractare paid very low wages. Even today,the wage rate is Rs 2 to Rs 8 per day.They have to work 12 hours a day andare given no benefits such as gratuity

or maternity benefit, and can bedismissed at any time. The womenretrenched from the mills foundimmediate employment in this sector.

Babuben, who was retrenched fromBordi mill, went in search of work.“When I did not get work any more inBordi mill I started going to other millsin search of work. I would stand at thegate at 7.30 a.m. when the shift beganand ask all the women going in: ‘Sister,is there any work in your mill?’ At Calicomill gates, one woman took me in withher, saying: ‘You can meet ManubhaiSheth, the reeling contractor.’

Manubhai was happy to have mebecause I had 16 years of experience andhe took me on at Re 1.25 a day. Of course,it was much less than the mill where Iwas making about Rs 200 a month but itwas better than nothing.

“I was the best worker so Manubhaimade me the supervisor. But I neversided with the Sheth, always with theworkers. After a while I said to him:‘Kaka, Re 1.25 is very low. My sisters’stomachs do not get filled on what yougive.’ So he made it Rs 1.36, then Rs 1.50and then Rs 1.60. We worked from 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. If we worked overtime, till 10p.m., we got Re 1 more.

“I worked 10 years in Calico mill.Then the mill gave the work to anothercontractor. I organised all my workersand said : ‘If another contractor comeshe will bring his own workers and wherewill we go?’ The management must haveheard of our meeting and were afraid wewould agitate. So they called a meetingand took us all to Chandola lake andgave us lunch with sweets. All of us werein a good and friendly mood. Then themanager explained to us that Calicocould not give the contract to Manubhaithis year and it would give him thecontract the next year. In this friendlymood, we promised not to agitate. Sowe lost our jobs.

“The next year, Manubhai got acontract in Jehangir mill. He asked me tocome to work. I said I would go only ifmy salary was raised to Rs 1.75. The

workers per family... Thus the averagemonthly income of working class familiesin receipt of incomes below Rs 90 permonth works out to Rs 43.5.0 in 1933-35as compared to Rs 44.7.2 in 1926... Theaverage daily number of womenemployed in the cotton mill industry inAhmedabad was only about 10,300 outof a total of 97,218 workers in 1935 asagainst 10,600 out of a total of 55,767 in1926.”

As the proportion of working womendeclined so also the family income andstandard of living of mill workers fell.

Better Than NothingSo, when the mill sector began to be

closed to women they could not just gohome and look after the family as pertheory. They had to work for the familyto survive, and they sought work in othersectors of the economy. The occupationsthat women went into most often werecontract labour, paper picking, andoccasionally, construction work.

Contract labour has been prevalentin the Ahmedabad cotton textile millssince their inception and is widespreadeven today. The system works hiddenunder the organised mill sector and is anattempt by the mill management to getaround its responsibility to labour, andearn higher profits by paying lowerwages, giving no benefits and makingthe workers work for longer hours.

A woman picking waste paper from the streets

No. 26 35

regular mill salaries at that time came toabout Rs 300 a month. I worked a while.Then I got pregnant. One day, I slippedon a bobbin, fell on my stomach andbegan to bleed. My mother-in-lawrushed me to the Majdoor hospital andthe doctor said I must not work or I wouldlose the child. After that, I did not goback to the contract. My daughters wereeight to 10 years old so I started goingout with them to pick paper on thestreets.”

Earning Enough to EatJhaverben did many odd jobs before

she joined the contractor. “When I leftthe mill my son was already married andhad two children. The rest of my childrenhad died and so had my husband. Myson was earning Rs 150 a month as apeon. It was not enough for all of us soI said to him: ‘Son, I will earn at leastenough to feed myself.’ I opened a littleshop selling toffees and sweets. But thepeople in my chali are very smallminded. They were jealous of me becauseI earned a good salary in the mill andthey were happy that I had to resign.They wanted me to suffer so they neverbought from my shop. They went to thebigger shop across the road. Some days,I did not have a meal to eat. But I nevertold my son.

“Then, one day, someone told me thatthe Khadi Gramodyog in Vadaj givescotton for spinning thread on thecharkha. So I got a charkha and I usedto spin every day at home. I did this fora few years but I used to earn barely Re1 to Rs 2 a day. And every two days Ihad to go to Vadaj so nothing was leftafter I paid the bus fare. My son said:‘Mother, it is too much trouble. Youdon’t worry. I will feed you.’ So I soldmy charkha and sat at home and lookedafter my grandchildren. But with thisinflation, and so many children to feed,how could we manage? I was ready togo hungry but I could not see mygrandchildren suffer.

“Then a contractor called Bhikhabhaisaid to me: ‘Maji, will you come to Magrimills and open bobbins at Rs 3 a day?’ It

is within walking distance. There were12 of us who used to sit from 7.30 a.m. to3.30 p.m. Once, we were working in themill when a woman inspector came fromMajoor Mahajan. I said: ‘If she comesand asks us our problems I will tell herabout our pay and working conditions.’We wanted to call her but could not,because the contractor would have seenus. She went away without meeting us.Another time, an inspector came fromthe labour office, and the contractormade all of us go into a little room, andlocked the door. We were afraid becauseit was very dark inside. He let us outafter the inspector left.

“When I was about 60, after I hadworked six years, the contractor told meto go. He said: ‘Maji, |you are old now. Ifyou die in the mill the manager will notgive any money for you, and all yourrelatives will come and make trouble forme. So you should better go.’ I said:‘What will you give me ?’ So he gave meRs 60 and I left.”

Kankuben was never in the regularemployment of a mill. “I and my twodaughters and my son and my husbandwere working for a contractor in Calicomills in the screen printing unit. Wejoined the mills in 1958. We worked as a

team and we earned about Rs 20 a day.We worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

“Then, one day, in 1972, we came towork and found the door locked. Thecontractor was not there. We went to hishouse and asked him: ‘Bhikhabhai, whyhave you not opened the departmenttoday?’ He said: ‘Kankuben, the mill hasstopped my contract. They have givenall their work to the screen printingfactories out in Shah-e-Alam.’ Suddenly,our whole family was unemployed. Wewent to the manager and he said: ‘It istoo expensive to print in the mill so wehave given it outside. There the labourrates are much lower.’

“Then we went and registered a casein Majoor Mahajan but nothinghappened. We were starving. Sometimes,none of us ate for days together. Thenwe opened a tea and biscuit stall. It ranfor some time but was not economical.Till today, none of us has been able tofind any proper work.”

From the Mill to the StreetsMany of the retrenched mill workers

pick paper in the streets of the city. Thereare about 10,000 women picking papersin the city. These women start around 5a.m. and walk around the city with sackson their backs. Often, they take small,

End of a lifetime of toil

36 MANUSHI

Woman collecting junk

active children with them. Each womanhas her beat. Some beats are in the middleclass area, some in the market area andsome in the industrial areas. They walkfrom 6 a.m. to 3 p.m., an average of 10kilometres a day. They say it is tiringwork. Their backs often ache and sincethey have to rummage through dirtyheaps they get bitten by insects and theoccasional scorpion.

After 3 p.m. the women go home andsort the paper they have picked. Theythen take it to the paper trader who paysthem at a different rate per kilo fordifferent types of paper. They earn Rs 2to Rs 4 a day in this way. This paper issent to the paper mill by the trader andthe mill recycles it to make it intocardboard and white paper.

Most of the women who pick paperare harijans. Most of the traders who buyit and store it in godowns are Muslimsand the paper millionaires are patels orbanias. The distribution of work isaccording to caste, with harijans on thelowest rung.

Since paper picking requires nocapital input and since anyone can do itmost harijan women have done this work,at one time or another.

Babuben says: “I left the contractwhen I was pregnant. Then, after my babywas born, I started picking papers. Iwould go to the middle class areas aswell as the labour areas from 5 a.m. to 12noon. In the afternoon, I would cleanwhat we had picked. If I worked extra atnight I could make Rs 6 or 7. I would takemy daughter with me. My sons refusedto come. My daughter, Chandrika, wasmy favourite. She is very intelligent andhas done BA.

“Even when she was in school andthen in college, she would come to pickpapers. In the morning, she would comewith me and go to the college in theafternoon. She would run ahead, saying:‘I will work so that my Babu does nothave to work so hard.’ I was lucky tohave such good children otherwise howcould we have made both ends meet?

“Picking paper is a real come downfor me. When I was in the mill we used tolook down on the paper pickers. Wewould say: ‘We are mill workers. We earna good salary. These paper pickers haveto wander around. They are dirty.’ WhenI first had to start picking paper I wouldtry to make my ghunghat long so thatno one could see my face. I was soashamed. Today, too, I am degraded.How low I have fallen!”

Many Faces of InequalityDuring the 1920s and 1930s the ruling

elite and the middle classes acquired anew social attitude towards the family,in which women were seen primarily aswives and mothers, homemakers ratherthan workers. This attitude began topercolate down to the working classthrough their union. At the same time,there was pressure on the union to bringin newer technology and retrenchworkers. The new social attitude allowedthe union to sacrifice women workers tothe pressure of new technology.

The inequality between women andmen in our society expresses itselfdifferently in the various spheres of ourlife. In the economic sphere, inequalityis manifested in the form of a segmentedlabour market where women are trappedinto unskilled, unorganised, insecure,

low wage work. If there is to be a socialchange towards more equal relationshipswomen must be introduced into the moreskilled levels of the labour force. Equallyimportant and perhaps more urgent isthe need to stop the displacement ofwomen from the spheres where theyalready have a base.

(This is an edited version of amonograph prepared for Lokayan.Copies of the full documentareavailable in English, Hindi andGujarati from Setu, Ahmedabad.)

Phoolan Devi

I have been tonguetied many timeswhile the world shouted a niagara upon-my silent stone, shaping me to a roundsmoothness without edges.Dissolving in clay,

1 shall surely give wayone day. My wordsshall roll like rockstowards sudden chasms.Uprooted trees will bemy exclamation marks, and whenthe sentence endsyou shall hear the world’swet, pleading whisper.

Vasantha Surya