BOOK REVIEWS

Bhatt, Ela R. We Are Poor but So Many: The Story of Self-Employed Women in India. New York:Oxford University Press, 2006. 233 pp. $45.00 (hardcover).

After years of neglect, the Indian economy has, over the last seven years orso, become an almost regular feature in the business, editorial, and, occasionally,front pages of the major American newspapers. Neither is this relative profusionof stories surprising, considering the fact that having liberalized in the early1990s, it now holds considerable interest for investors based here. A substantialpart of the Indian economy, however, remains hidden—literally andmetaphorically—from the view of readers. More precisely, when measured bythe number of people involved, more than 90 percent of the economy is oftenneglected in discussions in the news media. Thus, while what is variously knownas the “formal” or “organized” part of the Indian economy (containing, amongother things, its software and back-office solutions’ industry) is often high-lighted, a much larger part (when measured by participation) is hardly discussed.

Ela Bhatt’s We Are Poor but So Many is an inspiring tale of the political–economic lives of some of the women who participate in the “informal” or“unorganized” sector of India’s economy. Bhatt chronicles their struggles, theirsuccesses, and their failures at asserting and maintaining solidarity and thereforesome control over their economic lives. It is a firsthand account because she isone of the founders of what is today India’s largest trade union for women, SelfEmployed Women’s Association (SEWA), with over 700,000 members repre-senting such self-employed workers as ragpickers, street vendors, gum collec-tors, and home-based embroiderers.

The book is not just a story of the immense resilience and remarkable acuityof members of a traditionally marginalized section of the Indian population, butalso a very perceptive explication of the essence of poverty, how it perpetuatesitself, and the various hurdles—social norms, the state bureaucracy, and even“formal” trade unions among them—that sometime frustrate attempts at redress.The world Ela Bhatt describes is, in some respects, strikingly reminiscent of the

WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 10 · September 2007 · pp. 367–378© 2007 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © 2007 Immanuel Ness and Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

world of Adam Smith and the classical economists, a world of the individual,self-employed entrepreneur competing against numerous other such entrepre-neurs. This world, unfortunately, for its participants, is nested in a world of firmsand other interests that, although in a minority, are highly organized.

The female inhabitants of this particular Smithian world are triply cursed,once for their poverty, a second time for their lack of organization, and a third timefor being women. As if these were not enough, the location of some of suchwomen in India’s caste hierarchy further (with some qualifications) exacerbatesthis condition. Ela Bhatt’s life’s work has been to organize this population so as toincrease their bargaining power in the market vis-à-vis other organized interests.

It turns out that organization in general and unionization and economiccooperation in particular, is indeed something of a panacea, albeit in a narrowsense, because it not only increases their bargaining power, it also empowersthem qua women within their families and in their immediate social context.This is the good news. The bad news is the impressive number of forces arrayedagainst the women in this endeavor. Let us consider, in turn, and through Bhatt’slenses, the context and the hurdles. Her examples are understandably drawnfrom one relatively prosperous state, Gujarat, because this is where she has donemost of the work. But it would be interesting to wonder about the prospects ofan organization like SEWA in the poorer and more rural states and also see ifthere are variations in the problems and functioning of SEWA in the other eightstates where the organization exists.

Poverty is in essence the manifestation of one’s vulnerability in society. “Thecondition of being poor,” Bhatt observes, “of being self-employed, and of beinga woman are all distinct yet interrelated states of vulnerability”(p. 23). To bepoor is to have very little relative control over one’s life conditions and to bedisproportionate victims of large-scale environmental and social forces such asearthquakes, droughts, and riots. Although this is true for the poor generally,both urban and rural, there are some differences.

The rural poor are characterized by their meager or lack of land ownershipand their reliance on seasonal employment. Absence of a steady source ofincome leads such people to rely on local moneylenders cum landlords—generally upper caste—who often charge usurious rates, with the consequencethat they are forced to part with the little property that they might own. In somecases, they even pledge their children to the creditors. Indebtedness is thenperpetuated over generations when children inherit their parents’ debts. Someof the rural poor are often forced to migrate to the cities and towns, especiallyduring the “off” season, but often permanently. Some families rely on women tosell their crafts to traders during the lean season.

Life of poverty in the cities does not offer much respite, although the natureof exploitation is slightly different. Here, the poor often work as contractlaborers for extremely low wages without any benefits such as social security oraccident compensation. Others become ragpickers or scavengers, street vendors,and home-based garment workers. In two of these three occupations, theyhave to depend on middlemen, whether traders and dealers (in the case of

368 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

home-based workers and ragpickers, respectively), or contractors. While thelatter are well organized and have more information about product markets, thepoor are both ignorant of market conditions and atomized. The result is thatthe ragpickers and the other workers realize very little of the eventual profit.This, combined with the fact that they do not have access to cheap credit, makestheir condition very precarious indeed.

The reason why trade unions and cooperatives (especially banks) would tendto ameliorate the situation sketched earlier should be fairly evident by now. Theywould tend to augment the bargaining power of the workers relative to middle-men, and cooperative banks can provide cheap loans in the villages as well as thecities. However, the help of the state is crucial if such schemes are to fructify.Unfortunately, Ela Bhatt’s account makes it quite clear that the state’s role,being far from supportive, is ambivalent at best and obstructionist and some-times downright hostile at worst. The state sets the rules and regulations thatgovern exchange, it enforces those rules, and it is the chief architect and imple-menter of poverty alleviation programs, especially in times of large-scale crises.

In Bhatt’s narrative, the state’s record in all three levels is quite poor, withsome honorable exceptions. First, the state rarely legally recognizes those thatare self-employed because they do not fit the legal definition of workers. Asbeing recognized as a worker is one of the prerequisites for forming a tradeunion, the very effort at unionization could prove to be stillborn. Anotherconsequence is the harassment by the authorities of such workers as streetvendors—who are then forced to bribe local policemen to function—becausethey do not fit any definition. Second, the laws protecting such workers are notvery well enforced. Finally, even putatively helpful state policies for the poor arerarely implemented with the participation of those that they are aimed at assist-ing. Bureaucrats often treat the population to the helped as passive recipients ofaid, and the enforcement of such policies is often heavily top-down, whilepotentially important local knowledge is routinely ignored.

Apart from these systemic or institutional hurdles, SEWA also had to dealwith the open political hostility of the Hindu fundamentalist Gujarat stategovernment. No doubt that Ela Bhatt’s renown, recognition, and the fact thatshe has the sympathetic ear of key policymakers in the current Congress party-led, and Left-supported, federal government, including the present Prime Min-ister, stands the organization in good stead, but it is difficult to rely on sympathyalone. Top policymakers are often far too occupied in dealing with better-organized and more powerful interests, and as such, one cannot expect coop-eratives and trade unions run by the poor self-employed to be higher on the listof priorities (although the latter makes plenty of moral sense). Nonetheless,India remains a lively democracy, and thus, offers hope that such issues willoccupy the forefront once the members of SEWA and other such organizationsform a serious voting bloc.

In addition to these political–economic obstacles, social norms also militateagainst the efforts of the women to organize and better their conditions.A causal link underlies the strong correlation between situation in the caste

369BOOK REVIEWS

hierarchy and economic situation noted earlier. The higher castes essentiallycapitalize on their socio-normative standing, and hence, are able to effectivelycontrol major resources—even at times access to governmental aid—thus,forcing the dependence of the rest of the village population. However, Bhatt alsonotes that the preexisting bonds between members of a particular caste cansometimes aid in organization.

Gender norms function analogously. Numerous Indian villages have Pan-chayats, or governing councils. Such councils often become the sole provinces ofmen who—barring notable exceptions—basically monopolize the decision-making process. The result is that women never see the resources, if any, that areat offer. Certain cultural norms also make it difficult for women to get out ofabsolute poverty. For example, Bhatt notes that “[o]ne of the biggest causes ofindebtedness among the poor is the marriage ceremony”(p. 116). For reasonsthat lack of space will not allow us to go into here, the poor take huge loans forlavish wedding ceremonies. Although the cultural context makes this under-standable, it is also a clear misallocation of resources. Ela Bhatt seems to havemade little headway in this matter even among the members of SEWA.

It is a testament to the tenacity of the women of SEWA and its sisterorganizations that despite these hurdles, they have an impressive list of achieve-ments to their credit. The trade unions have considerably augmented theirbargaining power, traditional gender roles in the families of many of themembers are gradually weakening, and, empowered by their experiences, manywomen are at the forefront of village-level decision-making bodies and addi-tional organizing efforts. SEWA Bank has succeeded such to the extent that it isnow able to distribute an average of 15 percent dividend each year. Moreover,the rigorously democratic functioning of the SEWA trade unions should be anexample for trade unions everywhere in the world. Indeed, some of the problemsnoted earlier are not unique to India and occur even in industrialized countries.Bhatt has already organized international conferences addressing street-vendorissues, with participation of vendors from ten cities representing North America,Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America.

In a world where capital can by and large move freely, it is imperative thatthe worst affected sectors mobilize across national boundaries. As Ela Bhattnotes in conclusion, the hitherto deprived sections of the world population canuse the process of globalization in their favor. But for this to happen, thenecessary first step must be international democratic and equitable cooperationbetween trade unions representing the global self-employed poor. Finally,Bhatt’s narrative reinforces the point that unionization and organization is aboutmore than quantifiable gains. It is also about affirming human solidarity anddignity in society, and by now that means the global society.

Abhishek Chatterjee is a doctoral candidate in the department of politics at theUniversity of Virginia. His dissertation compares the development of capitalmarkets in the United States and India. He also writes about philosophy of thesocial sciences, especially the relationship between ontology and methodology.

370 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

Address correspondence to Abhishek Chatterjee, 1741 North Troy Street,Apartment #426, Arlington, VA, 22201. Telephone: (434) 466-6627. E-mail:ac7y@Virginia.edu.

Palmer, Bryan D. James P. Cannon and the Origins of the American Revolutionary Left, 1890–1928.Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. 542 pp. $50.00 (hardcover).

Bryan Palmer’s James P. Cannon and the Origins of the American RevolutionaryLeft is one of the finest books yet produced on the early Communist movementin the U.S. This is not surprising given the nature of Palmer’s work to date.He was a young colleague of the incomparable British labor historian E. P.Thompson, of whom Palmer has written a rich and insightful biography worthyof its subject. He has not only produced path-breaking studies on Canadianlabor history (in part through the prestigious journal which he edits, Labour/LeTravail and in his early book Working-Class Experience), but also the sharply-focused critique of post-modernism, Descent into Discourse, and a massive, wide-ranging work of social-cultural history, Cultures of Darkness.

One of the most challenging and controversial (and refreshing) qualities ofPalmer’s work is its permeation by a thoughtful and unapologetic Marxism,drawing not only from the Victorian contributions of Karl Marx, but also fromthe unabashedly revolutionary continuations by the likes of V. I. Lenin and LeonTrotsky. In his writing, a fluid and clear literary style seems always to be matchedwith a searching and disciplined analytical mind. His mastery of the secondaryliterature on U.S. Communism is matched by his own cutting-edge research,pushing the edge of scholarship significantly outward.

Palmer focuses on the first forty years in the life of James P. Cannon. Knownin rather small circles as the grand old man of American Trotskyism, Cannon hasoften been dismissed by academics, intellectuals, and political opponents (some-times these are combined in one person—such as sociologist Lewis Coser,literary critic Irving Howe, neoconservative pundit Irving Kristol) as a preten-tious sectarian, dominating and stifling greater talents than himself, mechani-cally adhering to the poorly understood ideas of the brilliant Trotsky. Cannonwould seem, therefore, a very odd choice as the focal point of a major scholarlybiography from someone having the qualities of a Bryan Palmer.

But it is precisely Palmer’s qualities that enable him to cut through thedismissive tangle that has obscured not only a remarkable figure in the history ofU.S. radicalism, but also the richness, the vibrancy, and the meaning of thepolitical currents of which he was a part. This is especially valuable because theyoung Cannon was intensely active in the Socialist Party led by Eugene V. Debsand in colorful and rambunctious Wobblies—the Industrial Workers of theWorld (IWW)—before becoming a key founder and a central leader of the earlyCommunist Party in the U.S. (Cannon’s role in the later Trotskyist movement

371BOOK REVIEWS