Labour Relations in India
From 1 October 1997 to 1 February 1998 Dr Karin Kapadia held a Visiting Fellowship at the IIAS Amsterdam. During this period she was involved in research and discussions relating to a number of issues in the general research area of labour relations in India. Her central assignment for this fellowship was to work on the editing of the papers contributed to a very successful International Conference on Labour Relations in Rural India Today that she had organized, in conjunction with Dr Jens Lerche, at the London School of Economics in June 1997 In this article she will focus on other work she was engaged in during this period.By Karin Kapadia
I was fortunate that a major International Conference was held on the general area of labour relations in industrial labour while I was in Amsterdam. This had the title: 'The World of Indian Industrial Labour' and was organized by Professor Jan Breman (of CASA) and Professor Johnny Parry (of LSE). It was a distinguished gathering of international scholars, most of whom were experts in their various subject areas. I learnt a great deal at this unusually interesting and enjoyable Conference, which brought together not only anthropologists but also leading social historians working on India. My own paper developed the argument that women workers in rural industry, under certain circumstances, can be viewed as belonging to a different class from that of their husbands, depending on their relations to the mode of production. This argument challenges both the Marxist view that members of a household can be regarded as being of the same class and the neo-classical assumption that households have unitary interests.Apart from this December conference I was also kept busy with three other seminar presentations: one in October 1997 and two in November 1997. First, at a joint IIAS/CASA seminar (28 October 1997), I presented an overview of my ongoing research on processes of rural industrialization in South India. I emphasized the ways in which macro processes, such as structural liberalization, may have affected micro trends, such as the radically changing structure of the synthetic gem-cutting industry. I also discussed the ways in which it appeared that relations of bonded labour were being replaced by 'free' labour relations, which none the less left workers very vulnerable to dismissal. My interests thus connect with theoretical discussions of the nature of capitalist industrial production in India and the possibility that new forms of labour tying may be emerging. The gendered nature of the changes that are taking place is particularly striking.
Next, at a seminar at ISS, at the Hague (24 November 1997), I discussed the broader trends in patterns of rural development in Tamilnadu, South India. One of the central questions in such research has been the classical agrarian question. This classic question assumes that for non-agricultural employment (NAE) development to occur in rural areas. there have to be transfers of surplus from agriculture to other sectors. My argument was that both my research and that of a number of other researchers throws doubt on the fundamental assumption that an agricultural linkage always exists as the primary determinant of non--agricultural sector growth. Instead of agriculture it appears that the determinants of NAE growth are twofold: (a) public sector spending, which often results in improvement of overall rural infrastructure and (b) private sector investment, which is in many cases not only urban-based but also mercantile capital, not industrial capital. The implications of these differences are major.
Finally, at a seminar at the Gender Institute, LSE, London (26 November 1997) I discussed recent theoretical developments in feminist studies. Of late there has been a growing recognition in such work of the multiplicity of women's interests and women's identities. This recognition has been long in coming because it creates a very serious problem for feminist politics. The fact that it is no longer possible to posit the global notion 'Woman' and retain a homogeneous notion of women's interests means that the political stance of feminism is, in certain ways, radically weakened. Using my research in India I showed how separate the gendering and the interests of differing groups of women could be. Thus the gendering and the perceptions of middle-caste women workers in rural industry were radically different from those of landless women agricultural labourers of 'untouchable' caste. This means that it is, potentially, extremely difficult for feminist political organizations to develop across the divisions of caste and class in India, given the radically different social identities of different social sections of women. In short, a recognition of 'difference' is essential before feminist organizers can even begin their work.
Dr Karin Kapadia (K.Kapadia@lse.ac.uk) is attached to the London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Anthropology.