Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T23:11:32.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Industrial Violence in Colonial India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

David Arnold
David Arnold
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussion of the social aspects of industrialization in India has proceeded almost exclusively in terms of labor recruitment, factory conditions, and the development of trade unions. Although strikes have received detailed consideration, the industrial violence which formed a common and persistent feature of labor relations in colonial India has been largely ignored. Official reports of the period tended to play down the incidence of violence, not wishing to publicize the failings of government labor policies.' Or, where violence was acknowledged to have occurred, it was taken to indicate the immaturity and irresponsibility of Indian workers. Post-independence studies, drawing heavily on published official sources, have too readily equated labor history with a narrative of strikes, with union membership figures and labor legislation. A lingering Gandhian tradition has further influenced many Indian labor studies. Violence is regarded as too morally reprehensible and politically deviant to warrant serious analysis. Where admitted, it is attributed to communist politicians or other outside elements rather than to factors inherent within the labor situation.

Type
The State and the Threat of Violence
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 234 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1980

Access options

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

References

The author wishes to thank Flinders University of South Australia and the Social Science Research Council of Great Britain for the financial assistance which made possible the research on which this paper is based.

1 In this submission to the Royal Commission on Labor, the Railway Board listed 48 strikes for the 1919–29 period, but noted serious violence in only 3 of them, with minor violence in 5 others: Royal Commission on Labour in India (hereafter RCL) (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1931), VIII, part l, pp. 250–58. Examination of strikes for which no violence was listed shows many incidents of violence of the kinds discussed in this paper.Google Scholar

2 For example, in Karnik, V. B., Strikes in India (Bombay: Manaktalas, 1967), p. 216. commenting on violence during the South Indian Railway strike, 1928.Google Scholar

3 Hobsbawm, E. J., “The Machine Breakers,” in Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964), pp. 5–22.Google Scholar

4 Census of India: Madras, 1921 (Madras: Government Press, 1922), XIII, part 2, pp. 198–99Google Scholar; Madras Presidency Administration Report, 1924–5 (Madras: Government Press, 1925), p. 130.Google Scholar

5 E.g., Bashyam, A. L., “Traditional Influences on the Thought of Mahatma Gandhi,” in Kumar, R., ed., Essays on Gandhian Politics: The Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 17–42Google Scholar; Spodek, Howard, “On the Origins of Gandhi's Political Methodology: The Heritage of Kathiawad and Gujarat,” Journal of Asian Studies, 30: 2 (February 1971), 361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Judicial Proceedings, no. 90, 13 February 1862, Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras (hereafter T.N.A.).

7 Alavi, Hamza, “Peasants and Revolution,” in Miliband, Ralph and Saville, John, eds., The Socialist Register, 1965 (London: Merlin Press, 1965), pp. 241–77Google Scholar; Wolf, Eric R., Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (London: Faber, 1971), pp. 290–92.Google Scholar

8 The literature on this subject is vast, but see especially, Kumar, Dharma, Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency during the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Epstein, Scarlett, “Productive Efficiency and Customary Systems of Rewards in Rural South India,” in Firth, Raymond, ed., Themes in Economic Anthropology, AS.A. Monograph no 6 (London: Tavistock Publications, 1967), pp. 229–52Google Scholar; and, more generally, Moore, Barrington Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (London: Allen Lane, 1967), pp.330–41, 378–85.Google Scholar

9 Kumar, Ravinder, “The Transformation of Rural Protest in India,” in Malik, S. C., ed., Dissent, Protest and Reform in Indian Civilization (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1977), p. 272.Google Scholar

10 Beidelman, Thomas O., A Comparative Analysis of the Jajmani System (New York: Association for Asian Studies, 1959), pp. 61–64Google Scholar; Beacute;teille, André, Castes, Old and New: Essays in Social Structure and Social Stratification (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1969), pp. 101, 188.Google Scholar

11 Thompson, E. P., “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, 50 (February 1971), 76–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, James C., The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

12 Arnold, David, “Dacoity and Rural Crime in Madras, 1860–1940,” Journal of Peasant Studies 6: 2 (January 1979), 140–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Census of India: Madras, 1921, XIII, part 2, pp. 257, 315–16, 325.Google Scholar Cf. Gupta, Ranajit Das, “Factory Labour in Eastern India: Sources of Supply, 1855–1946,” Indian Economic and Social History Review, 13: 3 (July7ndash;September 1976), 277–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Morris, Morris D., The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India: A Study of the Bombay Cotton Mills, 1854–1947 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Chakraborty, Dipesh, “Communal Riots and Labour: Bengal's Jute Mill Hands in the 1890s,” paper presented at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, October, 1976.Google Scholar

15 Francis, W., Madras District Gazetteers: South Arcot (Madras: Government Press, 1906), pp. 181–82Google Scholar; Madras Police Administration Report, 1876 (Madras: Foster, 1877), appendix C, p. xvii.Google Scholar

16 G[overnment] O[rder] 2303, Home (Judicial), 11 October 1918, T.N.A.; Arnold, David, “Looting, Grain Riots and Government Policy in South India, 1918,” Past and Present 84 (August 1979): 111–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Hindu (Madras), 14 September 1918; G.O. 1446, Revenue (Special), 29 July 1919, T.N.A.Google Scholar

18 Sabotage on the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway between early August and late October 1920 was attributed to gangmen angered by the management's refusal to meet their union's demands and the defeat of their strike in June: Under-Secretary's Secret File, 308B, 29 November 1920, T.N.A. For a discussion of the phenomenon, see Chakraborty, Dipesh, “Early Railwaymen in India: Dacoity and Train-Wrecking (c. 1860–1900),” in Essays in Honour of Prof. S. C. Sarkar (New Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1976), pp. 523–50.Google Scholar

19 Tilly, Charles, Tilly, Louise and Tilly, Richard, The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930 (London: Dent, 1975), pp. 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Madras Police Administration Report, 1898 (Madras: Government Press, 1899), pp. 3, 142; G.O. 195, Judicial, 27 January 1914, T.N.A.Google Scholar

21 Cf. Rimlinger, Gaston V., “The Legitimation of Protest: A Comparative Study in Labor History,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2: 3 (April 1960), pp. 331–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilly, Charles, “The Changing Place of Collective Violence”, in Richter, Melvin, ed., Essays in Theory and History: An Approach to the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 139–64.Google Scholar

22 G.O. 195, Judicial, 27 January 1914; G.O. 1303, Judicial, 5 June 1914, T.N.A.

23 G.O. 2114, Public Works and Labor, 25 August 1928, T.N.A.; RCL, VIII, part I, pp. 173,588.Google Scholar

24 Collected Works of Mahalma Gandhi (Delhi: Government of India, 1969), XXXI, p. 454.Google Scholar

25 Report on Indian Railways, 1928–29 (Calcutta: Government of India, 1930), I, p. 69Google Scholar; Hindu, 6 August 1928.Google Scholar

26 GO. 422, Public, 28 March 1930, T.N.A.

27 Hindu, 24 July 1928.Google Scholar

28 For example the strike at the Choolai mills, Madras, April 1930:G.0.1366 (1–S), Public Works and Labor (Confidential), 1 May 1930, T.N.A.

29 Morris, , Emergence oj an Industrial Labor Force, pp. 196–97.Google Scholar

30 G. O. 110, Judicial, , 19 January 1898, T.N.A.Google Scholar

31 Friedland, William H., Vuta Kamba: The Development of Trade Unions in Tanganyika (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969), especially chapter 1.Google Scholar

32 Hindu, 2 August 1928.Google Scholar For a detailed discussion of government and management attitudes to unions during the Congress ministry, see Arnold, David, “Labour Relations in a South Indian Sugar Factory, 1937–39,” Social Scientist (Trivandrum), 65 (December 1977), 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 G.O. 733, Public, 31 August 1928; G.O. 974, Public (Conf), 1 November 1928; G.0.171, Judicial (Conf.), 1 April 1929, T.N.A.

34 G.O. 733, Public, 31 August 1928, T.N.A.; Hindu, 30 July 1928.Google Scholar

35 For example, Report of the Non-Official Enquiry Committee regarding the Shooting of Millhands at the Cawnpore Cotton Mills Company (Kanpur: Mercantile Press, 1924), pp. 8–12.Google Scholar For an example of violence against police escorting blacklegs, see the account of disturbances during the strike at the Buckingham, and Mills, Carnatic, Madras, in December 1920, in G.O. 779, Public, 14 December 1920, T.N.A.Google Scholar

36 Selections from the Calcutta Gazette (Calcutta: Government of India, 1865), II, p. 223Google Scholar; SirCotton, Henry, Indian and Home Memories (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), p. 65Google Scholar; Sanyal, Ram Gopal, The Record of Criminal Cases between Europeans and Natives for the last Hundred Years (Calcutta: Sanyal, 1896).Google Scholar

37 Census of India: Madras, 1911 (Madras: Government Press, 1912), XII, part IGoogle Scholar; Census of India: Madras, 1921, XIII, part 2, pp. 215–16.Google Scholar

38 “Notes on Situation in Madras,” Home Political, 93/1/1921. National Archives of India, New Delhi.

39 See the evidence from Bengal in RCL, V, part I, pp. 122–23.Google Scholar

40 Morris, Morris D., “The Recruitment of an Indian Labor Force in India, with British and American Comparisons,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2:3 (April 1960), pp. 324–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 For such a case, see Judicial, Bengal, nos. 12–16, 14 April 1885, India Office Library, London.Google Scholar

42 Cited in Karnik, , Strikes in India, p. 14.Google Scholar

43 G.O. 1303, Judicial, 5 June 1914; G.O.s 195–6, Judicial, 27 January 1914, T.N.A.

44 RCL, VII, part l, p. 40.Google Scholar

45 G.O. 671, Public, 7 October 1921; G.O. 1130, Public (Conf.), 8 April 1942, T.N.A.

46 “English Life in Bengal,” Calcutta Review, XXXIII (December 1859), p. 325.Google Scholar

47 See the evidence presented by rail unions in RCL, VIII, part 1Google Scholar; cf. Grillo, R. D., Race, Class and Militancy: An African Trade Union, 1939–1965 (New York: Chandler Publishing Co., 1974), chapter 4.Google Scholar

48 G.O. 660, Public (Conf.), 9 October 1920, T.N.A.

49 L/P&J/6/902 of 1922, India Office Library. See also Karnik, , Strikes in India, pp. 71, 78, 135, 205.Google Scholar

50 RCL, VIII, part 1, pp. 602–29; part 2, pp. 332–38.Google Scholar

51 Hindu, 25 June, 30 June, 19 July, 22 July, 25 July, 26 July 1928; G.O. 789, Public (Conf.), 15 September 1928, T.N.A.Google Scholar