Professional Documents
Culture Documents
08 - Chapter 3 PDF
08 - Chapter 3 PDF
Introduction
in the period 1984-88, the latest years for which such data is
analysed.
Section 1
Kerala with its low per capita state domestic product is one
of the economically backward states in India (see table 1). Its low
coconut, rubber, tea, coffee and spices. In 1989-90 while the value
under the indirect rule of the British and constituted the princely
83
Table 1
Structural Characteristics of
the Kerala Economy
Per capita
State NSDP
1991-92
( 1) ( 2)
from the latter formed their main income. There was also phenomenal
84
population. In 1911 the population density in Kerala was the second
cash crops such as coconut, rubber, tea, coffee, spices etc., which
substitute for rice like tapioca that almost became a staple diet
distilling, basket making, mat weaving and village crafts for house
85
an important position among the new industries that carne up 4 . Copra
Kerala. But weaving of coir mats and matting with coir yarn was an
and was localised in and around the town of Alleppey. Till the
First World War rice mills and tea and coffee processing
gave rise to timber yards and saw mills. Kallayi became one of the
86
region. At the end of the first decade of the century they had
it was they, who introduced tile making into Malabar where they set
Table 2
Travancore Malabar
Industry
Units Employment Units Employment
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5)
87
development that made it a relatively much more important claimant
subsistence agriculture.
The data for the year 1961 (see table 3), the earliest year
hectare of gross cropped area was the highest in the state and it
was more than twice the national average. The population per
hectare of food grain cultivated was also the highest; and it was
almost five times the national average. The food grain produced per
unit population was among the lowest, (after Rajasthan and West
Bengal), and less than one third of the national average. This was
despite the fact that per hectare productivity of food grain area
in Kerala was among the highest and around 75 percent higher than
88
Table 3
Notes: Pop.: Population, GCA: Gross Cropped Area, FGA: Area under food grains,
FGP: Food Grain Production, AP: Agricultural population (Agriculturists +
Agricultural Labour)
Sources: Data for gross and net cropped area and agricultural population has been
taken from, Central Statistical Organisation, Statistical Abstracts of India
1966, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi, 1966 and those for foodgrain from Centre
for Monitoring Indian Economy, Agricultural Production in Major States: 1949-50
to 1987-88 Crop wise Data, CMIE, Bombay, April 1989
by the asset pattern, especially the land holding. The data for
rural households with less than one hectare of land, was as large
89
agricultural sector from absorbing the residual labour force as in
of India.
industrial growth and employment. For reasons that are beyond the
force.
90
Section 2
The discussion in the last section has already brought out two
their link with local resource and (ii) their export orientation.
cultivated in the state. Since the raw material supply for most of
mainly from the demand side. Given the narrow basis of the domestic
markets, demand from abroad was the main stimulus for industrial
growth.·
concentrated in the major and minor port towns of Kerala. The fact
that almost all these industries were very much dependent on export
for this localisation. The growth of coir and cashew industries can
markets the tile industry was also dependent on outside the state
91
Technological Basis of Production
sector.
rudimentary tools but just relied upon the craft skill of the
workers. The best example would be beedi rolling. The only tool
appropriate size from the tendu leaves. The production process only
required that tobacco flakes be placed across the cut wrapper leaf
after which the ends are closed and the beedi tied up. Similarly,
wooden mallets to remove the pith and the fibre manually cleaned
and dried. The coir fibre was then spun into yarn using a simple
manual spinning wheel called ratt. In northern Kerala not even the
ratt was used for spinning 13 . The fibres were twisted between the
92
Hand spinning facilitated the spinning of yarn of softer twists.
the handlooms, but much larger _and sturdier to facilitate the use
of coarser coir yarn. In the coir weaving factories steam power was
open pan roasting of nuts, hot oil bath roasting technique came to
be used 14 . The new technique also did not require machine power.
shelled the kernel with the help of little wooden rods and their
weaving factories. These new looms were far superior to the looms
some of ~he very firms that owned coir handloom weaving factories
Kerala region and that a powerloom factory could not compete with
93
Petty Production organisation and Dominance of Merchant Capital
was the coir yarn spinning. Almost the entire hand spinners were
But even here typical production units employed one or two ratts
where the family members worked alongside with few hired workers.
units was a response to the need for control over labour skills and
labour turnover during the early decades of the century. But we are
94
not able to give a rational explanation why the cashew industry has
a single work yard may have been easier method for prevention of
which has survived to this day. These industries have been more
own homes or in the small scale units owned by the master weavers.
units with 797 workers in Travancore (see table 3). By 1940 the
95
employing more than a hundred workers producing beedi under a
single brand had made their appearance by the 1930 's 21 • Better
cashew nuts. The export demand could be catered only by the large
was also the commercial retter. It has been estimated that a few
96
over the husk market, the commercial retters were able to set the
price of husks. Similarly, the yarn spun by the petty producers was
not only absorbed the surplus produced but often denied the petty
the husk prices have tended to move closely with the yarn prices
denying the petty producer even little advantage that may accrue in
collusion with each other. Some of these coastal trading firms were
markets.
material markets the actual producers did not even receive bare
infamous with below subsistence wages and the work place lacking
even the basic amenities 24 . The wages were very much below
subsistence level and the conditions of work were harsh. Work time
97
often extended from before sunrise to late in the night. The work
the workers depended on the whims and fancies of the employer who
primitive methods.
that they worked two to three longer than the ratt spinners. It was
abnormally low wage costs of hand spun yarn that sustained hand
Not only was the wage rate low in the traditional industries
limited work among the entire work force. The work in the
98
from the low wage rates the severe underemployment also depressed
their earnings.
Before the middle of thirties unions have been formed in the major
establishments 28 .
99
rallying point for trade unions in various localities and demand
committee fixed only a flat wage rate. But the later committees
cost of living index apart from the basic wages. There was even
various minimum wages committee reports. The wage rates fer major
are given in table 4a. The real wages deflated by the cost of
again in the late sixties. The increase in coir and tile industry
reflected in the real wage rates (see Table 4B) . In the cashew
industry the real wages peaked in the early sixties whereas in the
coir industry the real wages declined from mid fifties to :he mid
which it declined. The data for the tile industry shows that it
100
declined significantly between 1958 and 1965 after which it revived
Table 4a
Increase in Nominal Minimum Wage Rates in Traditional
.Industries
Cashew Industry
1958 1960 1967 1975
* thousand husks
** hundred husks
*** Angengo yarn 13-14 score, 2807 rn runnage
Beedi Industry
Continued
101
Tile IndustrY
Average minimum wages
R=Recommended, N=Notified I
Source: Government of Kerala, Report of the Minimum Wages I
Committee for Employment in Tile Industry, Trivandrum, 1958 I
Government of Kerala, Report of the Minimum Wages Committee I
for Revision of Minimum Wages for Employment in the Tile
Industry, Trivandrum, 1970
I
Table 4B
Continued
102
Beedi Industry
Tile Industry
Average minimum wages
Section 3
available. Even the census data has serious limitations for inter
female workers.
103
Table 5
Category Employment
cashew industry from the 1971 and 1981 censuses are only for the
main workers. The census figures estimate ~he main workers in the
made in the early sixties and include part time and marginal
104
has been a decline in handspun yarn and therefore the number of
trends revealed by the census data. The total workers in the coir
The Decennial Census data where 1971 and 1981 figures are
restricted to main workers alone shows that even the number of main
workers in 1971 and 1981 was higher than the total employment in
the industry in 1961. The total workers in the industry were 64311
105
severe underestimates as the growth of the industry in the eighties
sector. But the Decennial Census data shows that the household
material markets and the decline in the demand for the products of
traditional industries.
106
industries (e.g. beedi, employers broke up their large scale
the purview of the Factory's _Act 35 . But often their response was
A classic case has been the coir weaving industry. The large
the husk merchants disappeared from northern Kerala and also the
sector there were 653 coir units under the purview of the Factories
the thousand odd ratt spinning units employing more than 20 workers
107
there has been a very rapid decline of the organised sector of
table 6). The withdrawal form direct production was also visible to
Table 6
Coir
No.of units 158 147 144 260 296 303 86
Employment 12186 7159 4247 4313 4322 2186
Avg.emp. 77 49 29 17 14 25
Beedi
No.of units 77 62 38 32
Employment 2249 2166 1076 99
Avg.emp. 29 35 28 31
Cotton
No.of units 265 238 193 375 763 625 336
Employment 19669 16852 15192 18706 24976 19609
Avg.emp. 74 71 79 50 40 58
Cashew
No.of units 170 199 264 265 263 243 304
Employment 65562 83850 97494 119999 104727 59505
Avg.emp. 386 421 369 453 431 196
Tea
No.of units 120 125 121 117 113 104 102
Employment 5754 5789 5131 5080 5530 1435
Avg.emp. 48 46 42 43 53 14
Source:For 1959, 1964 and 1969 see State Planning Board and Bureau of Economics,
Statistics for Planning Series 3, Trivandrum 1972
For 1974 see Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Factbook on Manpower Kerala
1976, Government Press Trivandrum, 1977
For 1984 see Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Statistics for Planning 1988,
Government Press, Trivandrum, 1988
For 1990 Bureau Of Economics and Statistics, Unpublished data.
108
In sharp contrast to these experiences, the cashew industry
1977-78 the wage costs for processing one kilogram of cashew kernel
109
region 42 . Experience of beedi industry has also been similar to
Karnataka 43 . The low wage in the .north Kerala beedi industry had
been completely eroded by the mid sixties. The minimum wages in the
different states paid the minimum wages in the industry. But even
Karnataka and Rs 4.50 and 2.50 in Tamil Nadu. 45 The lower wages in
the neighbouring states were the prime reason for the shift in the
industry.
110
furnishings and other items of superior quality were exclusively
like tile. The post independence period show ~he growth of many
smaller tile mills in Trichur belt where unions were weak and wages
lower 47 .
mechanisation.
petty producers and the household sector was the primary factor
units both inside and outside the state. The move met with fierce
111
illlplement minimum wages in the later seventies. The number of
where the industry was concentrated. But there are around 200
112
near user industry locations very difficult. The increasing
modern wood based industries like paper and rayon where the value
adequate quantity.
meet the needs of the handloom industry in the state the spinning
113
government owned mills) in the late eighties amounts to only 5.5
of the hank yarn produced is sold within the state. This increases
outside the state. Many reasons are attributed to the flow of hank
yarn outside the state the main one being the difference ~n sales
tax that make Tamil Nadu yarn cheaper for the Kerala handloom
in the state. Production of hank yarn of low counts (upto the 40s)
have been increasing over the years further adding to the ~oes of
114
1992-93 58 . The production of cashew nuts was inadequate to meet the
raw nuts was met by imports. Between 1946-47 and 1972-73 the import
of cashew nuts increased form 32000 tons to 198000 tons. But since
then there has been a steady fall in imports to 24000 tons in 1979-
between 10000 and 30000 tons in the latter half of the eighties.
per ton to Rs 12682 per ton during the period 60 . Further, Kerala's
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka they can pay a higher price for cashew
nuts. In 1980 the price per quintal of cashew nut was Rs 763 ln
115
State Cashew Development Corporation, the largest cashew employer
seen that the decline in production was most acute in the southern
figure show that only less than 30 percent of the husks are used in
the problem. The flow of fibre from the husk surplus northern
116
materials are imported from states like Orissa, Andhra Pradesh,
been very smooth and regular_. However, there have been sharp
lower costs of Sri Lankan machine spun coir yarn products enabled
market share.
117
Though the domestic market accounts for around 85 percent of
competition from Tamil Nadu that has been increasing its share of
1965 to 22507 tons (49%) in 1986 69 . The lower wages account for the
states. The estimates in the late seventies show that wage per 100
lost the outside state markets. Exports were only Rs 3.87 crores in
118
1975-76 and Rs 4.77 crores in 1980-81 72 . I~ fact of late the state
Rs 98 lakhs.
hand looms is more severe in thP. so11 t:hern districts, where the
other states who have made significant inroads in the local market.
Cheap handloom cloth from Tamil Nadu was not only able to compete
and capture a large segment of the Kern1a market but also produce
in Africa and Latin America have made substantial inroads into the
119
international market. India's share of total international trade in
exports of raw nuts to cashew kernels, have been the gainers in the
by 1978 76. Their access to increased raw material supply and lower
industry. In the late seventies the per ton export price of cashew
Conclusion
120
production that allowed them to play the accommodating role to
surplus labour. Basically, there are two sets of factors that have
that pushed up the real wages and improved the working conditions
developments in the product and raw material markets that are also
traditional industries.
121
7}1-bl;/3
Notes and References
7. Kallayi was the second largest timber yard in the world in the
early decades of the century. See Sreedhara Menon A (1962),
p.339.
9. Ibid., p.55.
122
11. Table 2 Land holding of rural households 1961
lstate\Rectare Above sl
IAndhra Pradesh I 7 I ol 6 51 23
Assn 28 42 8 50 14
Bihar 9 42 9 49 16
Gujarat 15 34 3 63 40
Ja11u and [asbtir 11 23 I 8 69 17
Kerala 31 59 14 27 5
Madhya Pradesh 9 26 I 3 71 44
Madras 24 55 1 7 38 11 I
Maharashtra
llysore
16
19
38
32
I 2
4
60
64
38
41
Orissa 8 38 I 7 55 20
Punjab 12 49 I 4 47 29
Rajasthan 16 I 2 82 55 I
Uttar Pradesh I 1; 29 I 8 63 21 I
Illest Bengal I 11 ol I
8 49 14 I
India 12 I 38 I 6 56
Source: Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, NSS Ho 144. Tables with Notes on Some lsEects of Land
Roldir." in Rural ~reas: State ond All India Estimates /Seventeenth Round\. Sentember 1961-Julv 1962, New
Delhi
24. For descriptive details see the early minimum wages committee
reports in coir cashew beedi
1 hand loom tile and wood
I 1 I
industries.
123
27. Thomas Isaac T M (1992}, p.38.
39. The total workers in 232 cashew units registered under the
Factory's Act was 291788 in 1985 whereas total number of units
and factories stood at 11097 and 291788 respectively,
Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Kerala,
(1989) pp.101-104.
I
124
51. Pillai V R (1958), p.9.
57. For reason for yarn shortages in the nineties see Srinivasulu
K (1994) pp.2331-2333.
I
64. Estimates place the share of cashew nuts that are smuggled out
to be as high as 50 percent. For details see Kerala Sastra
Sahithya Parishad (1988}, p.171. Also in 1992 the government
could only procure 8306 metric tons of cashew against a target
of 14000 tons, Economic Review(1992}.
72. Thomas Isaac T M and Ram Manohar Reddy (1992), pp.51 and 60.
125
75. Kannan K P (1981), p.21.
126