Industrial Class Structure | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

The industrial class structure in India began to take shape during the British colonial period and underwent significant changes post-independence.
 Effects of industrialization on the class structure in India:

• Shift from Agriculture to Industry:
  • During the British period, industrialization in cities gave rise to a new industrial and mercantile middle class.
  • After independence, industrialization continued to evolve, leading to a decrease in the percentage of the workforce engaged in agriculture and an increase in those employed in various industrial and service sectors.
• Acceleration of Social Mobility:
  • Industrialization has contributed to the acceleration of social mobility in India. Individuals from diverse backgrounds have had the opportunity to move up the social and economic ladder through education and employment in the industrial and service sectors.
• Trade Union Movement:
  • The emergence of industrialization in India led to the formation of trade unions, which organized industrial workers to collectively advocate for their rights, better working conditions, and fair wages.
• Impact on Caste Stratification:
  • While industrial workers have diversified backgrounds and often maintain close ties to their kin-groups and castes, the class character has had an impact on the traditional caste stratification.
  • The opportunities provided by industrialization have allowed individuals from lower castes to break free from the constraints of the caste system and rise within the industrial class structure.
• Transition from Traditional to Professional Elite:
  • The traditional and charismatic elite that held power during colonial and pre-independence times have been gradually replaced by a professional elite.
  • This new elite is characterized by individuals who have acquired education and skills that enable them to hold influential positions in various industries and sectors.

Behaviour pattern of the industrial labour- Morris D. Morris

Morris D. Morris has presented two contrasting viewpoints regarding the behavior patterns of industrial labor, particularly in the context of labor supply and mobility:

• Scarcity of Labor Viewpoint:
  • According to this perspective, there was a shortage of labor in the industrial sector. Employers had to compete for available workers and make various concessions to attract and retain them.
  • The attachment of workers to their villages was strong, and they frequently returned to their rural homes.
  • As a result of this scarcity, employers had a weaker hold on workers, and labor had more bargaining power.
• Surplus of Labor Viewpoint:
  • In contrast, the surplus labor viewpoint suggests that there was an abundance of labor available in villages for urban employment.
  • With a surplus of labor, employers were able to exploit workers and subject them to harsh working conditions.
  • The difficult conditions in factories forced many laborers to return to their villages in search of better opportunities.

In both views, the common thread is the strong connection between industrial workers and their villages. This attachment limited the supply of labor for industrial development. Consequently, it hindered the development of a full-fledged proletarian behavior pattern among workers. The consequences included high rates of absenteeism, labor turnover (workers leaving and being replaced), and the slow growth of trade unions. These factors collectively shaped the labor dynamics and industrial relations during that period.

Features of industrial class workers

• Limited Employment of Women and Children:
  • The employment of women and children in industries was relatively limited, with approximately 20-25% of the labor force consisting of women and around 5% being children.
  • This restriction was partly due to legal regulations that prohibited the employment of women in night shifts and the employment of children below the age of 14.
• Caste Affiliation:
  • While it is argued that the industrial sector is "caste-blind" and employees are not interested in caste affiliation, workers did not allow employers to hire workers from untouchable castes.
  • Caste distinctions and biases persisted in the industrial workforce.
• Geographical Mobility:
  • Many industrial workers came from various districts and neighboring states, indicating that there were no geographical barriers inhibiting the flow of labor into the industry.
  • The joint family system and rural social structure did not act as barriers to labor migration.
• Class Distinctions within the Working Class:
  • Holmstrom emphasized that all workers within the industrial sector do not share the same interests; instead, they share only a few common interests.
  • Class divisions exist between the organized and unorganized sector industrial workers, with differing and conflicting interests based on factors such as wages, working conditions, job security, and social worlds.
• Factors Contributing to Class Distinctions:
  • Wages: Workers in big industries tend to earn more than those in smaller ones, reflecting the influence of economies of scale, labor unions, and bargaining power.
  • Working Conditions: Differences in working conditions, safety measures, job amenities, and hours worked contribute to distinct interests among workers.
  • Security and Career Prospects: Permanent workers often prioritize career development, while temporary workers are more concerned with job security.
  • Social Worlds: The social and economic conditions, mutual support networks, and tensions within the workplace create distinctions between organized and unorganized sector workers.
• Privileged Upper Class within Organized Sector:
  • Workers in the organized sector are described as forming a privileged upper class, characterized by greater solidarity, fewer hostilities, and less tension.
  • Their interests and ideology set them apart from those in the unorganized sector, contributing to class distinctions among industrial workers.

Business Elite: Shadow of Industrial Class

The emergence and evolution of the business elite in India is a complex and significant phenomenon that has undergone several transformations over time.
Here are some key points regarding the development of the business elite in India:

• Historical Background:
  • The business elite in India began to take shape in the mid-nineteenth century, during British rule. While there were enterprising business individuals and traders before British colonization, the new business elite gained prominence during this period.
• Changing Caste and Community Dynamics:
  • Traditionally, most businesspersons belonged to trading castes and communities. However, with the establishment of economic links between India and Britain, members from other castes also entered the mercantile sector.
  • Many of these businesspersons acted as intermediaries and brokers for British firms.
• Regional Concentration:
  • The early business elite was primarily concentrated in major commercial and industrial centers such as Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai, where commercial and industrial activities were concentrated.
• Caste Composition:
  • The composition of the business elite varied by region. In Kolkata, upper-caste groups like Jains, Baniyas, and Kayashthas were prominent. In Mumbai, Parsis and Jains played a dominant role, while Chettiars controlled businesses in Chennai.
• Shift towards Industrial Entrepreneurship:
  • By the early twentieth century, Indian industrial entrepreneurs began to compete with British firms. Gujaratis, Parsis, and Marwaris emerged as dominant groups among the business elite.
• Continuity and Nationalist Link:
  • The business elite had a connection with the traditional trading castes and communities, representing a degree of continuity with the past.
  • Additionally, many members of the business elite were closely associated with the nationalist movement in India, aligning their interests with the push for Indian independence.
• Post-Independence Growth:
  • After India gained independence, the size and role of the business elite expanded significantly due to the growth of industrial activities in the country.
• Modernization and Bureaucratization:
  • Business groups in India have modernized their operations and adopted scientific management practices, comparable to international standards.
  • Trained managers now oversee their organizations, leading to the emergence of a new class of industrial bureaucrats.
• Broadening of the Business Elite:
  • The business elite is becoming more diverse as members from various social groups and castes enter the fold.
  • Industrial development in previously backward regions of the country reflects this trend.

In conclusion, the business elite in India has evolved significantly over time, from its origins as intermediaries and traders during British rule to its current role as industrial entrepreneurs and leaders in modern business practices. This evolution has been marked by changes in caste composition, regional concentration, and alignment with nationalist movements, reflecting the dynamic nature of India's business landscape.

Conclusion

The industrial class structure in India is a complex and evolving phenomenon. It has historical roots in colonialism, with enduring influences of caste, geography, and gender. The post-independence era has witnessed significant changes, including the rise of a business elite that has played a pivotal role in modernizing Indian society.