Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:00:00.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Context and Contractual Relations: The Madras Planters' Labour Law and the Rise of the Plantation Maistri, 1904–1927

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Barbara Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In examining the development of colonial capitalism in India historians have increasingly recognized the importance of specific cultural contexts in determining the character of the emergent industrial sector. In particular, the impact of pre-capitalist mores on the recruitment, organization and supervision of industrial workers has been an important concern. In the Calcutta jute industry, for instance, Dipesh Chakrabarty has concluded that the authority of factory sardars was derived largely from a pre-capitalist culture with “a strong emphasis on religion, community, kinship, language, and other similar loyalties”. Similarly, Ranajit Das Gupta's exploration of the industrial labour market in north eastern India has revealed that “indebtedness, primordial loyalties and relations of personal dependency were extensively used to keep labour under control”. Studies of trade union development have also acknowledged the enduring importance of the cultural milieu carried by workers to the mills, mines and plantations of colonial India.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 73 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1997

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

1 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Rethinking Working Class History: Bengal 1890–1940 (New Delhi, 1989), p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Gupta, Ranajit Das, “Structure of the labour market in colonial India”, Economic and Political Weekly, (Special No.) XVI (44–46), p. 1789Google Scholar.

3 Kooiman, Dick, “Jobbers and the emergence of trade unions in Bombay city”, International Review of Social History, XXII (1977)Google Scholar; Newman, Richard, Workers and Unions in Bombay, 1918–1929 (Canberra, 1981)Google Scholar; Murphy, Eamon, Unions in Conflict: A Comparative Study of Four South Indian Textile Centres, 1918–1939 (New Delhi, 1981)Google Scholar.

4 Robb, Peter, “Labour in India 1860–1920: typologies, change and regulation”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (Third Series), IV, Pt 1 (04 1994), p. 64Google Scholar.

5 Ibid.

6 Chakrabarty, , op. cit., p. 114Google Scholar.

7 For further discussion see Evans, B., “From agricultural bondage to plantation contract: a continuity of experience in Southern India, 1860–1947”, South Asia (New Series), XIII no. 2 (1989), pp. 47–8Google Scholar.

8 Although the term maistri is commonly translated as labour contractor, this definition is far too narrow. Aside from recruiting labour, it was usual for a maistri to be responsible for both the supervision of his workers on an estate and for their welfare needs. Planters made a clear distinction between maistris and professional labour contractors who merely delivered workers to estates. The terms maistri and kanganny were used interchangeably on south Indian plantations.

9 The Madras Planters' Labour Law, Clause 10.

10 Ibid, Section 3, parts (a) and (f).

11 Ibid., Sections 30, 31, 33, 35.

12 United Planters' Associations of Southern India (U.P.A.S.I.), Annual Proceedings, 1906, p. 86Google Scholar.

13 Indian Office Library and Records (I.O.L.R.), Public and Judicial Department (P &J), Annual Department Papers, 1906, No. 1164, H. Waddington to Secretary Wynaad Planters Association, 9th 11 1905Google Scholar.

14 Ibid. Curumbers were one of the hill tribes occupying the Nilgiri hills prior to British settlement. Kurumba is a more common spelling.

15 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings, 1906, pp. 85, 91Google Scholar.

16 I.O.L.R., P &J, Annual Departmental Papers,1906,No. 1164, G.O. No. 558, H. Bradley, Agriculture Chief Secretary to Government of Madras to U.P.A.S.I., 28th 03 1906Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., Annual Department Papers, 1906, No. 1164, Viceroy to India Office, 6th July 1906. Ibid., W. L. Harvey, Secretary to Government oflndia, to Government of Madras, 10th Aug. 1906. Government of Madras, Acting Chief Secretary to the Government of Fort St. George, to the Secretary of U.P.A.S.I., 22nd March 1907, in U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1907, pp. 91–2Google Scholar.

18 I.O.L.R., P & J, Annual Department Papers,1906,No. 1164, J. W. Holdemess, Revenue Secretary, India Office, 25th 04 1906Google Scholar, comments on proposals submitted by Government of Madras in Letter No. 3, Judicial, 24th April 1906. Ibid., Telegram from Viceroy to India Office, 6th July 1906.

19 Acting Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras, to the Secretary of U.P.A.S.I., 22nd March 1907, in U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1907, pp. 91–2Google Scholar.

20 Under U.P.A.S.I.'s rules the Planting Member was able to participate in U.P.A.S.I.'s Annual Conference as a Committee member.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., 1906, p. 85.

23 ibid.

24 Royal Commission on Labour in India (R.C.L.I.), Evidence, Vol. VII, (London, 1930), Part II, p. 342Google Scholar.

25 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1905, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

26 I.O.L.R., P & J, Annual Departmental Papers,1905,No. 1164, W. L. Harvey, Secretary to Government of India, to Judicial Department,Madras, 10th 08 1906Google Scholar.

27 Ibid.

28 Annual Reports on the Workings of the Madras Planters' Labour Law of 1903 (Reports M.P.L.L.), 1907–25. Sections 24 and 30 were the prime sections of Act I under which the vast majority of cases against maistris and labourers were instituted respectively. Section 24 imposed a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment or a fine of RS 500 upon a maistri who had failed to account for the advances he had received, or had failed either to present himself on an estate or to remain there for his contracted term.

29 Reports M.P.L.L., 1907, G.O. No. 418, A. R. Knapp, Acting District Magistrate, Malabar, to Chief Secretary to Government, 7th Feb. 1907.

30 Ibid., 1925, G.O. No. 934, J. A. Thome, District Magistrate, Malabar, to the Secretary to Government, Law (General) Department, 13th Feb. 1925.

31 Ibid., 1907–25.

32 Ibid., 1908–28.

33 Ibid., 1908–18.

34 Moore, J. Daniel, Plantation Development and Labour Response in Nineteenth Century Mysore (MS, Ann Arbor, 1983), p. 217Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., pp. 204–6.

36 I.O.L.R., Madras Judicial Proceedings,1884,Nos. 1911–12, Report of F. A. Wedderbum, Acting Head Magistrate Nilgiri District, 9th 04 1884Google Scholar.

37 Moore, , op. cit., pp. 204–8Google Scholar.

38 The lack of Tamil labour in the Wynaad was evident as late as 1943 when a U.P.A.S.I. census of plantation labour revealed that Coimbatore, the Tamil district most commonly exploited by Nilgiri planters, supplied 35% of all workers labouring on estates belonging to subscribers of the Nilgiri Planters' Association, but only 6% of labourers on estates belonging to members of the Nilgiri-Wynaad Planters' Association. [U.P.A.S.I. Labour Census, cited in Report on An Enquiry into Conditions of Labour in Plantations in India (R.E.C.L.P.I.) (Delhi, 1946) Table 89, p. 128.]Google Scholar

39 Planters' Chronicle, 11. 1906, p.42Google Scholar.

40 Reports M.P.L.L., 1914, G.O. No. 589, C. A. Innes, Acting Magistrate of Malabar, to Chief Secretary to Government, 16th Feb. 1914.

41 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part II, p. 317Google Scholar.

42 Daniel, P. H., Red Tea, 2nd Ed. (Coimbatore, 1984)Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., Introduction.

44 Interview with Dr. P. H. Daniel, President, The Estates Staffs' Union of South India, conducted in Coimbatore 11th FEb. 1987.

45 Daniel, , Red Tea, op. cit., pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., p. 9.

47 Ibid., p. 27.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid., p. 15.

50 Ibid., p. 25.

51 Ibid., p. 82.

52 Ibid., p. 85.

53 Parmer, J. Norman, Colonial Labour Policy and Administration: A History of Labour in the Rubber Plantation Industry in Malaya c.1910–1941 (New York, 1960), p. 17Google Scholar.

54 Planting Opinion, 04 1 1899, p. 240Google Scholar. In the 1870s monthly payments to maistris ranged between RS 30 and Rs 80.

55 Moore, , op. cit., pp. 58–9Google Scholar.

56 U.P.A.S.I., Planting Directory of Southern India (P.D.S.I.), (Madras, 1924), pp. 54–68Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., pp. 85–96.

58 Ibid., pp. 70–7.

59 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1927), pp. 80–6Google Scholar.

60 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1932), pp. 94–103Google Scholar.

61 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Coonoor, 1948), pp. 97–101Google Scholar.

62 Arasaratnam, “Indian commercial groups and European traders, 1600–1800: changing relationships in southeastern India”, South Asia (New Series), I, No. 2 (1978), p. 42Google Scholar.

63 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part II, p. 355Google Scholar.

64 Ibid., p. 309.

65 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1932), p. 86Google Scholar; U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Coonoor, 1948), pp. 89–91Google Scholar.

66 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part 2, p. 314Google Scholar.

67 Report of the R.C.L.I., in Sessional Papers of the British House of Commons, 1930–31 Session, Vol. xi, Readex Microprint Edition, p. 998.

68 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part 2, pp. 384–94Google Scholar.

69 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1924), pp. 54–68Google Scholar; U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1927), pp. 62–79Google Scholar.

70 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Madras, 1924), pp. 54–69Google Scholar.

71 Although the planting directories compiled by U.P.A.S.I. classify small holdings as estates of ten acres or less, many of these were little more than garden plots. As the small amount of leaf produced on these holdings did not warrant the cost of constructing a tea factory, smallholders sold their plucked leaf to large estates where it underwent processing along with the crop produced on the larger estate.

72 Interview conducted with Mr R. Menon, Chairman of Tea Estates India Ltd. (a division of Brooke-Bond) at Coonoor, 18th Feb. 1987.

73 U.P.A.S.I., P.D.S.I., (Coonoor, 1948), p. 90Google Scholar. The Badaga were an indigenous tribe in the hills.

74 Daniel, , Red Tea, op. cit., pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

75 Ibid., p. 4.

76 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1895, p. 36Google Scholar.

77 The index is based on the prevailing daily male wage rate. Wage rates were obtained from: Report on the Conditions of Tea Garden Labour in the Duars of Bengal, in Madras and in Ceylon, (Shillong, 1904), p. 12Google Scholar; Reports M.P.L.L., 1920, E.F. Thomas, District Magistrate Malabar to Secretary to Home (Misc.) Department, 19th Feb., 1920; U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1921, p. 102Google Scholar. Grain prices are annual district averages taken from Madras District Gazetteers, Statistical Appendix for the Nilgiri District, (Madras, 1905), p. 15Google Scholar; Ibid., (Madras, 1915), p. 20; Ibid., (Madras, 1928), pp. 26–7; Ibid., (Madras, 1933), p. 23.

78 The standard government seer of 2.057 lbs has been employed throughout the text. In the imperial system of weights 1.4 seers is equal to 2lbs 140z, and to 1.3 kilos in the metric system. It is important to note that female wages were approximately two thirds that of their male counterparts both in money terms and in grain purchasing power. In the Nilgiri adult female labour was at least as common as adult male labour. (R.E.C.L.P.I., op. cit., p. 115.) Since the earnings of young children were negligible on estates, a woman who had dependents but no adult male to contribute to the support of her family was most vulnerable to any decline in real wages.

79 Reports M.P.L.L., 1921, G.O. No. 585, G.W. Wells, Acting Collector of the Nilgiris, to Secretary to Government, Home (Miscellaneous) Department, 15 March 1921.

80 Kumar, Dharma, “Agrarian relations, south India” in Kumar, Dharma (ed.), Cambridge Economic History of India, (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 238–9Google Scholar.

81 Report on the Conditions of Tea Garden Labour in the Duars of Bengal, in Madras and in Ceylon, op. cit., p. 12; Reports M.P.L.L., 1920, G.O. No. 554, E. F. Thomas, District Magistrate of Malabar, to Secretary to Government, Home (Misc.) Department, 19th Feb. 1920.

82 Planters' Chronicle, 01. 1907, p. 95Google Scholar. The reduction was effected in response to a poor tea crop and low prices for tea exports. Note that Table 2 is based on the assumption that wages did not fall below 5 annas per day.

83 Pate, H.R., Tinnevelly, (Madras, 1917), p. 193Google Scholar; Prices and Wages in India, (Calcutta, 1923), pp. 160–1Google Scholar; Gopinath, R., “Aspects of demographic change and the Malabar agrarian economy, 1871–1921”, Economic and Political Weekly (01. 1987), PE 35.Google Scholar Note that Gopinath has relied on oral evidence to establish agricultural wage rates between 1914 and 1916.

84 The practice of giving “half-name”, and by implication a half-day's pay, as punishment for the worker's lack of diligence or late arrival at roll call, was common on South Indian plantations. [R.E.C.L.P.I., op. cit., p. 133; Daniel, P. H., Red Tea, op. cit., pp. 99–101Google Scholar.] Examination of Tamil language primers indicates that these practices, and variations on them, were probably transposed from Ceylon where they were widespread on tea estates. [Wells, W. G. B., Cooly Tamil as Understood by Labourers on Tea and Rubber Estates, 3rd ed., (Colombo, 1921), pp. 29, 35, 50, 54, 56, 59.Google Scholar]

85 The practice was generally made use of when overproduction was thought to be the cause of low tea prices. As finely plucked tea brought higher prices than coarsely plucked leaf, producers hoped to simultaneously maximise estate earnings and to reduce the total quantity of tea available in the market. The economic impact of fine plucking upon production is discussed in Misra, Bhubanes, “Quality, investment and international competitiveness, Indian tea industry, 1880–1910”, Economicand Political Weekly, XXII, No. 6 (7th 02. 1987), pp. 235–6Google Scholar.

86 Unlike their counterparts in north India, southern tea workers were rarely allocated land for vegetable production. Moreover, plantation land was frequendy unsuitable for vegetable cultivation. Nor did field workers keep catde on tea estates. [R.E.C.L.P.I., op. cit., p. 144.]

87 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1910, p. 129Google Scholar.

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid., 1920, p. 5.

90 Ibid., 1916, p. 7.

91 Proceedings of the Council of the Governor of Fort St George, 5th 04 1916, p. 727Google Scholar. A further 5,000 Piramalai Kallar labourers were sent to Anamalai estates in the 1920s under the Act. (Arnold, David, Police Power and Colonial Rule, Madras 1859–1947 (Delhi, 1986), p. 153Google Scholar.)

92 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1917, p. 83Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., 1920, p. 6.

94 Sandhu, Kemial Singh, Indians in Malaya: Some Aspects of their Immigration and Settlement (1786–1957) (Cambridge, 1969), Appendix 1, p. 305Google Scholar.

95 Wickizer, V. D., Tea under International Regulation (California, 1944), pp. 58–62Google Scholar.

96 Reports M.P.P.L., 1921, G.O. No. 585, G.W. Wells, Acting Collector of the Nilgiris, to Secretary to Government, Home (Miscellaneous) Department, 15th March 1921.

97 Planters' Chronicle, 14th 02. 1920, pp. 117–20Google Scholar.

98 Reports M.P.L.L., 1920, G.O. No. 554, E.F. Thomas, District Magistrate, Malabar, to Secretary to Government, Home (Misc.) Department, 19th Feb. 1920.

99 Wickizer, , op. cit., pp. 58–62Google Scholar.

100 U.P.A.S.I., Annual Proceedings,1921, p. 102Google Scholar.

101 Planters' Chronicle, 2nd 10 1920, p. 664Google Scholar.

102 Ibid.

103 Report of R.C.L.I., op. cit, p. 998. Annual settlement remained common in the Nilgiris until at least 1946. Although local labour had traditionally been paid on a weekly basis, this was rare amongst migrating workers. [R.E.C.L.P.I., op. cit., pp. 149–51.]

104 Ibid., p. 999.

105 Ibid., p. 140.

106 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part II, p. 333Google Scholar.

107 Ibid., p. 196.

108 Report of R.C.L.I., op. cit., p. 998.

109 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part II, p. 196Google Scholar.

110 Ibid., pp. 376, 383.

111 Reports on M.P.P.L., 1924, G.O. No. 793, Law (General) Department, J. A. Thome, District Magistrate, Malabar, to Secretary to Government, Law Department, 13th Feb. 1924.

112 Ibid., 1914, G.O. No. 589, M. Young, District Magistrate, Nilgiris, to Chief Secretary to Government, 14th Feb. 1914.

113 Report of R.C.L.I., op. cit., Recommendations.

114 R.C.L.I., Evidence, Vol. VII, op. cit., Part II, p. 206.Google Scholar

115 Ibid., pp. 215, 318.

116 Ibid., p. 371.