Click here for more...


Click here for more...


VOL. XXIII No. 10, September 1-15, 2013
Beginnings of the labour movement
by T. Srinivasa Chari

When a doctoral dissertation submitted in 1987 takes the form of a full-fledged book 26 years later, it is a reflection on the historical relevance of the contents. More so, when the book comes four years after the author, D. Veeraraghavan’s death in 2009 at 51.

In his introduction to the 300-page book titled The Making of the Madras Working Class, Veeraraghavan, quoting historian Sabayaschi Bhattacharya, says “the history of the historyless – the anonymous people who, in their collective acts, their work, daily lives and fellowship, have forged our society through the centuries” – was often neglected in social history. That explains the rationale for the author writing a book which falls under a specialised head such as labour history or socioeconomic history. The title of the book, according to A.R. Venkatachalapathy, historian and professor at Madras Institute of Development Studies, pays homage to English historian E.P. Thompson’s 1963 work The Making of the English Working Class. It was Venkatachalpathy who oversaw the conversion of the thesis, The Rise and Growth of the Labour Movement in the City of Madras and its Environs, 1918-1939, into the book under mention.

While describing the labour conditions and industrial development of Madras in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, labour struggles and formation of the trade unions, Veeraraghavan draws the attention of the reader to a common factor between the origin of the city of Madras in 1639 – as a cloth producing centre – and the formation of the first organised labour union in India, the Madras Labour Union in 1918 – emanating out of the harrowing experience of a textile mill worker employed in the B and C Mills, Perambur. The trigger leading to the forming of the Union was a worker being forced to defecate in the open after being denied permission to leave the shop floor to relieve himself. Not only that, he had to clean up the mess which hurt his religious sentiments. G. Selvapathi Chettiar and G. Ramanujulu Naidu, two young businessmen at nearby D’Mello’s Road, Perambur Barracks, empathising with the work ers organised a meeting in March 1918 at Janga Ramayammal Gardens on Statham’s Road. Sudarsana Mudaliar, Honorary Magistrate, presided and Thiru Vi Ka made a powerful speech which was well received by the gathering of 10,000 workers from the mills and elsewhere.

The first president of the Madras Labour Union (MLU) was B.P. Wadia, an associate of Annie Besant, and the Union was formally inaugurated on April 13, 1918 at its weekly meeting where Wadia addressed the workers in English and Thiru Vi Ka translated it into Tamil. The unionisation of workers was a natural outcome of the humiliation in the workplace and the rigorous discipline and racist attitude of the British government and employers.

Earlier, individual workers had resorted to absenteeism, high turnover, thievery, and even riots and strikes. One case of rioting was between weavers and European officers of the Buckingham Mills in September 1902 when workers’ pay was cut after the management found flaws in the yarn and defects in the weaving looms. Workers in the other departments supported the weavers and rioted. Police and the Army were used to evict the weavers.

Other workers to follow the MLU lead and set up unions were those from the tramway, railway workshops, printing presses, kerosene oil distribution companies, and aluminium vessel manufacturers. Contract workers in the cigar factory of McDowell and Co. in George Town struck work during the last week of June 1918. Even rickshaw-pullers went on strike in the same period when their owners hiked the rent from four to five annas. They were addressed by Besant of the Home Rule Movement and were gifted two rickshaws to be rented to the members at four annas a day. About 225 workshop men of the Madras Corporation struck work on March 19, 1919.

During the period of the emergence of the Left forces, between 1933 and 1937, one strand of Communist ideology believed in opposing the Congress and Gandhi because they believed the Congress to have become a capitalist party in the struggle against imperialism. Later, another school of thought decided to work within the Congress as members of the Socialist Congress Party and build a broad united anti-imperialist people’s front. But it is to be noted that the Tamil Nadu Congress was so hostile to socialism that even a Congress Working Committee (CWC) member, Achyut Patwardhan, was refused use of the Congress office during his visit to Madras because he was a Congress Socialist. Many CWC members including Rajagoplachari sent a resignation letter to Nehru protesting against his advocacy of Socialism. But not all nationalist Congress leaders were of the same persuasion. V.O. Chidambaram Pillia for one declared at a meeting in Negap atam (Nagapattinam) on April 14, 1920: “Postal, Telegraph, Police and Railways are the four walls of the British Government and of these if one wall collapses, the British Government will at once collapse. You are like the foundation of the Government.” At another meeting in the Tirunelveli Provincial Conference, he said: “If the Government did not act up to what people say, we must induce these unions to strike work…If you have these unions under your control, you will have ‘Swaraj’ the moment you desire for it.”

The period 1937-39, during which the Congress was in power in the Madras Presidency, saw an upsurge in trade unionism. Labour saw in the Congress a representative against their battle against imperialist owners. The Labour Minister was V.V. Giri who was president of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railways Employees’ Union from 1929 to 1934. C. Rajagopalachar was Prime Minister. Even backward trades and unorganised industries workmen came under the influence of militant trade unionism. For example, 80 workers in 11 button factories in Royapuram, Washermenpet and Tondiarpet went on strike from July 24, 1937 when they did not get the promised one anna rise in wages. Because of the increased awareness of their rights the workers, in many of the strikes, focussed more on victimisation, rather than on the issues for which the strike began.

On the government side, while there were compulsions to meet the aspirations of the people – improve their economic conditions, reduce indebtedness and unemployment, and break the continuing British stranglehold in the form of the hated new constitution – what prevailed was showing the British and the public at large the government’s administrative capabilities. As managements refused to implement the non-mandatory recommendations of the boards of conciliation, agitated workers resorted to stay-in and wildcat strikes and action against strike-breakers. In response the government banned processions and meetings under the City Police Act. Giri justified his government’s measures by saying it believed in the maxim ‘Govern or get out’. He added that the ways and methods of the Communists went beyond constitutional propriety. The attempt of a Labour Congress MLA Krishnamurthy to move a bill seeking to define and pr otect the rights and privileges of registered trade union members and that of the government to pass two bills in consultation with employers and unions fell through, as the Congress ministry went out of office in 1939.

Among the sources on which the book are based are historical documents of British India preserved in the Tamil Nadu archives and National Archives of India, including private papers of political and labour leaders, back issues of English and local language newspapers like The Hindu, Justice, Navasakthi, India Thozhilali and Swadharma (the first exclusive labour journal in English), and interviews with labour and shop-floor leaders of different eras like G. Selvapathy, Rudra Kuppusamy, P. Ramamurthi, Arujunan and K. Murugesan, to name a few.

The publishers, Leftword, feel the book will become a standard reference work not only in labour history, but the history of Madras and the Left movement owing to the exhaustive research that has gone into it. The inclusion of biographical notes on leaders like V. Chakkarai Chettiar (1878-1958), V.V. Giri (1894-1980), Hari Sarvottama Rao (1883-1960), A.S.K. Iyengar ((1907-1978), E.L. Iyer (1885-1941), P. Jeevanandam (1905-1963), V. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar (1883-1953), G. Krishnamurthi (1905-1970), G.T. Ramanujulu Naidu (1886-1959), P.R.K. Sarma (1903-1951), V.L. Sastri (1890-1962), G. Selvapathi Chettiar (1892-1985), B. Shiva Rao (1891-1975), M. Singaravelu (1860-1946) and B.P. Wadia (1881-1958) after the conclusion with cross references on their roles in the evolution of the labour movement is a bonus read. The observance of the May Day in 1923 was first initiated in Madras at Napier Park, Chintadripet, by Singaravelu, hailed as the first Communist of South India. He also promoted the Maha Bodhi Society in the city.

Overcoming handicaps to write history

Dilip Veeraraghavan.

Leftist scholar, the author, late Dilip Veeraraghavan, lost his eyesight by the time of his school final days in Kumbakonam due to retinitis pigmentosa. He moved to Madras and studied B.A. (History) at Vivekananda College, M.A. at Presidency College (1978-80) and M. Phil at Pachaiyappa's College (1980-81). In 1982 he joined IIT Madras for his Ph.D and submitted his thesis in 1987. The next year he joined the faculty and taught there for 12 years, until his death.

At IIT, Veeraraghavan was an inspiring social sciences and humanities teacher. Future technocrats were sensitised to social issues. Veeraraghavan was active in the Students' Federation of India. He was close to the CPI (M) and maintained close relationships in the party with leaders ranging from P. Ramamurthi to the younger ones. During later years, he maintained a distance from the party due to differences on environmental issues.

The studious person that he was, Veeraraghavan was obiviously somewhat of a loner. Venkatachalpathy recalls that even in the campus of the Tamil Nadu Archives, Veeraraghavan preferred poring over files with a research assistant to chatting over tea in the canteen. He was a regular at the city's music concerts, being an ardent Carnatic music rasika.

Among the Communists, he belonged to those who were austere in their ways, using public transport in spite of the fact that he could afford a car and did not enjoy good health. Along with Venkatachalpathy, who prepared the manuscript of the book, another associate of Veeraraghavan, V.R. Muraleedharan, initiated the forming of the Dilip Veeraraghavan Memorial Trust. In his introduction in the book, Venkatachalapathy also recalls the contribution of S.S. Kannan, founder of the Karl Marx Library, who nurtured Veeraraghavan from his student days and translated into Tamil Veeraraghavan's dissertation with Puduvai Gnanam. The Tamil version is called Chennai Perunagara Thozhirchanga Varalaru.

-TSC

Please click here to support the Heritage Act
OUR ADDRESSES

In this issue

Madras Week a Great Success
The Muddle that is The ASI
Madras Fifty Years Ago
Brindian or Hindlish
Beginnings of the Labour Movement
Goodness Mercy And Toughness
Looking Back on Madras Week
The Hindu Metrplus Theatre Fest
On Your Marks Geography and a Laugh!
Unlucky to Find a Test cap too Far

Our Regulars

Short 'N' Snappy
Quizzin' With Ram'nan
Our Readers Write

Archives

Download PDF