rjisacjournal.com

WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT IN MADURAI REGION , 1918 – 1920

Dr. Y.Immanuel Raja Kumar
Assistant Professor in History, Ariger Anna Arts and Science College, Attur.

From  time-immemorial the Tamils manufactured superfine variety of cotton and exported to European countries like Greece and Rome. They enjoyed huge benefit out of  this trade. But, after the British acquisition of India, they monopolized cotton and converted India into her market. In the Madras Presidency, Madras city took the lead in establishing cotton Mill industries in various places especially  in the heart of the cotton growing districts. The biggest mills outside Madras were situated in Madurai and their chief occupation was spinning. The proximity of cotton crop, hand-loom markets for yarn and the availability of cheap labour encouraged the cotton exporters like Andrew and Harvey to establish a mill in Madurai  in 1892. In 1918 this mill employed 1586 male workers, 778 female and 1406 children on an average per day 1920. The nearby villagers mostly, agrarian labourers were recruited as workers, maistries and jobbers, who obtained huge bribes for securing jobes and even for promotions. In the Madurai Mills the workers had to pay a sum of rupees 15 to 30 as bribe in the 1920s.

The working and living condition  of the workers were far from satisfactory. The management forced them to work 12 hours a day, with a short interval of half an hour. Practically there was no holiday and was no provision for casual leave or sick-leave nor did they enjoy any job security. Their living condition was deplorable. They lived in dark and damp little dungeons. Rent was also exorbitant. The wages given to the workers were not enough to have one full meal a day.1 The heavy inflation of the post First World War period worsened the situation. The immediate impact of this was the progressive involvement of the South Indian Liberal Federation in the Madurai Mills.  It came forward to redress the grievances of labourers in Madurai.  J.N. Ramanathan, a well-known social reformer and an active member of the Justice Party started his Labour Union activities in Madurai.2

The management was not able to tolerate this unity and the intervention of politicians in this matter. Hence, it sought the support of the British Government to delink the politicians from the workers.The District Magistrate of Madurai, an Englishman on hearing the representation from the management( an European firm) immediately issued orders and banned Ramanathan from making his speech within ten miles from  Meenakshi  Amman Temple in Madurai for a period of one month from 15 August 1918. Ramanathan was not able to continue his struggle against the mighty ruling Government.3 The grievances of the workers attracted the Home Rulers who with utmost humanitarian sympathy envinced  interest in this problems and came to the rescue of the workers.4 P.Varadaraju Naidu, a representative of the Home Rule League reached Madurai on 16 August to render his services to the workers. He stressed the labourers  should resume work until their grievances were redressed. The Government also did not like to intervene so seriously in the labour problem after the suppression of the Coral Mill strike which took place at Tuticorin in 1908 under the leadership of V.O.Chidambaram Pillai and Subramania Shiva, which ended in the victory of the workers. But, the leaders were given severe punishment that earned bad reputation to the Government. Hence the Government feared that  if  it took any step, it would amount to supporting the capitalist Europeans against the native labourers.5 Hence it advised the management to solve  the problem  without  the intervention of the third party. However, from 1918 onwards the Government was forced to listen to the labour problem.6 It openly accepted that it had a least botheration about the problems of the workers and at the same time it was not able to tolerate the activities of the political leaders, particularly against those leaders who worked against European management. P.Varadarajulu Naidu was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and according to some 15 months rigorous imprisonment by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Madurai District. The press criticized the attitude of the British Government   and on an appeal to the High Court the sentence was reversed on technical grounds and he was released from jail.7

The Government took serious measures in suppressing the workers movement at Madurai where the strike spread to other industrial centres. The other working sects like post-men, mill workers, railway men, tramway men and menials, all struck work. The business magnates of European business community and their press, Madras Mail, were furious at the growth of the trade union movement in the Madras Presidency.8The Congress leaders and the nationalist like V.O.Chidambaram  Pillai, Siva and  others vehemently criticized the reform measure introduced by the British Government. But Mrs. Besant and her associates welcomed the scheme which led to her resignation in the  Madras Provincial Congress Committee. The Home Rulers also did not mingle with the Congress during the Rowlett Satyagraha and this changed  the course of the labour movement in the Madras Presidency.9

The nationalist like V.O.C. Siva, George Joseph and Ramasamy Ayyangar tried to bring unity among the workers and to achieve this they took steps in merging the existing   labour union. The Home Rulers vehemently opposed their move and proved to be a great hindrance to the nationalists. The nationalists had to face the opposition of the Home Rulers as well as the Government in their step in uniting the labourers under one banner.10

The Government  also involved in the labourers problem and Lord Willington who took up the cause of the workers and showed much sympathy towards them in the beginning succeeded Lord Pentland. He introduced some measures to strengthen the relationship between the Government and the labourers and thus tried  to avoid further unrest among the workers.The Government of Madras in 1920 created the Department of Labour under a Commissioner of Labour.11 An Advisory Board was also created in1920 to assist the Commissioner.

The management of Madras Mills also gave some concession to its workers like increasing 35% of their  wages and reducing working hours from 12 to 10.In spite  of this, two strikes broke out in the Madurai Mill for getting recognition to their labour union, the  reinstalment  of victimised workers and other condition of work. They also demanded 25% of further increase in their wages. About two months later another strike broke out  and  a number of women workers accepted to join the union. However, a maistry under the influence of the management opposed  this move. The women workers demanded the dismissal of the maistry and pleaded for the appointment of female maistries.12 The working hours for women were reduced from 12 to 10 hours  and piece workers were not able to earn as much as they did before. so they began to demand higher wages. As the authorities rejected their demand.738 workers struck work on 12 April 1920.13 The management declared a lock out. This is for the first time that the women workers participated in the movement. The management was stubborn in their attitude. George Joseph pleaded with the Government to intervene in this matter. G.F. Paddison, the Commissioner of labour was not able to bring a settlement.14 But he could not solve the problem. The Union requested Lord Willington to interfere personally for the welfare of the workers.15The Government took the views of the business interest seriously and decided to meet the demands of the workers. The result was the collapse of the infant union. But the workers began to realize the strength of unity and it took nearly a decade for the labourers in Madurai to recover from the set back.

References

  1. The Hindu,16 August 1918.
  2. Extracts from FNR, 20 August 1918, Letter No, 63 public (confidential) 12 February 1919.
  3. The Hindu, 17 August 1918: NNR Lokopakari, 26 August, 1918.
  4. Extracts from FNR 31 August ,1918.
  5. Letter No 63 (public) Confidential, 12 February,1919.
  6. Desa Bakthan, 2 February 1920, Pp. NNR, 164,165.
  7. Report of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1918-1919, Madras, 1920, p.30.
  8. Madras Mail, 10 December 1918.
  9. FNR 2 April 1919, 19 January 1920 and February 1920.
  10. FNR 19 January 1920, 5 and 8 March 1920, 3 April 1920.
  11. G.O.No.271(Revenue) 2 February 1920.FNR, 4 February 1920.
  12. The Hindu, 21 April, p. 3 New India 20 April 1920.
  13. The Hindu, 14 April 1920.
  14. Ibid., 23 April 1920.
  15. Ibid., 19 May 1920.