Mainstream WeeklyHandloom weaving is a major employer after agriculture in India. It is spatially integrated with the diverse regional political economies and sociologically heterogeneous as caste- communities numerous and as diverse as backward castes, minorities like the Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis are engaged in handloom production for their livelihood.
The handloom weaving has historically been highly a decentralised sector spread over across the length and bread of the country and been known for regional specificities in terms of the raw materials, dyes, product varieties, designs and skills. Local specialisation have been characteristic of handloom production. Due to the capital and technology intensive development model pursued in the post-independence period and scaled up intensively in the post-liberalisation period the handloom industry has seen a pattern in its concentration in handloom centres in towns and urban centres with migrant weavers as a result of the decline of rural handlooms caused by the uncontrolled growth and competition from the mill and powerloom products and changes in the demand pattern.
The handloom sector during the independence struggle acquired a political and ideological significance as a symbol of Indian nationalism due to the centrality of swadeshi slogan as against the modernity and machine based development represented by the colonial powers. Thus as part of the nationalist and also the Left mobilisation in the countryside the weavers were sought to be politicized and organized. One important socio=economic dimension of this process was the formation of cooperatives to unite the unorganized handloom weavers and strengthen them against the entrenched exploitative system that was dominated by the moneylender-cum-trader and master-weaver combine. The cooperatives played a pivotal role in grounding and enhancing the social capital by building the self-image, self-confidence and mutual support among this large community of producers who otherwise are vulnerable to commercial profit driven market forces.
In the post- independence period, the context of the handloom sector has undergone some shift due to the state policy towards the small producers and especially those organised in the cooperatives. The textile policies pursued as a reminder if not renewal of the nationalist commitment continued to pronounce state support to this sector largely because of its being a major source of employment in the countryside. This is despite the fact that in term of the overall developmental perspective in the post-independence period the accent undoubtedly was on capital intensive and technology centric model. As a result, two factors stand out emerging from the context of development process that contrary to the stated policy pronouncement had a detrimental impact on the state of handloom production. They are: one, the green revolution and two, the proliferation of powerloom sector. The HYV seed, fertilizer and pesticide usage that was part of the green revolution model not only boosted the agricultural production and generated agrarian surplus leading to the emergence of a market related/ dependent rich peasant class but also induced the rural social change that had an impact on the handloom sector. Second the rise of powerloom sector whose menacing impact on the handlooms leading to the displacement of handloom weavers became clear by the early 1970s prompting the Planning Commission to constitute a committee to assess the impact and suggest the alleviation of the woes of the handloom weavers. The extent and serious impact can be gauged from the phenomenal increase in the powerlooms from 1.5 lakhs in 1963 to 3.09 lakhs in 1975. As estimated by the high-powered committee of the Planning Commission headed by Shivaraman the addition of one powerloom led to the displacement of six handlooms.
It is now a fairly established fact that the process of modernization and commercialization of agrarian economy, following the green revolution by transforming the rural economy and life in the countryside drastically impacted the rural farming classes and along with them led to the dislocation/ destabilisation of the artisanal and other traditional occupational communities. While the rural potters, blacksmith, etc., have more or less found to be displaced it is only the handloom weavers because of their sheer magnitude continue in the occupation despite the declining incomes and continual threat. There are no scarce instances of weavers putting their efforts and responses in the directions of restructuring of the sector for their survival.
As we are concerned with the handloom cooperative sector, to contextually perspective its place and role in the handloom production, we now turn to the organisational structure and the relations of production in the handloom industry and also to assess the changes in it in the context of the above processes in economy and society.
Handloom Industry - Structure:
On the basis of the organizational structure defined in terms of relations of production the handloom industry can be differentiated into the following three sectors: i) Independent weaver, ii) Master-weaver and iii) Co-operative sectors. The independent weavers are those who carry on production of cloth on their own, i.e., own the instruments of production purchase raw materials from the market and produce fabric with family labour and sell the products in the local market or to traders. With the proliferation of the powerloom sector since the 1960s, and its comparatively low priced products penetrating the market, especially in the countryside, the handlooms had to face stiff competition from the former. Further, the rising prices of cotton hank yarn and dyes rendered the handlooms vulnerable. The most impacted by this have been the independent weavers and small master-weavers-cum-traders owning few looms and employing wage labour. The displacement of independent weavers led to the growth of major urban powerloom and handloom centres under the master-weavers: with men weavers migrating to them and women weavers shifting to beedi making. In the urban areas where alternative employment opportunities are relatively better, we find the young weavers taking up jobs like that of shop assistants and also shifting to construction work, auto rickshaw driving, etc., as the skilled handloom weaving is found to be less attractive due to low wages and continual insecurity.
The second system of production, the master-weaver system over a period has become well entrenched and formidable. In this system the master-weaver-cum-entrepreneur employs wage labour to produce cloth. The cloth thus produced is either directly marketed by him or supplied to traders. Two kinds of practices can be found here on the basis of the conditions of work and nature and extent of dependence. They are: put-out system and kharkhana (factory) system. In the put-out system, weaver gets raw materials to his house, which is both his living and working place, prepares warp and spins cloth on his own loom as per master weaver