Industrial Class Structure

The development of industrial society in India has transformed its social and economic landscape in fundamental ways. With the shift from a predominantly agrarian to an industrial economy, new class structures emerged, defined by capitalist relations of production, technological advancement, and labour specialization. The industrial class structure not only altered patterns of work and income but also introduced new forms of inequality and alienation, particularly affecting workers and artisans. Drawing on classical sociological insights from Marx, Weber, and Bottomore, the evolution of this structure in India reveals a complex interplay between colonial interests, indigenous labour, and global capitalist dynamics.

Nature of Industrial Society

Industrial society is characterized by high-volume production, the technological division of labour, and a systematic separation between work and family life. Unlike agrarian economies, where economic activity was often embedded within kinship and community ties, industrial capitalism promotes rational calculation of profit and efficiency. Karl Marx theorized the condition of workers in such settings through his concept of alienation, where labour becomes external and meaningless to the worker. Max Weber emphasized the rise of rational-legal authority and bureaucratization, which governs industrial institutions. T.B. Bottomore, focusing on social stratification, noted how class divisions deepen under industrial capitalism, with the working class often subordinated to capitalist interests.

Evolution of Industrial Society and Working Class in India

Pre-Industrial Phase (Before 1840)

Prior to industrialization, India’s economy was predominantly agrarian and artisan-based. Peasants and local craftspeople produced for community consumption, with a relatively stable social order. However, with the advent of British colonial rule, this equilibrium was disrupted. The colonial state prioritized raw material extraction—notably cotton, coal, and jute—for export to Britain, and simultaneously flooded the Indian market with cheap British manufactured goods. This dual strategy led to the devastation of traditional cottage industries and the impoverishment of artisans. The handloom sector, once a thriving part of Indian village economies, collapsed under the pressure of industrial imports, marking the first phase of industrial dislocation without corresponding domestic industrial growth.

Early Industrialisation (1840–1900)

The period between 1840 and 1900 saw the nascent development of industrial sectors in colonial India, primarily for the benefit of British capital. Industries such as jute (in Bengal), cotton textiles (in Bombay), and tea plantations (in Assam) began employing large numbers of Indian workers. The establishment of the Indian Railways in 1854 became a major employer and also facilitated the movement of goods, people, and raw materials.

To meet the growing demand for labour, the British began recruiting Indian workers as indentured labourers to work in plantations in Mauritius, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia. Between 1840 and 1870, over 500,000 Indians were transported to British colonies under often exploitative contracts, effectively creating a new global working class from India.

By 1890, there were approximately 300,000 Indian workers employed in factories and mines. This emerging industrial proletariat laboured under harsh conditions: 16-hour workdays, low wages, unsafe environments, and no legal protection. Artisans displaced from traditional industries often became unskilled factory workers, leading to a loss of skill and dignity, which Marx would term a degradation of labour.

Phases of Industrial Labour Movement in India

The industrial labour movement in India evolved in multiple phases, shaped by economic changes, political developments, and growing class consciousness. From the spontaneous, fragmented protests of the mid-19th century to the institutionalization and ideological consolidation by the mid-20th century, the movement reflects the gradual emergence of the Indian working class as a politically and socially significant force. Each phase of the movement corresponds to shifts in industrial development, colonial policy, global ideological influences, and the rising tide of Indian nationalism.

First Phase (1850–1900): Spontaneous Struggles

The earliest industrial labour movements in India emerged as isolated, factory-specific protests in major colonial cities such as Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Ahmedabad, and Kanpur. Workers demanded better working hours, improved working conditions, and basic welfare provisions. However, these early struggles lacked organization and political direction. The movements were short-lived and spontaneous, primarily driven by immediate grievances rather than any structured ideology.

Workers began forming small associations centered around wage and work conditions, but these lacked a unified or broader vision. In contrast, employers quickly organized themselves through bodies like the Bombay Mill Owners’ Association, Indian Jute Manufacturers’ Association, and Indian Chamber of Commerce, providing a coordinated counterforce. During this phase, there was minimal involvement of urban intelligentsia, and workers remained largely disorganized as a class.

Second Phase (1900–1914): Rise of Trade Unionism

The early 20th century saw technological advancements like the introduction of electricity (1905), which led to longer working hours and greater productivity demands. In response, workers began organizing more coordinated strikes, slowly realizing the connection between economic exploitation and political oppression.

A pivotal moment was the 1908 Bombay textile workers’ strike, which was among the first to adopt a political tone in its opposition to British colonialism. The Swadeshi Movement further strengthened the moral and ideological resolve of workers by linking nationalist sentiment with labour rights. Though the labour movement was still developing, this phase marked the transition from spontaneous protest to organized action, laying the groundwork for future institutional structures.

The onset of World War I intensified industrial production and boosted industrial profits, but this came at the cost of increased worker exploitation, leading to further unrest and discontent.

Third Phase (1915–1922): Popularisation and Institutionalization

This period marked the popularisation of labour consciousness and the institutionalization of trade unionism. Inspired by global events such as the Russian Revolution (1917) and the formation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919, Indian workers began to see themselves as part of a larger international struggle against capitalism.

Key events included the 1918 Ahmedabad textile strike, led by Mahatma Gandhi, which resulted in the formation of the Textile Labour Association (TLA). The same year saw the founding of the Madras Labour Union, considered India’s first modern trade union.

In 1920, a massive strike in Bombay involving 200,000 workers demonstrated the growing organizational capacity of labour. This year also witnessed the birth of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) under leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, uniting 64 unions and 150,000 workers under one national federation. This phase signaled a major step toward a politicized and unified labour movement in India.

Fourth Phase (1923–1939): Rise of Communist Influence

This era saw the increasing ideological consolidation of the labour movement, especially under the influence of communist thought. Leaders like S.A. Dange and M.N. Roy played crucial roles in linking Marxist theory with the Indian labour context. Roy, in particular, bridged nationalist struggle with Marxist ideology, deeply influencing trade union strategy.

The Trade Union Act of 1926 was a landmark development that granted legal status to trade unions, enabling them to register and engage in collective bargaining. Trade unions were increasingly viewed as class organizations working towards the emancipation of the proletariat. This period also witnessed the rise of women workers as an organized force.

By 1935, India had over 200 trade unions with more than 250,000 members, reflecting greater coordination and ideological clarity. The alignment with anti-capitalist and anti-colonial struggles deepened during this phase, solidifying the role of the working class in broader political movements.

Fifth Phase (1940–1947): War, Division, and Political Alignment

The final phase of the pre-independence labour movement was shaped by World War II and the approaching end of British rule. The war created divisions within the AITUC over whether to support the British "anti-fascist" war effort. This led to splits and the formation of new federations.

During the war, employers intensified exploitation, extending work hours, increasing child labour, and bypassing labour laws under the guise of war-time emergency. While the government offered some concessions to employers, unions received minimal support. In 1940, Bombay textile workers—over 175,000 in number—struck demanding a Dearness Allowance (DA), sparking sympathy strikes across the country.

Despite severe repression, communist-led unions gained widespread support, and the working class increasingly aligned with the nationalist independence movement. In 1946, the AITUC led massive strikes opposing colonial policies, strengthening the connection between class struggle and national liberation.

In 1947, the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) was formed, backed by the Congress Party, representing 200 unions and 575,000 workers. Though this phase was marked by ideological splits and state repression, it also witnessed the deepening of class consciousness and worker solidarity, firmly embedding the labour movement within the broader canvas of India’s freedom struggle.

Sixth Phase – Post-Independence Era (1947–Present)

The post-independence period marks the sixth and ongoing phase of the industrial labour movement in India. This era has been characterized by significant transformations in labour union organization, ideological fragmentation, legal frameworks, changing employment patterns, and the emergence of new forms of labour in a liberalizing economy.

Initial Trends (Late 1940s–1950s): Political Fragmentation and New Federations

Immediately after independence, the Indian labour movement witnessed sharp political fragmentation. The Socialist bloc broke away from the Congress in 1948 to form the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat (HMP), which later merged with the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). Meanwhile, the United Trade Union Congress (UTUC) emerged in 1949, and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) was formed as the labour wing of the Jana Sangh. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) was established by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) following ideological splits within the Communist movement. Despite such divisions, these federations often cooperated on issues of economic significance, indicating a complex interplay between ideological commitments and class solidarity.

Struggles and State Response (1960s–1970s): Disputes, Depression, and Institutional Challenges

The 1960s were marked by economic stagnation, inflation, and wage repression. Trade unions focused on economic survival, grappling with issues like wage stagnation and increasing living costs. The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 provided a legal mechanism for grievance redressal, but its implementation was plagued by bureaucratic inefficiency and delays. The government attempted to mediate disputes through wage boards, tribunals, and consultative bodies, yet these were often perceived as pro-employer or ineffective. Worker agitation intensified during this period, but institutional mechanisms frequently fell short of delivering timely justice.

New Unionism (Late 1970s–1980s): Rise of Independent and Grassroots Movements

Disillusioned by the central federations’ inefficiency and bureaucratization, many workers turned to local and independent unions during the late 1970s and 1980s. These unions were more democratic, accountable, and closely linked to immediate worker needs, often expanding their role to include community-level issues. However, their lack of national coordination and limited access to policymaking restricted their broader impact.

Unionization Today (Post-1990s): Regional Disparities and Declining Coverage

In the liberalized economic environment post-1991, union coverage remains limited, with only around 28% of the non-agricultural workforce unionized. A few states—Maharashtra, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, and Kerala—dominate the landscape, accounting for over 70% of registered unions and two-thirds of unionized workers. Union density remains highest in industries like coal mining (61%), iron and steel (63%), textiles (56%), and banking (51%). Though workers have secured concessions through strikes and negotiations, these gains are frequently eroded by inflation, keeping real wages stagnant.

Thinkers' Views: Sociological Interpretations

From a theoretical standpoint, Karl Marx’s concept of class consciousness filtered through ideological structures is visible in the fragmentation of unions along political lines. Max Weber’s theory of rational-legal authority helps explain the bureaucratization and routinization of trade unions. T.B. Bottomore’s analysis positions trade unionism within legal-institutional frameworks that mediate class conflict.

Jobless Growth and Regional Inequality in Pre-Liberalization Era

Even before liberalization, the formal urban manufacturing sector experienced “jobless growth.” Scholars like Nagaraj and Bhalotra noted that an increase in man-days per employee during the 1980s restricted new job creation. Regionally, employment growth was more robust in the North and South than in the East and West, highlighting spatial disparities in industrial development.

Post-Liberalization Realities: Emergence of a New Working Class

Liberalization ushered in a shift from blue-collar industrial work to white-collar employment in IT, ITeS, and services. This new working class, characterized by better education and digital skills, has largely remained outside traditional union structures. At the same time, the gig and platform economy has rapidly expanded. Workers in companies like Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, and Uber face precarious employment without formal protections. In response, new unions such as the All India Gig Workers Union (AIGWU) and the All India IT & ITeS Employees’ Union have emerged, staging protests and demanding regulatory reforms.

State Role and Industrial Policy: From Controller to Facilitator

The role of the Indian state has shifted significantly—from acting as a “super-capitalist” post-independence to becoming a facilitator of private enterprise under liberalization. Policy shifts such as “Make in India” and “Start-Up India” underscore a cultural-industrial transition aimed at integrating India into global capitalism. This has altered the landscape of labour, with declining state intervention in industrial relations and growing emphasis on ease of doing business.