ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Fourth Handloom Census: Government's Claims BelieGround RealityMANAS RANJAN BHOWMIK

Manas Ranjan Bhowmik (manashcu@gmail.com) teaches economics at Ramakrishna MissionVivekananda Educational and Research Institute, Howrah.Vol. 54, Issue No. 49, 14 Dec, 2019

The Fourth Handloom Census, released by the government in August this year, glosses overthe sad state of affairs afflicting the handloom sector in the country while lauding thegovernment’s “successful” welfare policies for lakhs of weavers.

“Our problem being to form the future, we can only form it on the materials ofthe past; we must use our heredity, instead of denying it.”

—T S Eliot

The Fourth All India Handloom Census, 2019–20, released by the Ministry of Textiles inAugust 2019, begins with the above quote underlining the importance of historicalknowledge for future generations. The role of heredity is crucial in transferring skills fromone generation to another in the handloom sector. But, it would be naive to place the entireresponsibility of the current state of affairs of a dynamic sector like handloom weaving onthe deeds of the past. It is important for the government and weavers’ organisations to pitchin with timely interventions to act as a bulwark to offset the crises afflicting the handloomindustry. The aim of this article is to shed light on the government’s dubious claims about its

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

achievements in uplifting handloom weavers, and to provide a nuanced understanding of thesector.

Before delving into the specific issues of the sector, the article presents some facts andfigures from the 2019 handloom census. The majority of the weaver-households is located inthe following four states: Assam (10.9 lakhs), West Bengal (3.4 lakhs), Manipur (2.1 lakhs),and Tamil Nadu (1.7 lakhs). Handloom weaving is still predominantly a rural activity, as88.7% weaver-households are located in villages. Nearly 72% handloom weavers in thecountry are female. The average number of person days per year is 208. For the first time,the handloom census report has covered transgender workers as a separate category, and

cooperatives and such organisations as non-household units.[1]

Inherent ContradictionsThe latest handloom census report has some inherent contradictions. It claims that thenumber of households engaged in handloom activities in the country has gone up to 31.5lakhs from 27.83 lakhs, as per the third handloom census (2009–10) (National Council ofApplied Economic Research 2009). The government attributes the rise in the number ofhouseholds engaged in handloom weaving to the success of its numerous policies targetinghandloom weavers. If one goes by the government's claim of effective welfare policies,handloom weaving should have been more lucrative than what it is today. But, the samereport also points out that as many as 66% of handloom weavers in the country earn lessthan Rs 5,000 per month. Therefore, one has to take the claim of effective implementation ofwelfare policies with a pinch of salt.

The sudden rise in the number of handloom weavers in the country should be investigatedthoroughly because it belies the situation on the ground. One of the important findings ofthe Third All India Handloom Census, 2009–10 was that the number of handloom weavershad reduced drastically. In the period between 1995 and 2010, the number of householdsengaged in handloom weaving had decreased by three lakh. It was observed that the youthfrom the community were not willing to take up the occupation. What could have possiblyhappened after 2010 so as to overturn the trend so drastically? This question warrantsattention from researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the sector.

On the other hand, the production of fabric in the handloom sector fell from 7,104 millionsquare metres in 2013–14 to 5,134 million square metres in 2017–18, as per the AnnualReport of the Textile Ministry, 2017–18. Even if we were to concede that the number ofweavers is increasing, why do we witness a dip in the cloth production?

For 2014–15 fiscal year, the budgetary allocation for handloom weaving sector was Rs621.51 crore. However, it was slashed to Rs 386.09 crore for the 2018–19 fiscal year. It ispuzzling to note that, on the one hand, the government is claiming an increase in thenumber of handloom weavers over the years and, on the other, meagre incomes, decreasing

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

cloth production, and falling budgetary allocations mark the sector. This dichotomy raisesserious questions regarding the government claims and the veracity of the data.

Even if we accept the claim of increasing number of handloom weavers, this does not meaneverything is fine with the sector. In fact, it only points to the distress in the economy. First,it could be read as the migration of the rural population to alternative employmentopportunities owing to the impact of the economic slowdown (Basole 2017); (Himanshu2018). A portion of this population may be moving towards handloom weaving asemployment opportunities in the villages are minimal. Second, the rising number ofhandloom weavers also bears testimony to the fact that decent job creation is not takingplace, especially in rural India. Therefore, people are ready to join any profession even ifgenerates meagre income. Various empirical studies have shown that weavers with lower

skill levels, who weave coarser fabrics, are earning extremely meagre incomes.[2] So, thepoint here is that even if the unemployed flock to the handloom sector without havinghigher skill level one cannot generate a decent income. The latest findings and thegovernment's claim should be understood keeping this in mind.

Before moving onto the details of the government’s claims, it is also important tounderstand the institutional structures of the sector. Broadly, there are three differentinstitutions: independent weavers, master weavers, and cooperatives. Independent weaverspurchase, produce, and market the final product on their own. Master weavers supply rawmaterial to other weavers, who, in turn, carry out the production and then deliver the finalproduct to the former. On the other hand, in the case of weavers’ cooperative societies, theysupply the input to the weaver-members to carry out production. Finally, cooperativesmarket the produce.

Claims Bereft of NuanceIn the latest handloom census report, the government makes contradictory claims. Whileasserting that various developmental schemes rolled out by the government have increasedthe income of handloom weavers, the report also points out that more than 65% ofhandloom weavers are unaware of welfare schemes.

The report reads as follows,

“The survey reveals that majority of the weaver household members are notaware of various schemes available to enable them in the weaver activities ofhandlooms. Response on lack of awareness on the existing schemes, trainingsand other enablers is more than 65% ... insurance penetration (life or health) isvery low among weaver households (3.8%). Overall awareness of WeaversHealth Insurance Scheme (WHIS) among weavers themselves is extremely low(only 2.6%) and of those who are aware, only 1 in 3 have been covered by the

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

scheme.” (Ministry of Textiles 2019: 15)

Given this level of diametrically opposite claims in the report, it would be difficult to buy thegovernment’s version that the number of handloom weaver-households is increasing due tothe successful implementation of the welfare schemes.

Discontinuation of Welfare SchemesIn complete contrast to its claims, the government has either downgraded or done awaywith existing welfare schemes for handloom weavers. One of the flagship programmes of theNarendra Modi government has been to offer loans to small business enterprises atrelatively low interest rates under the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency(MUDRA). Handloom weavers are also eligible for MUDRA loans. But, only 23.3% of theweavers across the country possess bank accounts, as per the latest census report. In effect,a large pool of weavers cannot avail MUDRA loans, because the scheme is envisaged as adirect cash transfer to the beneficiary bank accounts. Further, the report does not provideany year-on-year data of weavers who have benefitted from MUDRA loans.

In another significant blow to the handloom weavers’ community, the Modi governmentdowngraded the Mahatma Gandhi Bunkar Bima Yojana (MGBBY) from 2017, making itredundant. The particular scheme was specifically targeted at handloom weavers byproviding them with a dedicated life insurance cover. Launched in 2005, the schemeoriginally aimed at providing insurance cover in the case of natural or accidental death andalso in the case of partial disability. Since 2017, however, new enrolment under the schemehas been stopped and is only confined to renewals. This scheme has now been subsumedunder the two newly launched schemes, Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY)and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY).

In effect, from 2017 there has been no dedicated life insurance scheme for handloomweavers. Besides, there is no information yet from the government on the functioning ofPMJJBY and PMSBY. As the PMJJBY and PMSBY schemes are meant for the general public,they do not talk about the issue of occupational disability, which had been the case with theearlier version of MGBBY.

Women Empowerment or Exploitation?Like other claims, the government’s assertion regarding the empowerment of womenengaged in handloom weaving is also dubious.

On the question of women empowerment, the report says,

“It is a sector that directly addresses women’s empowerment. As per thepresent census, the sector engages over 23 lakhs female weavers and allied

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

workers. The handloom sector is largely household-based, carried out withlabor contributed by the entire family. Therefore, the engagement of a largenumber of women (over 70% of all weavers and allied workers are female) inany capacity in this sector has ensured direct remunerations for them, thusempowering them through financial independence and improved self-worthboth within and outside of their homes.” (Ministry of Textiles, Government ofIndia 2019: 21)

Yet, as per the authors’ fieldwork[3] and the works of other scholars, the ground reality isvery different. Although it is true that women participate in handloom weaving in largenumbers, yet, they hardly make enough money, and mostly remain invisible ghost workers.Women mainly take part in the preparatory activities before weaving and rarely receive anymonetary compensation. Even if they receive remuneration, the existing patriarchy withinweavers’ families is not altered.

Flaws in Data CollectionAccording to the latest report, 82% of weavers in rural areas work independently, that is,they are self-employed. Here, it is important to note that as per the authors’ field visits inrural areas of Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, the findings are quite the opposite. Mostweavers in these two states work under master weavers or intermediaries, whereindependence is a myth. Though weavers are working in their own houses, they are tiedunder putting out arrangements with master weavers. It is the master weavers who take themajor share of the profits, and the weavers are paid meagre amounts. Besides, there aretwo other important issues. First, there is a problem with the categorisation of weavers fordata collection, and this is why so many weavers are recorded as independent weavers.Second, the situation in the other states (such as Assam and other northeastern states,Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, etc.) could be quite different from Andhra Pradesh and WestBengal and very high numbers of independent weavers in those states may influence theaggregate figures. However, the report does not capture this nuance, and categorises themajority of the weavers as financially independent instead.

No concrete data and analyses are provided on the new schemes that were launched afterthe Modi government came to power in 2014. Instead, the report only confines itself toschemes on cluster development, health benefits, credit provisioning, which have beenoperational since the United Progressive Alliance government’s first term in office. Thecensus report is conspicuously silent about schemes launched by the current government.

In the non-household category that has been introduced for the first in the latest censusreport, cooperative societies dominate (70.3%). The states where weavers are organisedunder a cooperative society or under other non-household units include Goa (95%), Kerala(71%), Puducherry (91%) and Tamil Nadu (56%). This issue is important because the state

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

in which the maximum number of weavers earn more than Rs 5,000 per month is also Goa.Hence, there is a correlation between the number of organised weavers and theirearnings. As a silver lining to an otherwise flagging sector, the handloom sector mayappear to perform well if weavers come together and organise themselves as a society. Thegovernment should focus on connecting local weavers’ organisations in a better way underits cluster development initiatives. Only then, the dual objective of protecting weavers fromexploitation by intermediaries and making handloom weaving a viable business model ispossible.

End Notes:

[1] Non-household units: The working definition that is provided in the census report for anon-household unit is one that is engaged in production-related activities (weaving andallied work) using looms. Non-household units which only focus on sales/marketing/wholesale/retail but not in production have not been considered. As per thiscensus report, a total of 5,457 non-household units have been covered.

[2] It is common knowledge in the handloom sector that only high-quality fabric can providereturns. But, weaving high-quality material requires higher skill level and better marketingchannels. As things stand today, not all handloom weavers have these prerequisites, andthey end up earning lower incomes. It is only a very small section of weavers who earn Rs10,000 or more. See Bhattacharya and Sen (2018).

[3] An ethnographic field study was conducted by the author in Chirala handloom hub inAndhra Pradesh during 2011–12 as a part of a study titled Realising a Cooperative within aCapitalistic Market Economy: A Case Study in Andhra Pradesh, India. The author conductedanother study titled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Distress of Handloom Weaversin West Bengal between 2015 and 2017. From both studies, it was found that only high-endfabrics are lucrative and viable in the long run. It also emerged that master weavers reapmore profits while those working under cooperatives are not paid enough.

References:

Basole, Amit (2017): “What Does the Rural Economy Need? Analysis of the Promises forRural India,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 52, No 9.

Bhattacharya, Rajesh and Sarmistha Sen (2018): “Pride and Prejudice: The Condition ofHandloom Weavers in West Bengal,” Bengaluru: Azim Premji University, https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SWI_BackgroundPaper_BhattacharyaSen_V3_20thMay.pdf.

Himanshu (2018): “Too Little, Too Late—Apathy towards the Rural Sector,” Economic andPolitical Weekly, Vol 53, No

ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

9, https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/9/budget-2018%E2%80%9319/too-little-too-late.html.

Ministry of Textiles, Government of India (2019): “Fourth All India Handloom Census2019–20,” New Delhi, http://handlooms.nic.in/writereaddata/3736.pdf.

National Council of Applied Economic Research (2009): “Handloom Census of India2009–10: Primary Handloom Census Abstract,” NewDelhi, http://handlooms.nic.in/Writereaddata/Handloom%20report.pdf.

Image-Credit/Misc:

Image: Pixabay/Simon Steinberger