Under the British rule production in India became production for market. As a result of this, internal market expanded and the class of traders engaged in internal trading grew. Simultaneously, India was also linked up with the world market. This led to the growth of a class of merchants engaged in export-import business. Thus, there came into being a commercial middle class in the country. With the establishment of railways, the accumulation of savings on the part of this rich commercial middle class took the form of capital to be invested in other large-scale manufactured goods and modern industries. Like the British, who pioneered the industrial establishment in India, the Indians, too made investment initially in plantations, cotton, jute, mining and so on. Indians too made investment initially in plantations, cotton, jute, mining and so on, thereby giving rise to new groups as mill owners, mine owners, etc. Economically and socially this class turned out to be the strongest class in India.

As mentioned earlier, in industrial societies production is largely done through machines rather than solely through the physical labour of human beings. Another characteristic of industrial societies is the marketing of human labour. This means that labour can be bought and sold. In real terms we can translate this as, people sell their labour and are paid wages in return. The worker here enjoys two types of freedom.

Firstly the freedom to work or not to work and secondly freedom to work where he/she wants to work. In reality of course the worker may not be in a position to exercise either of these freedom because of less choices in occupation primarily because of lack of skill. The need for survival compels him to sell his labour in market. The freedom seems to be illusion to him.

Capitalists (commercial and industrial)

Working classes.

The effects of industrialisation have been:

(1)        The percentage of workers engaged in agriculture has come down while that of workers engaged in individual activities has gone up. 

(2)        The process of social mobility has accelerated. 

(3)        Trade unions have organized industrial workers to fight for their rights. 

(4)        Since industrial workers maintain continued and close relationship with their kin-groups and castes caste stratification has not affected class character. 

(5)        The traditional and charismatic elite have been replaced by the professional elite.

Morris D. Morris,1991 has referred to two viewpoints regarding the behaviour pattern of the industrial labour.  One view is that labour being short in industry, employers had to scramble for their workforce and make all sorts of concessions which weakened their hold on the workers.  The workers frequently returned to their villages to which they were very much attached.  The other view talks of surplus of labour available in villages for urban employment.  Because of easy availability, the employers abused workers unmercifully.  Since working conditions in the factories were intolerable, the labour was forced to go back to their villages.  Thus, in both views, it was held that workers retained their rural links, which limited the supply of labour for industrial development.  As a consequence, proletarian type of behaviour did not develop.  It also resulted in high rates of absenteeism and labour turnover and the slow growth of trade unions.

Besides the above features, four other features were also visible:

First, the employment of women and children in industries was very limited.  About 20 to 25 per cent of labour force consisted of women and about 5 per cent of children.  This was because employment of women in night shifts was prohibited and children below 14 years could not be legally employed. 

Secondly, though it is argued that industry is caste blind because no single caste can provide an adequate supply of labour and because employees are uninterested in caste affiliation, yet workers did not permit the employers to employ workers of untouchable castes. 

Thirdly, large number of workers in the industries were those had no significant claim to land. 

Fourthly, workers employed were not necessarily from the same district in which the industry was located but were recruited from different districts as well as neighbouring states. 

There were, thus, no geographical barriers inhibiting the flow of labour into the industry.  The rural social structure (joint family system, etc.) was also not a barrier to the flow of population needed for urban economic expansion.  According to one estimate, of the total workers in any industry, about 25 per cent are local, 10 per cent come from within 100 km of industry’s location, 50 per cent from 100 to 750 kms and 15 per cent from more than 750 kms.  This shows a tendency for industry hands to be drawn from increasingly distant areas.  All these explain the class aspect of industrial labour force in India.

Analysing the ‘working class’, Holmstrom has said that all workers do not share all interests; rather they share a few interests only. He has also said that it is necessary to draw a class line between the organized and the unorganized sector industrial workers.  Joshi (1976) also has said that organized and unorganized sector industrial workers are two classes with different and conflict interests.  This can be explained on the basis of difference in four factors: wages, working conditions, security, and social worlds.

The wages depend upon whether the industry is big (more than 1,000 workers, small (250-1,000 workers) or very small (less than 50 workers).  In 1973, West Bengal laid down different minimum wages for above three types of industries.  The big industries pay much more than the small industries because of the economic of scale, unions and workers’ strong bargaining position.  Naturally, the interests of workers depend upon the type of industry they work in.

The working conditions also affect the interests of workers.  Workers in industries with more pleasant conditions, having safety measures and fewer accidents and less noise and monotony and fatigue, shorter hours, more space, freedom from close control or harassment, a change of learning something more, canteens and crèches and washing rooms, have different interests from those which do not provide all these amenities.  As such, they work as two different classes of workers.

Security and career chances also demarcate two classes of workers.  A permanent worker has not only a job but also a career while the temporary worker is bothered more about the security of the job.  The permanent worker’s career extends into the future but the temporary one remains bogged down into the present.  The former may plan to improve his job by learning a skill and getting promotion; the latter is terrified of losing his job if he joins a union.

The attitude of the government towards the working class too has undergone change in the post-independence period. The government’s attitude’s towards working class has become more favourable. It has imposed some regulation on the employers and has granted some protection to the workers. Several acts were passed granting some facilities to the workers. Some of these payment of Bonus Act, Provident Fund and Gratuity Act, etc. All these have affected the working class people in the country.

The trade union organisation too shows some change in the post-Independence period. Till Independence, political and economic struggles of the trade unions had been directed against imperialist subjugation. Today, their struggle has been against the employers of labour and it is more specific in its goal. Yet, considerable division exists among the trade unions in terms of control, sector and region of the industries. Much of the resistance in the form of strikes has been generally organized industry wise or region wise. Trade unions have also taken refuse and found support in different political parties. As a result, trade union movement in post-Independence period has been subjected to further divisions and subdivisions.

Lastly, the social worlds also divide workers in two different classes.  The ‘social world’ refers to differences in economic conditions, life chance, mutual aid and dependence, etc.  The factory workers in the organized sector have more solidarity, fewer hostility and less tensions.  Their interests and ideology keep them separate from the ‘outsiders’.  Thus, the organized sector workers from a privileged upper class.

In view of this working class has grown in volume in post-independent India. They have also been dispersed to different parts and different sectors of the industry. Thus, the working class has become much more heterogeneous. It consists of workers employed in different type of industries that have different social and historical background. This diversity in the working class has given rise to a complex set of relations among the different sectors.