When examining any issue in Northeast India, it’s impossible to divorce it from the hegemonic presence of Indian state as well as the numerous resulting conflicts representing aspirations of a nationalist and sub-nationalist nature. Sriram Ananthanarayanan writes.

Related Links
Strength and Public Presence of Women in Northeast India
Struggles of Tea Garden Workers in Assam
Round Table on Manipur
Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act

When examining any issue in Northeast India, it’s impossible to divorce it from the hegemonic presence of Indian state as well as the numerous resulting conflicts representing aspirations of a nationalist and sub-nationalist nature.

Huge chunks of the region come under draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Protection Act or the Disturbed Areas Act, which have been in place in Manipur, Nagaland and many parts of Assam, thereby covering a significant geographical chunk of Northeast India for more than two decades. These Acts essentially give the security forces a free hand in doing what they please as long as it’s under the guise of “fighting terror”. One cannot travel to a single sub-district or district in the region without seeing even the lowest ranking police constable carrying a rather deadly INSAS assault rifle (compared to other parts of India where he might, with luck, carry a baton to imperiously whack a poor pickpocket’s rear end). Needless to say that this has resulted in numerous human rights violations and atrocities on many sections of the population for decades. Accounts of disappearances, custody killings, and encounter killings all conducted by the security forces as well as of people caught in the midst of the conflict are all too easy to find.

However there is another side to hegemony that is not as directly visible as instances of human rights atrocities, and that is the material conditions and issues surrounding the labouring masses, which is what this article attempts to examine. The issues surrounding labour and livelihood in Northeast India are complex and an in-depth examination is certainly not within the scope of a single article. What is however attempted here is a panoramic view with a few key grassroots examples as well as a brief examination of the salient issues.

Exploitation by Capital: It is amply evident that post-liberalisation in India, labour has taken a real beating with the state often kowtowing to capital’s demands for further deregulation. Furthermore, in the conflict-ridden Northeast, many senior union leaders in the area point to a dangerous trend developing over the last few years of capital exploiting the situation. Often large private companies demand further deregulation or cheaper land prices citing the supposed violent scenario in the region as a cause for making the place more attractive for private investment. Threats are then carried out of taking investment elsewhere or pulling out existing investment which gets the state governments to meekly capitulate, wilfully overlooking harsh labour violations.

Discussions with progressive union activists and labour department officials also reveal the dangerously oppressive network of lumpen elements (including surrendered insurgents), ruling-class party folk and traders who run businesses like their own personal fiefdoms without any concern for labour rights or workers welfare. The exploitation is harsh with extremely hazardous working conditions, especially in highly deregulated sectors like stone quarries and extraction industrie. Furthermore, a corrupt nexus between state officials and business owners adds to this already oppressive network.

And while these are not necessarily directly related to militaristic state hegemony, the environment of state-led violence in Northeast India (unlike some other parts of India) has caused immense labour deregulation and exploitation by capital, making it very difficult for workers and activists to struggle for their rights, especially in the informal sectors. This has resulted in the extraction of vast surplus labour by owners through the harsh system, the complete lack of workers benefits, and often informal working conditions forcing all members of a typical poor family to toil simply in order to survive.

Formal or Organised Labour: Generally the term “organised labour” would intuitively indicate unionised workers, but in India what it really means is wage-earning or salary-earning employees with a certain modicum of benefits on paper at least, thus the term “formal labour” would be a more appropriate term to work with. Overall in India the share of the formal sector in the over 450 million workforce is anywhere between 8-10%, which is miniscule in comparison to industrialised countries. This is even more acute in Northeast India where, barring Assam, there isn’t much of a formal labour force at all. Even in Assam, formal labour is restricted to a few sectors like tea, oil, and some public sector undertakings.

However what is important to note is that there is immense union coverage for a bulk of the workers in these sectors. It is of course another question altogether as to the level of militancy that the individual unions showcase or the sincerity with which they struggle for workers rights.

In short…there are unions and there are unions

Take the famed tea gardens of Assam for instance, the state being the largest tea-producing region in the world. The workers are technically “organised” in that they are all part of a union, and thus should ideally have benefits at least as per legislation that covers them such as the Plantation Labour Act 1951. However, a comprehensive study across 172 tea gardens in Assam conducted by the Guwahati-based North Eastern Social Research Centre in 2004 brought to light numerous violations of the Act, including inadequate or completely non-existent provisions for drinking water, crèches, schools, proper health facilities, sanitation for women workers and shelter. Even a cursory observation of the plantations today confirms these findings. Upon further investigation and discussions with workers, one learns that wages paid are much lower than prescribed minimum wage rates, no over-time payment is made, and occasional physical abuse occurs.

There are several reasons for this sort of labour exploitation even in the formal sector, including some mentioned above like exploitation by capital. However possibly the most changeable factor is the corruption and complete pro-management functioning of the Assam Cha Mazdoor Sangh (ACMS) affiliated to the ruling Congress-backed INTUC federation. ACMS has a complete hegemony over the labour scenario in the tea gardens of Assam, and essentially run as the on-ground labour controlling wing of the garden owners. Indeed in visits to tea gardens, which had ACMS units, this author found that most of the union leaders didn’t even know, nor cared to know, about the Plantation Labour Act 1951, which covered the very workers they represent!

Little wonder then that many decades after the indentured, forced labour used by the British in the tea gardens of Assam, nothing much has changed.

Cut to the Public Sector IOC Refinery in Guwahati, and one can witness the more sincere struggle of two unions affiliated to the leftist AICCTU federation. As is the case with the majority of the plants across India cutting across industrial sectors and public-private lines, workers are divided into permanent employees and non-permanent workers, who are further divided into contract workers and daily-wage labourers. Naturally the demands for each group hardly overlap and might sometimes even clash. In addition there are social and cultural divisions that result from the creation of a middle-class labour aristocracy side by side with a working poor, all in one plant. Needless to say that this is hardly fertile ground for fostering strong workers unity and thereby launching union struggles that can successfully press for rights and demands. However an interesting feature is the manner in which the unions themselves have dealt with the situation of workers division.

Talking to members and leaders alike from both unions, there was the common feeling that unity between the two unions and mutual support for each other’s struggles was important. Instances were even mentioned of one union joining in the struggles of the other, despite not having any vested demands. Strong communication links also seemed to be maintained between the two. One of the crucial reasons for this mutual support appears to be the fact that there is an overlap of leadership, and even the constitutions of both don’t bar cross-membership.

In an era where workers across the world have been facing an unprecedented assault at the hands of capital, militant trade unionism is certainly the need of the day, even under difficult circumstances of hegemony and conflict. The above two examples give two diametrically opposite instances of trade unionism and labour struggles under rather difficult material conditions.

 Informal or Unorgnised Labour: The difficult material conditions faced by workers in the formal sector pale in comparison to their fellow proletarians in the informal sector. Hazardous work conditions, paltry wages, non-existent social security and a stark lack of unionization are very much the norm for this sector. In addition, a particularly important issue with respect to the informal sector is that of migratory labour, and the insecure conditions under which migrant labourers live and work in.

The largest and most booming sector that utilises informal labour is the construction industry, believed to have the largest workforce in the entire region. Across all the major cities in Northeast India, construction projects for buildings and roads dot the urban landscape. The labourers who make up the workforce in this sector consist mostly of migrants either from within the region or from out of state, and sometimes even out of country. Due to the highly deregulated nature of the industry, labour exploitation is high, with huge labour surplus extraction by construction companies. Wages are always below minimum wage rates, while the hazardous work environment coupled with complete lack of access to healthcare, insurance, PF, drinking water, rations, sanitation etc. makes life extremely harsh for these workers, with women facing it even more acutely on account of their gender. The living conditions are usually nothing short of inhuman; with workers sheltered in temporary shacks with no electricity or running water.

A discussion with workers alongside a road construction project in Guwahati revealed the difficult circumstances under which they survived. The “shelter”, if that’s what it could be called, comprised of corrugated tin sheets fixed together with a few nuts and bolts with no electricity or water connections. Furthermore this sorry excuse for a living space was bang on the side of the road being constructed and thus often enveloped by tar-laden smoke and dust emanating from the construction site. Shared sleeping arrangements in cramped quarters with absolutely no facilities for any recreational activities were plainly visible on sight. Many of the workers coughed and wheezed as they spoke; a clear indication of their lung troubles.

Marx had written quite eloquently and with much rage in Capital Vol. 1 about the harsh living conditions of industrial workers in England in the mid-1800s, as well as their exploitation by capital. The good man would probably have reacted with the same indignation if he knew that astonishingly similar conditions exist even in the 21^st century in a country touted to be the next great superpower.

Notwithstanding Karl’s conceivable ire at the situation, the workers themselves revealed the grit and determination that characterized the average migrant labourer in India who traveled across multiple states, dealt with exploitative contractors, and worked in horrendous conditions just so his or her family could survive. Many were Hindi-speaking folk and came from various villages bordering Nepal, or Nepal itself, working in Guwahati primarily because of lack of viable livelihood options in their own hometowns. The majority of their paltry wages, hovering at around Rs 45 per day, was sent back to their families, whom they visited every few months, again traveling many miles in overcrowded, unreserved train compartments.

Lack of unionisation in the sector has been one of key reasons for deep-rooted labour exploitation. Some fledgling unions have started in cities like Manipur, Itanagar and Guwahati but have failed to take off in a manner that can launch militant struggles and bring in large-scale benefits. It is not in the least bit utopian to conceive of widespread labour organising to bring about greater benefits for workers in this sector, as there are examples of some very fine efforts at unionising construction workers in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which have won many labour rights including guaranteed social security from the state.

Another example of a sector that utilises informal labour is the extraction industry, primarily concentrated in Meghalaya and Assam. Coal and limestone in Meghalaya and Assam, stone quarries in Assam, and soon-to-be uranium mining in Meghalaya are some of the key extraction industry sectors in the region.

Visits to stone quarries in Assam reveal the harshness of the working conditions on sight. In the blazing mid-day heat workers clear the ground of trees and bushes for digging, dig out boulders, manually crush them into smaller stones, and fill large boxes with them. The quarries don’t have any shady areas for rest or shelter, and even the natural shade of trees is gone because the foliage has been cleared away to dig for stones. Infants and toddlers, due to lack of facilities for crèches, are left on the ground or on the rocks without any care, while slightly older children work alongside the adults, thus creating widespread usage of child labour. With no facilities for drinking water or a canteen, workers bring their own lunch and water, walking anywhere between 2-5 km early in the morning up rather steep hills in order to reach the quarries so that they might have enough time to fill boxes with stones.

The box is the unit of measurement for their daily wages, and workers receive around Rs 40 to 45 per box. Usually a single adult fills about one box a day on average, which results in workers receiving wages far lesser than the prescribed daily minimum wage. The wage payment is not only dangerously low in amount but also illegal in method. When workers spend their time clearing the area of foliage and digging for boulders, they get even lesser pay since they don’t have filled boxes to show. The boxes themselves are large, 6 ft by 3 ft by 1ft, and with no real government standard for this industry, managers can exert further surplus labour value by trying to enlarge them. Payment is not given for half-filled boxes, so workers often end up working much longer than the prescribed 8-hour working day, often 11-12 hours or more, 6 days a week in order to fill up as many boxes as they can. Since it’s a matter of survival for families, quarry work ends up being a family-affair, as the more hands there are filling the boxes with rocks, the more income the family derives from the paltry piece-rate wages.

The workers mainly hail from the Adivasi, Tiwa, Muslim and Karbi communities who reside in the various villages around the quarries. Labour is brought in through an abusive contractual network, each village having a contractor that the managers hire in order to recruit labour. Harsh material conditions and lack of choice, apart from a failure on the part of the state in properly implementing schemes like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) result in workers being forced to work in the quarries.

Discussions with progressive union activists and labour department officials also reveal the oppressive network of surrendered insurgents, ruling-class party folk and traders who run the quarries. On the other side of this dangerous situation are a few insurgent groups who extract “taxes” from the quarry owners. Indeed, while research was being done for this article along with a local labour activist, this author was told to leave his backpack behind lest the two of us be confused as insurgents coming on an extortion spree since we were travelling by motorbike to the quarries.

The situation is fairly similar across the board in the various extraction industries in the region. Extensive labour exploitation coupled with harsh material conditions and a complete lack of unionisation leave the average informal worker in Northeast India at a very precarious position. One of the key needs in reversing this trend is that the more sincere and honest trade union federations of a more progressive political hue, ones like AITUC, AICCTU and CITU need to look beyond just the formal sector where they have strong unions and make sincere efforts at unionising the informal sector. Without honest and backbreaking organising on the parts of these federations, the workers will continue to languish in the state they’re currently in.

Livelihood and Sustenance: Outside the ambit of workers who, in some way or the other, are connected to the larger capital market, it is important to also examine pre-capitalist livelihood generation activities that are primarily for sustenance, which constitute a large chunk of the labour performed by rural folk in Northeast India.

Unlike many other parts of India, where even villages are in some way or the other connected to the capital market, albeit through informal means, the rural areas of Northeast India for the most part engage in pre-capitalist sustenance activities, with surplus produce sold in nearby bazaars. The most important and widespread activity is cultivation, of primarily the slash and burn variety along the hill slopes as well as shifting cultivation on the plains and along the riverbeds. Both forms of cultivation ensure enough grains and vegetables for the entire year. Along the lines of the egalitarian functioning of most tribes in Northeast India, this form of cultivation has men and women playing equally large roles.

Now, anyone who has ever done some real hiking would confirm that trekking up a steep hill slope, even for fairly fit individuals, is hard work. Then, imagine chopping firewood along a tract of hill-land, clearing that tract through controlled fires for cultivation, cultivating on the land as per a tight seasonal schedule, and then carrying large bundles of firewood (uphill) back to your village in the evening for cooking fire. This gives an idea of how, by sheer dint of hard labour, the rural poor find sustenance in the region. The produce is harvested at the end of the season, and the practice is done along one tract of land for no more than 3 or 4 years, allowing the soil to regenerate as people move on and cultivate another tract. It’s a cooperative system of production with a village or many villages cultivating one tract of land and then sharing the produce at the end of the harvest, completely devoid of feudal fetters. It however is starting to get brutally affected in many parts of the region due to the presence of the Indian army and the resulting conflict, which causes disruption in the cultivation cycle resulting in harsh insecurities for people depending on the produce to feed themselves.

Furthermore, this form of agricultural production and organic rural commerce has faced a history of upheaval from colonial times onwards, when British colonisers effectively severed the region from it’s traditional trading partners, including present-day Burma and other parts of Indo-China. This resulted in the loss of a primarily bazaar-type commerce, a loss which has continued till date under Indian state-hegemony. Large sections of rural Northeast India, and their modes of commerce, now function under the sway of Indian military cantonments, which have usurped expansive tracts of land and harshly affected rural livelihood activities.

Conclusion: The situation for the labouring masses in Northeast India is certainly harsh and oppressive. However it is important to conclude in a hopeful manner. It can be safely said that unless progressive groups forge a true movement of the toiling masses encompassing all sectors of labour and livelihood, the situation is unlikely to get any better. In the region, any progressive labour movement needs to not only engage in resisting exploitation by capital but also state hegemony and militarism that threaten existing egalitarian modes of sustenance.

This particularly means that larger more progressive labour federations cannot be content with just organising in the formal sectors. It is the informal sector that needs the sweat and blood of progressive labour activists, and it is these labourers that represent a particularly exploited population group. Furthermore, a re-think needs to take place when attempting to forge progressive movements in the rural areas. Since much of the rural pre-capitalist modes of production being practiced in the region tend to be rather egalitarian and sans feudal fetters to begin with, classical theories such as the Asiatic Mode of Production Theory need to be re-evaluated and any progressive movement in these areas would necessarily have to find ways of integrating existing egalitarian functioning with the larger movement against exploitation rather than try and supplant it.