This book is about plantation labour in India in a context of heightened concern for inclusive development in the era of globalisation. If the available empirical evidence is any indication, many of the developing countries that resorted to globalisation under the structural adjustment policies during the closing decades of the 20th century have been able to record a higher rate of economic growth. The higher growth has been made possible, it is argued, because of the open and integrated nature of these economies and that the division of labour was no more constrained by the extent of market (Commission on Growth and Development, 2008). At the same time, evidences also suggest that while millions were lifted out of poverty, episodes of high growth, as observed under globalisation, have not been inclusive on account of increasing inequalities within and between countries (Wade, 2004; Stiglitz, 2006).
For most of humanity, the only commodity a person has to sell is his or her labour power so that the personās entitlements depend crucially on his or her ability to find a job, the wage rate for that job and the prices of commodities that he or she wishes to buy (Sen, 1983). Hence, the search for the roots of growing inequality has to begin with labour and more specifically the labouring conditions and reward for labour. As Freeman (2011) argues, structural adjustmentāinduced growth has been characterized by ācrises of structural adjustmentā, as there has also been growing unemployment, a main source of inequality and poverty. Stiglitz (2013) has been more emphatic when he observed that the dearth of jobs and the asymmetries caused under globalisation have created competition for jobs in which workers lost and the owners of capital gained. Along with jobless growth, the type of employment created was mostly of contractual nature, leading to growing informal employment even within the formal sector. Moreover, wages for the employment created, very often, were too low to escape poverty. According to ILO (2012), around 670 million workers in Asia, for example, live on less than US$2 a day and 322 million below US$1.25 per day. As a result, increasing marginalization and inequalities that coevolved with higher growth have emerged as serious concerns for the academia, policy makers and those concerned with development in general.
Indiaās experience under globalisation has been no different. Growth rates in gross domestic product (GDP) appeared to be higher during the post-reform period of globalisation. At the same time, studies found that the growth in employment lagged behind the trade-induced output growth and there has been widening wage differential, leading to growing inequality (Chaudhuri and Ravallion, 2006; Pal and Ghosh, 2007). The trends in wage rates indicate ruralāurban and casualāregular dualism. While the wage gap between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors for regular workers in rural areas had narrowed, the wage gap between the secondary and tertiary sectors was widening in urban areas (Sarkar and Mehta, 2010). On the whole, the better-off sections of workers have gained at the cost of the more vulnerable, and there has been a continuous increase in overall inequality during the post-reform period. In view of this, the rate of poverty reduction appeared to have been at the lowest level during the 1990s (Sen and Himanshu, 2004a, 2004b). Thus, trade has not been an engine of inclusive growth (Joseph et al., 2013). Studies have also reported that along with growing interpersonal inequality in income, there has been increasing marginalization of women and minorities and a steep rise in inequities across regions (Joseph et al., 2013). Hence, it is only logical that the issue of inclusive growth today takes the centre stage in development discourse in India and the focus of policy pendulum has shifted from growth to inclusive growth, which is manifested, more than anywhere else, in the 11th and 12th Five-Year Plan documents.
While addressing the challenge of negotiating equity with growth, it could be argued that the product structure and sectoral perspective do matter, as different sectors of an economy are not placed similarly in enabling growth vis-Ć -vis inclusive growth. In fact, some sectors, given the higher technological opportunity (on account of their deep science base) and monopoly rent, could be growth boomers, whereas the outcome may not be broad-based, pro-poor or inclusive on account of the low labour intensity and the skill bias engrossed with the employment generated. On the other hand, sectors like plantations, which by the very nature of the demand for their products (low-income elasticity), could grow only at a low pace, yet the outcomes could be more inclusive on account of their high labour intensity and other characteristics (Joseph, 2014).
Thus, for evolving an inclusive development strategy, the relevance of sectoral/micro-level experience along with macro- and meso-level analysis cannot be overemphasized. As will be evident from the forthcoming discussion, significant reduction in the role of plantation sector in earning foreign exchange notwithstanding is construed as a key sector in the inclusive development agenda, as envisioned in Indiaās 11th (2007ā12) and 12th (2012ā17) Five-Year Plans. This is on account of the large-scale employment generation by this sector, especially for women, as well as the livelihood and income-earning opportunities provided for the millions of small and marginal growers. Moreover, in the context of growing inter-regional inequality, the plantation sector plays a key role in fostering balanced regional development as envisaged in the countryās inclusive growth strategy, because this sector is concentrated in the backward regions of the country (Joseph and George, 2010). Hence, this volume that focuses on varied issues related to plantation labour in India in the era of globalisation assumes topical relevance.
State, plantation development and inclusive growth
The development history of plantations in India, such as tea, coffee, cardamom and natural rubber, may be traced back to the colonial period wherein it was considered as an instrument of development. Development of plantations involved clearing of virgin lands and construction of physical infrastructure such as roads and bridges along with other infrastructure for human development, like housing, schools and hospitals. Hence, to induce planters to undertake lumpy investment for infrastructure development, large estate-based production systems were encouraged (Hayami and Damodaran, 2004). The plantation system, as evolved during the colonial period, was also instrumental in laying the foundation for the modern plantations embedded with a social system, characterized by distinct production relations. As argued by scholars (e.g. Bhowmik, 1981), the development of plantations entailed two basic requisites, namely large tracks of cultivable land and a large labour force. Since the potential plantation areas were sparsely populated, development of plantations initially required import (immigration) of labour in large numbers. Initially, the development of tea plantations in India entailed huge dependence on immigrant labourers from Nepal1 and the repatriate Tamil workers from Sri Lanka. Invariably, the labour process in plantations also had undergone significant transformation over the past century or more. For instance, the pre-colonial plantations were quite known for labour management based on the slavery system, which transitioned into an indentured system of labour recruitment during the colonial period.2
The post-independence period witnessed significant expansion in the area under cultivation of tea, coffee, natural rubber and spices, mostly facilitated by proactive state policies and interventions. One of the important interventions at the instance of the state has been the establishment of various organizations at the national level, aimed at systematic development and expansion of these plantation cr...
