The Unique Evolution of India’s Working Class

India’s working class did not emerge the way it did in Europe – through a clean, linear transition from feudal villages to factory towns. Instead, it evolved through centuries of overlapping economies, colonial disruption, and deeply entrenched social hierarchies. The result is one of the world’s most structurally complex labor forces, shaped not just by economics, but by caste, tribe, gender, and the lasting scars of colonial rule. Understanding this working class means understanding India itself.

Roots in a pre-capitalist agrarian world 🔗

Long before British colonial rule, India’s economy was overwhelmingly agrarian and organized around village communities. Artisans, weavers, potters, and other skilled workers operated within hereditary occupational systems closely tied to caste. These were not simply “jobs” in the modern sense – they were social positions passed from generation to generation, embedded in what scholars have described as a pre-capitalist, jajmani-type economy where different castes performed specialized functions for one another in a patron-client arrangement.

India’s pre-colonial stratification system meant that the means of production – land, tools, and labor – were not freely traded in a market. Access to work was determined as much by birth as by skill or demand. This is a fundamental distinction from how the Western working class formed under capitalism: in India, feudal and even pre-feudal relations of production persisted well into the colonial era, shaping how industrialization would later unfold.

How colonialism created and distorted India’s working class 🔗

British colonial rule transformed India’s economic structure – but not in ways that produced a straightforward industrial working class. Plantations and railways were among the earliest enterprises to usher in colonial capitalism on the subcontinent, followed rapidly by cotton mills in Bombay, jute mills in Calcutta, and coal mines across central India. Port cities – Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras – became the nerve centres of this new industrial economy.

Yet this industrialization was distorted from the start. The modern working class in India emerged as a colonial appendage of metropolitan England and destroyed, at the outset, the traditional economic order without developing a substitute. British policy converted India into a supplier of raw materials and a captive market for finished British goods. Traditional industries, most notably handloom weaving, were dismantled – displacing millions of skilled artisans who were forced into wage labor under far worse conditions.

What workers found in the new industrial towns was far from an improvement on rural life. Workers endured long working hours, low wages, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and were subjected to child labour with virtually no legal protections. The situation was especially severe for plantation workers, who were legally bound to their employers under contract arrangements that resembled indentured servitude.

The indentured labor system 🔗

One of the more devastating features of colonial labor exploitation was the use of indentured labor. Indian workers – predominantly from lower castes and impoverished rural backgrounds – were sent under coercive contracts to British colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia. These workers contributed enormously to colonial economies abroad while facing racial discrimination, restricted movement, and near-slave working conditions. The system represented the colonial labor market at its most extreme: cheap, captive, and disposable.

Railways, mines, and mills: the geography of early labor 🔗

The railway network, built primarily to move raw materials to ports, generated a massive demand for construction and operational labor. Railway workers ranged from construction laborers laying down tracks to operational staff running the trains. The railways became a melting pot of diverse communities, fostering a unique working-class culture. Similarly, coal mines in central India drew workers – particularly from tribal communities – into one of the most hazardous forms of labor.

What made the Indian experience distinct from labour movements in Europe was the added dimension of colonialism. Exploitation of the working class in India was compounded by imperialist political rule and economic domination by both foreign and native capitalist classes, making the labour struggle inseparable from the broader fight for national liberation.

A multi-structural economy: the defining feature 🔗

One of the most important sociological characteristics of India’s working class is that it has never existed within a single, unified economic structure. Unlike Western capitalist economies, India developed a multi-structural economy – one where feudal agrarian relations, petty commodity production, and modern industrial capitalism all coexisted simultaneously. A weaver in a handloom village, a coal miner in Jharkhand, a mill worker in Bombay, and a landless agricultural laborer in Bihar could all be called “workers,” yet their conditions, relationships to production, and social identities were vastly different.

This multi-structural character means that classic Marxist models of class formation – where a mass urban proletariat inevitably emerges from industrialization – have never fully applied to India. Neoliberal globalisation has resulted in the bypassing of agrarian transition-led industrialisation and classic proletarianisation, and class relations have given rise to informalised, insecure work across the agrarian and non-agrarian divide. The dominance of informal and semi-formal labor arrangements remains a defining feature of India’s workforce even today.

Caste as a labor market organizer 🔗

Perhaps no single factor has shaped India’s working class more profoundly than caste. Caste did not disappear with industrialization – it adapted to it. The part of the Indian economy upon which the vast majority of people depend as laborers or self-employed is informal, regulated not by legal-institutional structures of the state, but through social structures of gender, religion and caste, which extend their influence to the operation of formal institutions and the market.

The colonial administration introduced systematic classification and legal codification of caste groups, solidifying previously flexible social boundaries into fixed categories – a process that had lasting consequences for the labor market. Recruitment into colonial industries often mirrored caste hierarchies from the village. Workers were channeled into roles deemed socially appropriate to their caste background, reinforcing occupational segregation in the new industrial setting.

Dalits – the communities historically classified as “untouchables” – were systematically confined to the most stigmatized and dangerous forms of labor. Identity-bound work is most characteristic of stigmatized occupations, none more so than the filthy, dehumanizing and unprotected work of dealing with human excreta, known as “manual scavenging”, still assigned to the lowest Dalit castes. Even as industries modernized, Dalits continued to be overrepresented in the lowest-paid, least protected sectors of the economy.

Tribal communities and dispossession 🔗

India’s Adivasi (tribal) communities represent another distinct segment of the working class with a unique historical trajectory. Largely self-sufficient in their forest and land-based livelihoods, Adivasi communities were drawn into colonial industries – particularly mining and forestry – through a combination of dispossession and economic necessity. Their lands contained the mineral wealth that colonial extraction depended on, yet they received almost none of the benefits.

For Adivasis, the struggle to maintain historic land and forest rights is as important as the struggle for labour rights, especially under new regimes of dispossession to open up for mining and industry. These rights give Adivasi seasonal migrant workers a small degree of autonomy over their lives away from their exploitation and oppression. This relationship – between resource extraction, dispossession, and forced entry into the wage economy – is a pattern that began under colonialism and has continued in post-independence India.

Gender and the working class 🔗

Women have always formed a substantial part of India’s working class, yet their labor has been systematically undervalued, underpaid, and rendered invisible in official accounts. In agriculture – which still employs the majority of India’s working population – women perform a disproportionate share of the labor while having far less control over land, income, and decision-making.

In the industrial and informal sectors, the pattern is similar. Informal sector workers, migrant laborers, and agricultural laborers often face job insecurity, low wages, and lack of social protection – conditions that affect women with particular intensity. Women from Dalit and lower-caste communities face compounded disadvantages: discrimination based simultaneously on caste and gender pushes them toward the most exploitative segments of the labor market, including domestic work and construction, with minimal legal recourse.

The gendered division of labor in India was also institutionalized under colonial rule. Certain industries – textiles, tea plantations – employed women in large numbers but in roles designed to minimize their bargaining power. Women were paid less, organized less, and were far more vulnerable to dismissal. This structural vulnerability has persisted across economic transitions and continues to define women’s participation in the Indian workforce.

The rise of organized labor and trade unions 🔗

Against this backdrop of caste division, colonial exploitation, and gender exclusion, Indian workers began to organize. Early protests were fragmented and localized – spontaneous responses to immediate grievances. But by the early 20th century, a more organized labor movement was taking shape, accelerated by the economic pressures of World War I and the growing influence of socialist and nationalist ideas.

Trade union membership grew from roughly 64,000 in 1920 to over 300,000 by 1929. Major industrial actions included the 1921 Assam tea garden workers’ strike, the 1924 South Indian Railway workers’ strike, and the landmark 1928 Bombay textile workers’ strike. The establishment of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920 gave this movement a national platform for the first time – and the labor cause became deeply intertwined with the broader struggle for independence from British rule.

Yet the internal divisions of the working class – along caste, regional, and religious lines – consistently weakened collective action. Unions and left parties in India rarely raised specific concerns of Adivasis or Dalits; instead they focused on the universal idea of the proletariat. In practice, this meant addressing the concerns of labor in secure, formal-sector employment, usually leaving most informalised workers without support. This structural blind spot has remained one of the central challenges of Indian labor politics.

India’s working class after independence 🔗

India’s independence in 1947 opened a new chapter, but many structural inequalities endured. Post-independence planned industrialization expanded the formal working class through public sector enterprises in steel, heavy machinery, and chemicals. Workers in these sectors gained job security and social benefits previously unimaginable under colonial conditions. However, the vast informal sector – agriculture, domestic work, construction, petty trade – remained largely outside the protective ambit of labor law.

Economic liberalization from the 1990s onward further complicated the picture. While it generated new employment in services and manufacturing, it also accelerated the use of contract labor, weakened union power, and deepened the divide between formal and informal workers. Today, India’s constitutional commitments to abolish caste discrimination have continued to work alongside inherited institutional realities that make true equality elusive. The informal sector continues to dominate, with caste, gender, and tribal identity still powerfully determining who works where, for how much, and with how much protection.

What makes India’s working class unique 🔗

India’s working class cannot be understood through the lens of any single theory of class formation. It is the product of a unique convergence: pre-capitalist social structures that never fully dissolved, colonial industrialization that generated exploitation without development, and social identities – caste, tribe, gender, religion – that continue to fragment and stratify the workforce. The sociological term that best captures the experience of the most vulnerable Indian workers is conjugated oppression – the simultaneous experience of class exploitation compounded by caste discrimination, tribal dispossession, and gender-based exclusion.

This complexity is not merely academic. It directly shapes what kinds of labor movements are possible in India, what policies can realistically reduce inequality, and how millions of workers experience their daily lives. Recognizing this complexity is the starting point for any serious analysis of Indian society and economy.

What do you think? If caste and gender continue to organize India’s informal labor market more powerfully than formal laws, what would it actually take to break that pattern? And does a working class divided along caste, tribal, and regional lines have the structural conditions to build lasting solidarity?

References

1. https://hubsociology.com/social-stratification-in-india-caste-class-and/
2. https://thelaw.institute/introduction-to-law/india-labour-movement-historical-overview/
3. http://www.labourfile.com/section-detail.php?aid=364
4. https://polsci.institute/india-democracy-development/evolution-indian-working-class/
5. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2018.1463217
6. https://southasia.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/southasia/documents/media/oxford_university_csasp_-_work_in_progress_paper_5_social_discrimination_in_india_a_case_for_economic_citizenship.pdf
7. https://acr-journal.com/article/the-indian-caste-system-historical-change-and-colonial-rigidity-1939/
8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18301943
9. https://slm.mba/mmph-004/evolution-of-industrial-relations-in-india-pre-independence/
10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10764522/