The Evolution of Working Class Movements in India: From Colonial Times to Post-Independence

India’s working class did not emerge as a political force overnight. It was shaped over more than a century – through colonial exploitation, nationalist politics, independence-era industrialization, and the disruptions of economic liberalization. Understanding this journey helps explain not just labor history, but the broader story of how ordinary workers became central actors in India’s democratic and economic life.

The birth of an industrial working class under colonial rule 🔗

The modern working class in India emerged in the 19th century with the introduction of capitalism under colonial rule. Plantations and railways were among the earliest enterprises of colonial capitalism, and port cities like Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras quickly became the centers of industrial activity. Cotton mills in Bombay, jute mills in Calcutta, and factories in cities like Ahmedabad, Kanpur, and Nagpur pulled thousands of rural poor into industrial wage labor – under conditions that were, by any measure, brutal.

Working hours were excessively long, wages were meager, and worker safety was simply not a priority. Many working-class Indians became alienated from traditional social structures under colonial rule, caught between a destroyed agrarian economy and an exploitative industrial one. The colonial state had no interest in protecting this new class – it was primarily invested in keeping production profitable for British industrial and commercial interests.

Early acts of protest 🔗

Resistance appeared almost as soon as industry did. The earliest recorded instance of worker protest was in 1862, when about 1,200 railway workers went on strike at Howrah station. In 1877 and 1882, textile workers in Nagpur and Bombay struck for better wages. These were largely spontaneous, short-lived actions – but they established a pattern. Even before any trade union existed, workers across cotton and jute industries, railways, mines, ports, and plantations had been engaging in various forms of labor protest against low wages, long working hours, and poor conditions.

One of the most significant early instances of collective mobilization was the Indigo Revolt of 1859-60 in Bengal, where peasants and factory workers jointly resisted the oppressive practices of British indigo planters. It demonstrated the potential of mass collective action – even before formal organization existed.

Four phases of the working class movement 🔗

Labour historians divide working class activity in India into four distinct phases: 1850-1890, 1890-1918, 1918-1947, and the post-independence period. Each phase had its own character, shaped by economic conditions, political developments, and the evolving relationship between workers and nationalist politics.

Phase 1 (1850-1890): Unorganized protest 🔗

This was a period of isolated, uncoordinated protests. Workers had no formal organizations, and their actions were largely reactive – triggered by wage cuts, price rises, or particularly harsh treatment. The colonial administration dismissed such protests as disorder rather than legitimate grievances.

The first meaningful step toward organization came in 1890 with the establishment of the Bombay Mill Hands Association, led by Narayan Meghaji Lokhande. This marked a pivotal shift from sporadic protests to a more organized approach, providing workers a platform to collectively voice concerns – though the colonial administration remained deeply suspicious of any organized labor activity.

Phase 2 (1890-1918): Political consciousness and early organization 🔗

The Swadeshi movement of 1905-08 gave working-class protests a new political dimension. Workers engaged in political issues during the Swadeshi movement, with strikes organized in government presses, railways, and the jute industry. The arrest of Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1908 triggered one of the largest strikes of this period in Bombay’s textile mills.

The First World War brought economic disparities – rising exports and prices benefited industrialists, but wages for Indian workers remained stagnant, sharpening the contrast between capital and labor. By the war’s end, the groundwork for organized, national-level unionism had been laid.

Phase 3 (1918-1947): Organized unionism and nationalist entanglement 🔗

This was the most formative phase. Two landmark unions were established in 1918 and 1920: the Madras Labour Union in 1918, widely regarded as India’s first modern trade union, and the Textile Labour Association in Ahmedabad in 1920, founded under Mahatma Gandhi’s guidance and working along Gandhian principles of non-confrontation and arbitration.

The defining institutional moment, however, came on October 31, 1920, with the founding of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). The AITUC’s goals included the creation of a socialist state, nationalization of the means of production, and the improvement of economic and social conditions for workers. Lala Lajpat Rai became AITUC’s first president and was among the first to link capitalism with imperialism directly – framing labor struggle as inseparable from the freedom struggle.

By the time of AITUC’s formation, there were roughly 125 unions in India with around 250,000 members. Crucially, the leaders of the trade union movement were also leaders of the nationalist movement – which gave labor politics both visibility and legitimacy, but also complicated its independence.

The communist influence and AITUC splits 🔗

From the early 1920s, Communists began participating actively in the trade union movement, pushing it toward more radical demands. Three distinct ideological groups shaped the AITUC: Communists led by M.N. Roy and Dange, nationalists led by Gandhi and Nehru, and moderates led by N.M. Joshi and V.V. Giri. These differences over the relationship between trade unions and the broader political movement led to serious internal tensions.

The colonial government responded with repression. The Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929) saw prominent Communist labor leaders arrested and charged with attempting to deprive the King-Emperor of sovereignty – effectively criminalizing radical unionism. AITUC split in 1929 and again in 1931, eventually producing three competing national federations. The Great Depression further weakened unions, as unemployment spiked and worker bargaining power collapsed.

The Great Indian Peninsular Railway went on strike in 1930, and dockworkers struck in 1932 as part of the Civil Disobedience movement, showing that workers continued to tie their economic demands to the broader national struggle – even as the Congress party was slow to fully embrace labor interests.

Congress, communists, and the contest for labor 🔗

The relationship between the Indian National Congress and the working class was always ambivalent. The Congress election manifesto of 1936 promised the working class a decent standard of living, fixed working hours, dispute settlement machinery, and the right to form trade unions – but critics argued these commitments were more electoral than substantive.

The Communists took a more aggressive line, actively organizing workers and pushing for class-based demands. The government used a two-pronged strategy to counter Communist influence: on one hand, it enacted restrictive legislation and jailed radical labor leaders; on the other, it attempted to moderate the movement through concessions, such as appointing the Royal Commission on Labour.

By the 1940s, the labor movement had entered its most decisive phase, coinciding with the final push of the freedom struggle. Women workers, too, were increasingly prominent in labor actions – a development that would eventually find institutional expression in organizations like Anasuya Sarabhai’s Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association, one of the earliest examples of organized women’s labor leadership in India.

Post-independence: fragmentation and political alignment 🔗

Independence in 1947 brought a new government, new economic ambitions – and a rapid restructuring of the labor movement. India largely adopted a socialist economic approach, promoting public sector employment and pro-worker legislation. New labor laws – including the Industrial Disputes Act (1947), the Factories Act (1948), and the Minimum Wages Act (1948) – gave workers legal protections that had never existed under colonial rule.

But independence also fractured the labor movement along political lines. In May 1947, nationalists and moderates formed the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), since by then the Communists had acquired control over AITUC. Congress socialists who remained in AITUC subsequently formed the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). When the Communists split, CITU was formed under the CPI(M). The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), affiliated with what would become the BJP, was founded in 1955.

Each major political party now had its own labor wing. Post-independence, trade unions became increasingly tied with party politics, and the rise of regional parties led to a further proliferation of unions, with each party forming its own. The result was a fragmented labor movement whose energies were often directed by electoral considerations rather than worker interests.

Militancy in the 1970s 🔗

The 1970s saw a surge in working-class militancy, driven by inflation, unemployment, and growing resentment at the widening gap between industrial profits and worker wages. Two key events defined this period: the 1974 railway strike and the Great Bombay Textile Strike of 1982. The railway strike, led by George Fernandes, brought over 1.7 million workers out and paralyzed rail transport for weeks before being suppressed by the government under the Emergency powers that would follow in 1975. The Bombay textile strike of 1982, led by Datta Samant, became one of the longest industrial actions in history – and ultimately devastated the textile mill workforce in Mumbai, with mills closing and workers never being reinstated.

The liberalization era and its impact on labor 🔗

The introduction of the New Economic Policy in 1991 fundamentally changed the terrain for working-class movements. Economic liberalization redefined employer-employee relations and forced the trade union movement to adapt rapidly. Deregulation, privatization, and the entry of foreign capital created new industries but also destabilized traditional employment. The number of union members fell by roughly 16% between 1991 and 2002, as large companies set up operations in areas with weak union presence or adopted policies discouraging unionization.

The informal sector expanded dramatically. Contract labor replaced permanent employment in many industries. The closure of textile mills in Mumbai displaced thousands of workers with little recourse. Issues like labor code reforms and minimum wages have remained politically contentious, partly due to opposition from trade union leaderships trying to defend existing protections.

New forms of organization have emerged in response. The Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), founded in 1972, became a model for organizing informal sector workers – particularly women – outside the traditional trade union framework. The need to expand trade union struggle beyond the organized sector and incorporate informal workers into labor advocacy has initiated a new beginning in Indian working-class movement history.

The unfinished challenge: organizing the unorganized 🔗

India’s labor force is overwhelmingly informal. Despite a long history of trade unionism, unions in India remain structurally weak – the growth in the number of unions has far outpaced growth in membership, eroding financial viability and collective bargaining power. The gig economy – app-based delivery workers, platform laborers, contractual service workers – represents a frontier that existing union structures are only beginning to address.

Democratic trade unionism is considered essential to preventing workers from coming under the influence of radical or communal elements – a concern that has become more pressing in the context of rising socio-economic inequality post-liberalization. The challenge for India’s working-class movements today is not simply to protect existing workers in organized industries, but to build solidarity across an increasingly fragmented and precarious labor force.

What do you think? India’s trade unions were once powerful enough to halt railways and paralyze entire industries – yet today, millions of gig workers and informal laborers remain outside any union’s reach. What would it take for India’s working-class movements to genuinely represent the full spectrum of workers in the 21st century? And given the deep entanglement between political parties and trade unions throughout India’s history, can labor movements ever fully reclaim their independence from electoral politics?

References

1. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/working-class-in-india
2. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/soc14/chapter/working-class-movements-in-india/
3. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper1/movement-of-the-working-class
4. https://polsci.institute/india-democracy-development/early-struggles-working-class-india/
5. https://pwonlyias.com/udaan/indian-working-class-movement/
6. https://www.oneyoungindia.com/cuet-and-upsc-general-studies-notes/working-class-movement-colonialism
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_India
8. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/100-years-of-indian-trade-union-movement-history-politics-and-the-future
9. https://www.clearias.com/trade-unions-history-labour-unions-in-india/
10. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/4/51807.pdf