In Their Own Voice: Myriad World of Working Class Experiences
“Most human affairs happen without leaving vestiges or records of any kind behind them. The past, having happened, has perished with only occasional traces. To begin with, although the absolute number of historical writings is staggering, only a small part of what happened in the past was ever observed.… And only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to historians’ attention; only a part of what has come to their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be expounded or narrated by the historian.”
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History (1950)
Recently, there have been a number of studies focusing on the labour migration to the state of Delhi. Various new research works show that migration toDelhiwitnessed a spurt especially in the period following the mid-1980s. This period also saw a major shift in the regional configuration of the migrant working class ofDelhi. Earlier, the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan had long remained the major contributors of the migrant population ofDelhi, though, as far as labour migration in particular is concerned, it was Rajasthan which contributed to the working class population ofDelhi. Other major contributors were, Eastern UP andBihar. However, in the period following the implementation of the policies of globalization and neo-liberalism, Bihar emerged as the second largest sender state in sheer numerical strength, leaving Haryana,Punjab, Rajasthan behind. Uttar Pradesh remained the largest sender state, accounting for almost 49 percent of the total migrant population inDelhi. However, every careful study would differentiate between the nature of migration from Western UP and that from Eastern UP. Another thing to note is that during the 1990s, the share of migration from Eastern UP has increased phenomenally, in the total migration from Uttar Pradesh.
Nevertheless, only statistics cannot present a true picture of the world of migrant labour. As great German poet Goethe said “theory is grey my friend, ever green is the eternal tree of life.” So, it is imperative to look at the world ofDelhi’s migrant labour, not only through dry data, but through their lively experiences of the migrant workers in their own voice. For the purpose of understanding the complex world of the workers’ experiences and making sense of it, I have conducted surveys in two slums ofDelhi, participated in the movements and activities of the workers and collected their interviews. We refrain from positively assessing the various theories of migration in the light of this oral history collection and have left it to the readers, namely, the task of evaluation of theories in the light of empirical data. We also look at the problems of collecting oral history and what could be the possible ways to rectify the lacunae of the government data through oral history sources.
Before we move on to discuss the oral history collections from the workers of Prakash Vihar and Ambedkar Camp in Delhi, it would be imperative to discuss the problems of oral history sources, their collection and deconstruction. An important problem with the collection of oral history by historians, sociologists and anthropologists is that they treat their oral history sources as something which does not need to be deconstructed. The worker is assumed to be telling the truth and the class angle of the process of the collection of interviews goes unquestioned. The point which I am trying to convey is that when a middle class academician interviews a common worker, he/she barely tells the exact truth, obviously, as he/she perceives it. The worker has his own notions of honour, property and dignity. Poverty is something which is despicable and distasteful. It is covered in front of an ‘outsider’/'the invasive neighbour’–the interviewer. Therefore, when one asks a rickshaw-puller whether he has land in village, or why he came toDelhifor work, or had he been compelled to come toDelhi, he tells that he had not been obliged to come to Delhi; it was only a matter of choice. He tells you that he is not that poor as to be “pushed” out of the village economically and also tells you that he comes toDelhionly in the off-season, that is, when there is no agricultural involvement. In most of the cases, he fools the observer and the observer, either completely fails to deconstruct this newly formed source or he falls short of reaching to the crux of the matter.
The argument which I am trying to put forward is that without being an intrinsic part of the lives and struggles of the workers, one cannot collect a true oral account. The basic pre-requisite of collecting a genuine oral working class account is becoming an ‘insider’ of the world of working class life and struggles. This might take form of living with workers for long periods and participating in their lives and activities. However, the best oral account can be collected by a worker activist because he succeeds in transcending even those borders which exist even among the workers. This was corroborated by my experience with the workers.
As I have mentioned earlier, oral history forms one of the most important forms of discovering the facts and experiences which escape from the panopticon of government records. There is no need to discuss the limitations of the government records, such as Census, economic surveys, national sample survey, various commissions on labour, human development reports, etc; every social scientist is aware of those limitations; moreover, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this essay. This much, however, can be said that the gap which is created or which exists in the reality and the perception of these records is often narrowed by the tool of oral history. Government records have no space for recording the experiences of people; they exist only as a set of statistics. Oral history restores them as living beings in the disciplines of economic history, sociology and anthropology.
In Praksh Vihar in the Karawal Nagar area of North-Eastern Delhi, there is an industry of almond breaking. It is a processing industry; it has nothing to do with production as such. It is a part of a global industry of dry fruits. Almonds come for processing from the various parts of the world, apart from India, which include the United Statesand Australia. There are at least 10,000 labourers’ families living in this colony, and since generally the whole family is involved in the work, including children, the total number of labourers is somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000. This industry began in this area nearly two decades ago. The almond from foreign countries comes through the wholesale market of dry fruits in the Sadar area of Old Delhi. In Sadar, there are big businesses of dry fruits. Earlier, the big businessmen located in Sadar used to get the processing of almonds done under their own supervision. They hired some workers from Eastern UP, Rajasthan and notably Biharfor this work of processing, which had been done in their own workshops. However, as the time passed, this work of processing became somewhat cumbersome for these big owners. They needed to get rid of this burden. As a result, they started to give contracts (theka) to those labourers who had been working in their workshops. These early workers later emerged as the contractors of the almond-processing industry of Prakash Vihar. They bought small plots in the newly developing areas ofNorth-East Delhi at the Loni Border. This area was Karawal Nagar. At that time, land was extremely cheap in that area ofDelhi. They built small workshops there and brought labour from their home villages by developing a network. Thus, this class of workers which used to work in the godowns and workshops of the big capitalists, emerged as the class of jobbers and contractors. These contractors were generally from the areas of Nalanda,Patna, Jahanabad, and Bhojpur. The workers population of Prakash Vihar is still dominated by the workers belonging to these areas. I have collected interviews of 6 workers from this slum.
Dayanand is 38 years of age and hails from Jahanabad. He came to Delhi in 2006. Before that he worked in Gajadhar in Haryana. Before that he had been working in Bihar. He migrated to Delhi with his family that has his wife and his two children. In Haryana, he did a number of jobs, like truck-driver, helper and construction labour. Presently, he works as an unskilled construction labour. He goes everyday to a nearby “labour chowk” and most of the days he gets some work to do. It generally consists of job of load carrier, construction labour, etc. In course of time, he has developed links with contractors working on such labour chowks who provide him with construction jobs on a more or less regular basis. However, he is not obliged to do these very jobs and free to work somewhere else. He can be considered the part of that huge labour force, which has been called “footloose labour”. Dayanand’s family is involved in the almond-breaking industry. His wife brings bundle of almonds from the contractors which generally weigh 19-21 kg. After removing the cover of the almond, it becomes 17-18 kg. The payment for the processing of one bundle is presently Rs 50. Earlier, it was Rs 40 per bundle. However, in 2008, the almond-workers founded their own union, “Badaam Mazdoor Union”, under the supervision of “Bigul Mazdoor Dasta”, an organization of workers, and initiated a movement for the revision of rates. They demanded that according to the law of minimum wages the rate for the processing of one bundle should be Rs 70. However, due to the intervention of All India Centre of Trade Unions, affiliated with CPI (ML) Liberation, the movement failed to achieve its demand. The leaders of AICTU negotiated with the contractors and fixed the rate at Rs 50, without taking majority of workers in confidence and due to chaos and anarchy the movement collapsed. However, due to the pressure of Badaam Mazdoor Union, the contractors readily accepted a rate revision of Rs 10.
Dayanand’s whole family is involved in this almond-industry and Dayanand himself works as an unskilled construction worker. The total monthly income of Dayanand’s family is somewhere between Rs 3500 and Rs 4000. Dayanand generally succeeds in getting some job as a daily wager 20 days a month which fetches him around Rs 2000 and his family earns around Rs 1500-2000 per month from the almond processing job.
Dayanand does not have a lively relationship with his kinsmen. Some of his brothers have migrated to different places like Mumbai andSurat, while others stay at home and look after cultivation on a small piece of land. This agricultural activity is not sufficient for the survival for the whole family; therefore, the men of family are obliged to work on the farms of other middle and rich peasants. Dayanand hardly goes to village. His life is largely alienated from village and his “backward linkage” is on the verge of total elimination.
Though survival in Delhiis very tough for Dayanand and his family, he has no incentive for going back to his village. His relations with his father had deteriorated and he had migrated from his village. The reason for this was that Dayanand had his own plans for earning his livelihood and he wanted some money from his father, which the latter refused to give. His household was undergoing the process of depeasantization and due to under-paid agricultural labour, most of Dayanand’s brothers also migrated to this or that industrial centre. The whole joint structure of the family collapsed due to deprivation and pauperization and led to migration from that family. The decision to migrate was never made at the family level. Dayanand recalls that the family bonding was destroyed due the economic pressure and everyone was compelled to make a decision. There was no other alternative for survival, than to migrate. Dayanand and his brothers now meet in 2 or 3 years when he goes home or one of them comes to Delhi. Dayanad recollects that this was the story of a lot of families of his village, who had a small piece of land. Most of the poor peasant families could hardly be regarded as “peasant families” just because they own an unsustainable piece of land. The major portion of their income comes either from working in others’ farms or from remittances of migrant members of the family. As Dayanand said “ab gaon mein kuchh nahin bacha hai” (“Now, there is nothing left in the village.”)
Another inhabitant of Prakash Vihar is Rampreet. He is 44 years of age. Rampreet belongs to Nalanda district of Bihar. He came toDelhi 9 years ago. Before that, he used to work inRanchi as a carpenter. When he came toDelhi with his wife and children, he began to work as a carpenter. However, he was not quite successful as a carpenter inDelhi and soon he shifted to Prakash Vihar and together with his family, started working as an almond-breaker. Since then he has been involved in the almond-processing industry as a labourer. He has two sons Govinda and Jitendra. Govinda is 24 years of age, whereas Jitendra is 23. Jitendra is married and has a daughter. Govinda works as a factory-worker and Jitendra works as a weaver.
Rampreet has no land left in the village, though he has a house there. There are some members of his family who have stayed in the village. Rampreet shares a good relationship with them and goes to his village at least once a year. However, there is no economic relationship with the village.
Family of Rampreet has grown into a considerably big unit. However, since apart from children everyone is an earning member, sustaining the household becomes comparatively easier. Intra-family relations have been democratized due to multiple earning members and the whole structure is not headed by one man. Rather, the major decisions are made with discussion and debate within the family. There is a factor of seniority of Rampreet, however, no crucial decision can be imposed on the adult members. Apart from this, there is another factor. Now, within a single household, multiple families are functioning in embryonic forms, though in harmony. At least, there is no such contradiction which can cause the drifting away of these families. Economically, the family of Rampreet is quite organized, though there is certain element of economic decentralization too.
The reason for the migration of Rampreet’s family also was economic deprivation and the discontinuance of the traditional sustenance economy and depeasantization. Rampreet’s family used to own a small farm. With the beginning of commercial agriculture, it became more and more difficult to stand in the competition of market in front of rich peasants and it did not take the family of Rampreet long to take the decision of selling that small piece of land. Most of the adult members of the family migrated with their share of the money with the promise of remitting. Presently, those who stay at home and look after the house, generally the elders of the kin, depend on the money sent by the migrant members of the family.
In case of Rampreet too, the decision to migrate was made by the family as a whole as far as apparent reality is concerned. However, the decision was clearly a response to an economic obligation. The family did not have the privilege to make “strategies of earning” and “diversification of resources”. The economic reality was too surreal to provide such a space. The process of increasing penetration of capital in the traditional economy had led to differentiation of peasantry and depeasantization of a large population of small peasants. The family of Rampreet had fell prey to this very process of the onslaught of capital.
Virender is friend of Dayanand. He hails from Nalanda and migrated toDelhiin 2007. The story of Virender is quite similar to that of Dayanand. Like Dayanand, he too, had worked in a number of other cities. Before coming toDelhi, Virender used to work in Jaipur in a factory. When he came toDelhi, he was unable to find job in a factory and therefore started working as an unskilled construction labour with Dayanand. Virender is 38 years of age and had come toDelhiwith his family. He has a small plot of agricultural land in his village which is being looked after by one of his brothers and his father. However, here also the main source of income is not agricultural production. The main source of income is the money sent by the migrant members of the family. Village cannot provide any meaningful security from the uncertainties of industrial life. It only provides a psychological sense of safety, the feeling of being owner of a piece of land, howsoever small. In concrete sense, this piece of land does not provide any kind of economic security. This fact is well understood by Virender.
Virender and his family members had been working on their farm for livelihood. Some of the members also worked on the farms of others. Later, the agricultural employment in the village declined and it became increasingly cheaper. Cultivation on their own piece of land was not sufficient for the survival of the whole family. Therefore, various members of the family began to migrate to different cities. In this case again, though the decision was made by the family as a whole, however, one cannot deny the presence of agency of individuals. Secondly, the whole decision was shaped by the broader socio-economic forces dominant the countryside ofBiharin the period following the mid-1980s. Therefore, whereas it is quite possible to analyse the whole choice-making process on the plane of the family or the individual, it will be a gross mistake to overlook the class angle involved in the whole process.
Shibu is a young worker, only 22 years of age. His family migrated from Nalanda toDelhi when he was 7 years of age. Earlier, the family used to stay in Sangam Vihar. When Shibu was only a teenager, he began to work as a helper of a plumber and after learning the skill began to work independently as a plumber. He still works as a plumber in the area. Since, the area of Karawal Nagar is still developing and a lots of construction activities are going on there, there is no dearth of work for Shibu. However, the area of Karawal Nagar is a backward industrial area; therefore the payment is not very decent. As a consequence, to meet the requirements of the family, the other adult members of the family are involved in the almond-breaking work. When Shibu fails to find any day job, he also breaks almonds. The permanent source of income of the family is almond-breaking.
Shibu was unable to recall the conditions of the migration of his family toDelhi. However, he was sure of this much that the increasing deprivation and the pressure to repay loans led the family to migrate to the city. They still have a house in the village and go to their village in the festivities. However, the economic link with village has been severed and cultural affinity is the factor which leads the family to village in the festivals.
The families of Brijesh and Ashok came toDelhiin the early months of 2008. Brijesh hails from Nalanda, whereas Ashok is from Jahanabad. Ashok used to live in the Samaypur Badli area of North-West Delhi. He had been working in a factory in Samaypur Badli. Even before Samaypur Badli, he was in Bahadurgarh. He came toDelhiin May 2008. On the other hand, Brijesh is working as a construction labour. Both of these workers are new to theDelhiworld of informal labour. Earlier, they had been working in different areas. Both of them are comparatively young. They also have come toDelhiwith their families. Their story is of broken joint families. In their case, big families broke under the pressure of economic burden and obligations. After the break up of families, most of the young members migrated to various urban industrial centres. There is a multitude of such workers in Prakash Vihar area, who have migrated after the collapse of the structure of joint families and rural networks of economic and social security. Here, the decision to migrate was clearly made on the individual plane; Brijesh tells us that there were a lot of families of small peasants which broke up due to economic deprivation.
Apart from the area of Prakash Vihar, I collected interviews from workers living in the Ambedkar Camp of Jhilmil Industrial Area of East Delhi near Shahdara. The industrial area of Jhilmil is quite different from the area of Prakash Vihar. While the workshops in Prakash Vihar represent a backward industry of almond-breaking which lacks any kind of mechanization of automation, the industrial world of Jhilmil is an advanced industrial world. Copper and Aluminum works dominate the industrial scene of Jhilmil, though there are factories of automobile, cooker, cycle and mechanical spare parts and also some garment factories and printing works.
Most of the workers residing in the Ambedkar Camp are fromBihar. However, the share of Bihari workers is comparatively less than their share in the total working class population in Prakash Vihar. In Prakash Vihar, the share of Bihari workers is almost 90-95 percent, whereas, in Ambedkar Camp the share of Bihari workers is nearly 50-55 percent. Still, they form the bulk of the worker population in Ambedkar Camp. The second largest section is of migrants fromGorakhpur, Basti, Gonda, Ballia, Pratapgarg, Mau, Jaunpur and Azamgarh. These districts together are often called ‘Poorvanchal’. The third largest section is of workers from Madhya Pradesh, who are called ‘Chhatarpuria’. I have collected interview from various workers of Jhilmil of which two are representative.
Kamalesh is a young worker from Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. Though Kamalesh is only 28 years of age, he has worked in a lot of places, likeGujarat, Mumbai, etc. He knows a lot of jobs and currently works as a white-washer under a contractor. He has also worked as an electrician and done factory work too. Kamalesh does not live here with his family. He came toDelhi in 1997. After that, he also worked in other places for brief periods; however, he finally settled down inDelhi. His family is still in Unnao. He is married and has a son. His wife and son live with his father, mother and brothers’ families. The joint structure of the family is sustained, though it has become extremely weak due to internal contradictions. Kamalesh says that he plans to bring his wife and son toDelhi, however, currently he finds it difficult to sustain them here. He remits to his family a small amount. The rent of his room is Rs.700 and he spends at least Rs.1000 on eating and living inDelhi per month. Some of the money he saves, whenever possible and he sends the remaining back home. Kamalesh knows that it is difficult to leave his wife and son in a stumbling joint family structure, which would hardly take good care of them. But here inDelhi, the insecurities are greater and one has to face the very question of existence. So, until and unless, he succeeds in making a firm stand inDelhi, he plans to leave his immediate family in the village.
Kamalesh decided to migrate to city for a better life, as he recalls. The internal tensions of the family and increasing impoverishment contributed in this decision. The decision was negotiated with the family. Though, there was an element of ‘pull’ of the ‘bright city lights’, however, those lights were visible only because the future picture of survival in the village was bleak. Kamalesh recollects, “mere sath ke kaafi log kaam ke liye shehar gaye, lekin jo kheti me jam gaye the, unmein kam log hi shehar gaye.” (“a lot of my friends left for cities in search of work, however, those who got established in agriculture, barely migrated to cities for work.”) Further, he tells that most of the persons who migrated from middle peasant families, generally migrated to better their economic prospects and diversify the sources of income of the family, or, for educational and training purposes. Persons from these families generally do not have the question of survival in front of them and crisis of survival is not the prime mover for migratory decision. There are cultural factors at work also. The reach of television into the villages and the penetration of urban culture and germination of urban dreams among the rural middle class youth also lead to the increased migration from rural areas.
Another migrant worker in Ambedkar Camp was Ashok Gupta. Ashok belongs to Patna district. Before coming Delhi, he had been working in different areas of Gujarat. Initially, he began working in an export garment factory in Wapi. Then he went to Bhuj to work in a steel factory. However, due to various uncertain reasons he came to Delhi in 2008. Ashok is currently working in a steel factory as a loader/unloader. His family is still in the village and lives with his parents and brothers. He goes to village on regular intervals. Ashok migrated from his village due to poverty and crisis of survival. He did not tell the exact story of how his family got economically ruined, yet he alluded to the fact that for poor people, there is no way of survival in the villages. (“dehaat mein gharib aadmi ka gujara nahin hai.”). Ashok’s decision to come toDelhi came easy as his uncle lives in the Ambedkar Camp. His uncle sells vegetables in the colony. Presently, he is living with his uncle. Ashok plans to stay inDelhi are not concrete. Though he is considering going back to Wapi for work, he might stay inDelhi itself, given he finds a job which is sustainable and fit for remitting a substantial amount. Ashok also plans to bring his family to city sometime. However, he is not very optimistic about the prospects to bring his family to city.
Oral history of 6 workers of Prakash Vihar and 2 workers of Ambedkar Camp reveals much about the motives behind migration, class character of migration, assimilation of the migrants in the culture of the urban space, new forms of working class resistance, the question of agency, the contradiction between the forces of capital and the labour, etc. We intend to throw some light on the question of the prime mover behind the decision to migrate; the question of migrants’ assimilation; and, the new forms of working class resistance.
As far as the question of motive or prime mover behind migration is concerned, we have found that there are varied experiences based on the class, caste and regional origins of the migrant. Our experience shows that the factor that seems to be most important in making the migratory decision is the class identity of the migrant. It determines the type and duration of migration. The nine workers whose interviews have been collected migrated due to economic pressures, mostly due to the process of differentiation of peasantry, concentration of land in the hands of few, proletarianization, depeasantization, pauperization of the masses; most of these processes were inaugurated by the penetration of capital in the agricultural sector, decline of the traditional economy and the beginning of full-fledged commercial agriculture. Most of the time the decision to migrate is induced by the objective conditions. The “push” factor should not be defined mechanically; it should not always be linked with the question of material survival; this approach would tantamount to “economic determinism”; however, as far as the case of Bihar is concerned, most of the Bihari migrants inDelhihad been concretely and vulgarly “pushed” out of the village by the forces of capital. Since, ‘class’ has become an out-of-fashion and out-of-vogue term in the social sciences, especially in the period following the linguistic turn introduced by post-modernist currents in the disciplines like anthropology, sociology and history; the factor of class is rarely introduced in the oral history collections nowadays. Sometimes the oral history collections seem to be very selective regarding their questions and subjectivity of the investigator appears to dominate the interviews.
As far as the question of assimilation is concerned, my interviews with the workers of Prakash Vihar and Ambedkar Camp reveal that the nature of assimilation in these two working class settlements was quite different. As discussed earlier, in Prakash Vihar most of the workers are engaged in the almond-breaking industry which is kind of a primitive industry, involving either no form of mechanization or automation, or a rudimentary form of mechanization. Here, the wages are quite low and the living standard is much lower than those living in the Ambedkar Camp. Ambedkar Camp is situated in the Jhilmil industrial area where advanced factories are located. In Prakash Vihar, most of the migrants are those who have no or namesake “backward linkage”. Most of the migrants in Prakash Vihar are from Biharand have migrated with their families. These are the labourers most hard-hit by the onslaught of capital; these were most impoverished of the peasants in villages who could not bear the economic pressures introduced by the penetration of capital in the very first round and got displaced, economically as well as geographically. These workers migrated with their families with the help of the migrants already working under the big businessmen of almond industry in Delhi. Once these families migrated, they either severed their link with the village, or at least their economic link with the village got broken. Since, the migrant families of Prakash Vihar had nominal economic or emotional relationship with their villages they were more assimilated with the city culture of Delhi. They always attempt to retain the fundamental elements of their culture; however, when they plant their culture in the ground of Delhi, it grows in a different way than that in their home villages. It is quintessentially an urban culture; for instance, while passing through these colonies one can hear Birha (one form of Bihari folk music) playing on CD or cassette with modern instruments like guitar, drums and keyboard. The traditional folk music gets modernized. The youth here follows the most modern things in vogue.
The case of the workers of Ambedkar Camp is different from that in Prakash Vihar. Most of the workers of Ambedkar Camp do not live with their families and have left their families back in the village. They regularly go to village and though they do not maintain a strong economic link with village, their cultural relation with the village is still strong. Since their families are still in the village, they remit substantial part of their income. The wages in Jhilmil are much better than that in Prakash Vihar, though they are still insufficient for the sustenance of the worker and sending money back to his family in the village. Almost half of the workers have migrated alone and live in small rooms with at least 3 or 4 room-mates. There are smaller rooms made for the living of one person. The workers of Ambedkar Camp also are quite modernized because they work in a modern industry, they are more educated and they work on advanced machines. They are more modern in terms of their cultural choices and tastes. This is reflected best in their musical taste. For instance, young workers in Prakash Vihar are more fond of Bhojpuri music, though with modern instruments and in an urbanized form; on the other hand, workers in Ambedkar Camp generally listen to Hindi filmi music, that too, modern Hindi film music. However, these are the very workers who maintain a stronger link with the village. The workers of Prakash Vihar are comparatively freer from the nostalgia of village, however, owing to the fact that they work in a primitive industry, their consciousness is less developed. They do have the potential to develop their consciousness with the increasing mechanization and modernization of the almond-processing industry; yet, as far as the present condition is concerned, they can be regarded as a comparatively backward section of the urban working class ofDelhi.
On the contrary, the workers of Ambedkar Camp, despite maintaining a stronger link with the village are politically much more advanced. They are much more conscious than their counterparts in Prakash Vihar. For instance, they are more organized and politically more active. Their choices about available political choices are much more clearly defined, for instance, their electoral choices. They do maintain a “backward” linkage, however, they do not nurture any nostalgia for village and life in the village. Despite naked exploitation in urban industrial centres, they despise the village life. Urban life involves certain degree of democracy as compared to the village life, which often involves caste oppression and other traditional forms of oppression. In cities, despite discrimination against the poor by the state apparatus, the worker cannot be forced to follow certain set of cultural norms and customs. His individuality is freer in city than in the village. The link with the village is due to two reasons. One is the primitive feeling of attachment with land ownership, howsoever small it is. The feeling of being an owner is a false consciousness in the case of migrant workers of various cities because they do not get anything out of that small plot. Moreover, they generally have a house there, with which they are attached psychologically and emotionally. It is hard for them to sell it and settle completely in the city. However, generally with the passage of one of two generations in the city, this emotional link weakens this economically meaningless feeling of land ownership becomes a baggage. There are a lot of families who sold their land and home and settled in the city completely.
The second reason for maintaining a link with the village is that, until and unless the worker establishes himself firmly in the city, he refrains from bringing his family to the city. It is kind of a feeling of insecurity which holds him back from severing all kinds of links with the village. Often, those who stay back provide a social and economic cushion against the shocks of modern urban life. It is, in most of the cases, a contract between those who migrate and those who stay back; however, it would be economic determinism to concede that there are no elements of emotions involved. Yet, as the economic contract ceases to exist, the emotional bonding evaporates gradually; obviously, there are exceptions to this rule. However, my oral history collection shows that this is the general case. Even if the worker maintains this kind of link with the village, he is a modern worker. This must not lead us to conclude that this linkage is due to the “primordeal”, “communal” or “caste” consciousness of the worker. That would tantamount to stopping at the level of apparent reality.
