The Third Handloom Census of India that covered 27,745 villages and 3,336 towns across 440 districts in 29 states enumerated that there were 23.77 lakh handlooms and 43.3 lakh handloom workers in 27.8 lakh households in 2009-10.
Though the number of handllom weavers has declined from 34.7 lakh?in as enumerated by the second handloom census in 1995?to 29.1 lakh in 2010 (table-1) and the weaver households from the 25.3 lakh to 22.7 lakh, the sector continues to be the second largest employment provider in the economy, employing more than 4 million workers, next only to agriculture.
But what makes the census unique is that it has not only collected the data on industry but also built a photo-linked database of all handloom weavers and allied workers, something that the UID project will find useful to tap. The census made innovations in data collection technology by making use of personal assistant digital devices to collect data and photographs in an integrated database.
Handlooms are unique in the sense that they represent a traditional art form that embodies unique skills and diversity specific to different regions of the country. This characteristic is a major reason why the industry has been able to resist the onslaughts of mechanisation and standardisation so representative of the industrial evolution in a fast integrating world. The rich data of the census help bring out some of the more important aspects of this unique industry, including the questions about its survival, given the steady ossification of many other major crafts, and also the penchant of the younger generations to move out of traditional occupations to more remunerative professions. The census found that of the 27.8 lakh handloom households in the country the weaver households were the largest, accounting for 81.5% of the total (table-2). Of the remaining 14.1% households was allied workers households?of workers engaged in processing inputs and products?while 2.9% was households with idle looms and 1.5% was households without no adult workers but engaged only children in the industry.
An offshoot of the traditional nature of the industry is the continuing constraints to full commercialisation of the craft. The numbers in fact show that of the 27.8 lakh handloom worker households, only 53.1% used the loom for commercial operations (table-3). In fact as much as 28.2% of the handloom worker households used the loom for domestic purposes for self-consumption needs. In 15.8% households, the looms were used for both domestic and commercial purposes.
The data on looms also collaborate this phenomenon. Of the 23.8 lakh looms in the country, the looms used for domestic purposes were the most predominant, accounting for 8.9 lakh looms or 37.7% of the total (table-4). The number of looms used for commercial operations was only 6.94 lakh or 29.2% of the total. However, 5.7 lakh looms were used for both domestic and commercial purposes and its share was 24.1% of the total. And 9.1% of the looms, numbering 2.2 lakh, remained idle during the census period (-10).
Another interesting aspect was that only 18.5 lakh households, or 66.5% of the total, possessed at least one loom, the essential tool of the trade (table-5). More than one-third of the total handloom worker households, numbering 9.3 lakh, had no looms. In consonance with the traditional nature of the industry the dominant segment was in the rural sector, with 24.2 households as compared to just 3.6 lakh households in urban areas. And the share of the loom-holding households was also higher in the rural sector. While 69% of the rural handloom worker households had their own looms the share of handloom workers households with their own looms was only 50.4% in urban areas. The lower share of handloom workers households without looms in urban areas would also point to the greater concentration of non-weaving activities like processing in urban centres.
The demographic details of the 43.3 lakh workforce in the handloom industry provide more interesting aspects of the long-term sustainability of the industry. Unlike in the case of many traditional crafts, where the share of young workers is rapidly shrinking, the workforce in the handloom industry is still predominantly young. The share of workers in the 18-35% averaged 49.1%, pointing to the continued importance of the industry for sustaining employment (table-6). And another 4.9 lakh workers or 11.2% of the total were even younger, aged less than 18 years. Thus, more than 60% of the workers in the handloom industry was below 35 years, an enviable record for an industry with a history of a few millenniums.
In contrast the share of the middle-age group in the 36-45 year category was only 20.6% with 8.92 lakh workers while that of the 46-60 year category was even lower at 15.1%. The share of old workers above 60 years was a miniscule 4%, numbering just 1.7 lakh workers.
Significantly, the share of children in the below 18 years age group was marginally higher at 12% in urban areas as compared to 11% in the rural segment. One reason for the large share of the below the 18 years category would be the large share of independent workers who use the young in the family as helpers and interns, both to boost incomes and train them in their traditional occupation. But the marginally larger share of workers below 18 years in the urban sector may also point to the use of child labour to reduce costs.
The gender composition of the workforce is also interesting, the numbers of which are available only for adult workers above 18 years. Of the 38.5 lakh adult workers in the handloom industry, as many as 30 lakh, or 77.9%, were women workers (table-7). The share of women workers was marginally higher at 81.8% in rural areas whereas it was at a much lower 57.6% in urban areas. The doubling of the share of the male workers from 18.2% in rural areas to 42.4% in urban areas would also have to do with the greater commercialisation of handloom weaving in urban centres. The hypothesis is also corroborated by other indicators of the composition of the workforce.
The census data in fact reveals that of the 38.5 lakh adult workers employed in the handloom industry, only 75.6% were weavers and 24.4% were engaged in allied activities like dyeing, finishing, trading and so on. A pointer to the greater commercialisation of the industry in urban areas is the larger share of workers engaged in allied activities. Thus, while the share of adult workers engaged in allied activities was only 22% in rural areas it was a more substantial 37.1% in urban areas. The greater commercialisation on of the industry and accompanying higher wages would have ensured greater male participation in the handloom industry in urban centres as compared to the rural segment where it is still largely bogged down in its far more traditional role.