The textile industry in India comprises of three sectors: the mill, powerloom and the handloom. Of the total textile production in the country, powerlooms contribute 61.32 per cent, mills 3.34 per cent and handlooms 11.28 per cent.
The recent proposal for a change of definition of handlooms offers different things to these different sectors. The powerloom industry, for instance, can now claim the status of handloom, as including one manual process in production is not a difficult proposition. With this small revision, the benefits and budgets allocated for handlooms can be accessed legitimately by the powerloom sector.
The handloom census conducted by the government in 2010 did in fact show a decline in total looms and a reduction of new entries into the sector. This did not, however, motivate officials and policy makers to debate the reasons for the decline. There was no initiative to speak to weaver representatives, co-operatives and other players in the handloom sector to understand the issues and evolve a plan to address the problems. The existing 44 lakh weavers continue to be targeted with the same schemes and welfare measures. Considerable migration from the sector, also evidenced by the census, proves that earlier schemes and measures have not improved their condition either.
The real problem is in the identification of factors affecting production in the handloom industry. There is no sincerity of purpose to understand the concerns from the point of view of that industry. Take the case of infrastructure: it is evident that the needs of a decentralized production like in the handloom industry will have to be specialized. Centralised infrastructure will work only for certain processes, while the rest of the processes have to be handled differently this does not reflect in the design of any of the schemes promoting infrastructure.
It is a fact that the textile sector is not doing well, that exports are declining and India has not been able to take advantage of the declining presence of China in the global textile market. There are multiple factors affecting the Indian textile industry such as allowing duty-free import of garments and failure to curb increasing raw material costs coupled with weak demand from overseas markets due to the global economic slowdown.
The allegation of failure to service large orders in the export market should apply only to the powerloom sector, which plays a key role in textile exports. The role of the handloom industry in blocking achievements of scale in the textile industry is purely imaginary. All the issues affecting the textile industry cannot be laid at the door of handlooms, and redefining the sector to increase the stake of powerloom is a poor solution. It is time that the government put an end to paying lip service to the sector and conducted an impartial assessment of the contribution of handlooms to the domestic market. They need to evaluate the function of handloom in preventing migrations from the rural areas, creating skilled employment opportunities in the villages. Handloom should be supported on its own merits and not as a burden of heritage to be carried into the 21st century.
