Deadwood and paternalism: rationalizing casual labour in an Indian company town

Abstract

This article is based upon ethnographic research in the Indian company town of Jamshedpur, in the Tata Motors and Telcon companies. I relate the local shift towards casual labour since the 1990s to managerial discourses that rationalize this development. I argue that whilst flexible accumulation may represent a global transformation of employment regimes, the local implementation of this process relies upon a discursive continuity with the past. Referencing a historical language of cultural poverty, predominantly Bengali managers in Jamshedpur continue to claim paternal authority over their mainly Bihari employees, despite no longer fulfilling their traditional ‘parental’ roles vis‐à‐vis the provision of permanent employment. In the latter sections of the article, I discuss the managerial spectre of inefficient permanent workers; ‘deadwood’ whom it is perceived that casualization can prune from the workforce. I argue that whilst permanent employees may exhibit less commitment to the work process than their casual counterparts, their presence on the shop‐floor suggests continuity with the company town ideal and forestalls resistance among casual workers. Far from disembedding labour from social relations, neoliberal employment regimes in Jamshedpur exploit company town paternalism and cultural prejudices.

Company and contract labour in a central Indian steel plant

“…Gone too are the days when it was a realistic aspiration for that daily-wage worker's son to get a regular job in the plant. The situation of Bhilai contract labourers is quite different from that of the cheap flexible workforce that Sanchez (2012) has recently described for the Tata truck factory in Jamshedpur. While the latter are overwhelmingly the 'wards' (usually the sons) of existing workers who serve as long-term 'apprentices' in the frustrated hope that the company will eventually honour its promise of appointing them to a permanent post, the former can have no such expectations.…”

On Precariousness and the Ethical Imagination: The Year 2012 in Sociocultural Anthropology

“…Indeed, if “a defining feature of contemporary capitalism is the corporate response to critique” (Benson and Kirsch :462), then a “human economy” has begun to declare itself from unlikely vantage points as well. Anthropologists have critiqued these trends in accounts of how a giant open‐pit mine in Indonesia (which dumps 160,000 tons of tailings into the ocean every day) sponsors Paolo Freire–inspired participatory‐development projects that promote organic pesticide‐based farming and composting—an absurdity not lost on its participants (Welker ); of how corporate claims to social responsibility (Benson ; Rajak ) and cultural and social “depth and connectedness” (Rogers ) are a means to forestall criticism and protect markets; of how the casualization of labor in an Indian company town is legitimized through evocations of a dwindling corporate paternalism (Sanchez ); and about how Nestlé's strategy of selling cheap instant noodles to the “bottom of the pyramid” poor, some of whom are beginning to wean their babies with the product, supposedly lifts them out of “poverty and desperation” while also turning corporate profit (Errington et al ).…”

“…Yet their shared use of the term does point toward our increased attunement to how a set of factors, including increased economic uncertainty (Cho ; Holt Norris and Worby ; A. A. Johnson ; Prentice ; Razsa and Kurnik ; Sanchez ), the loss of state (and corporate) provisioning (Adams ; Hamdy ; Holt Norris and Worby ; Mains ), and “massive violence, marginalization, and injustice; environmental devastation and industrial recklessness; stunning hubris and shrill ignorance” (Fortun :459) have eroded not just labor and the state but also the possibility of life itself. Precarity, in short, is a shorthand for those of us documenting the multiple forms of nightmarish dispossession and injury that our age entails.…”

Capitalism, Violence and The State

“…The Jungle Raj discourse which builds upon these troubling facts is essentially a provincialising one, which argues that many of Bihar and Jharkhand's problems in this regard are both a symptom and expression of a localised culture of violence. As was frequently articulated to me by metropolitan Indians and the mainly Bengali management cadre of local Tata industry, Biharis and Jharkhandi Adivasis had violence and sectarianism in their blood (Sanchez 2010). The region's problems with crime were therefore as much a matter of passion as they were of planning, and as such were liable to resist the well meaning authority of central government.…”