Fashion perspectives

​

So here comes the Handloom day and we see celebrities, politicians, craft revivalists patronizing, praising, saluting and respecting handloom weavers with a hashtag #Iwearhandloom #wearhandloom. Now let us take a look at the untold (rather least told) side of the handloom story.

​

Women in Handlooms:

The percentage of women working in handloom sector is higher than men, but the power dynamics of male and female in handloom production need to be analysed. Predominantly who owns the loom, who is the decision-maker, who weaves, who does surface ornamentation, who is kept confined to the lower tasks, all these are questions to be addressed. The handloom industry has not challenged the traditional roles of the gender for its survival. Here is an article dealing on the gender biases and issues in handloom industry.

While on one side we see women wearing handloom receive respect and authority, on the other side there are the women workers and artisans of the handloom industry who are working for meager incomes and cannot afford a handloom saree of their own.

​

Caste in handlooms:

Many craft revivalists, academicians profess that caste is one of the important factor for the survival of the handloom and handicrafts in India. Yes it is a disgraceful truth and we should be ashamed of it. As caste determines the occupation of a community, the weaver community is expected to be a weaver community despite the hardships. Expecting a weaver’s son to continue weaving in order to keep up the tradition, is the most oppressive and regressive thought. The government in its handloom report of 2015 says that keeping ‘the skilled labour within this segment is a challenge’. Under the guise of the term ‘skilled labour’, the government tries to confine the people to their traditional occupations. It, in a way, questions the weaving communities moving to other occupations as they find it difficult to make ends meet. The existing weavers are exploited by the middle men, suffer from several health issues, the ownership of the product is not theirs, they have merely been reduced to slaves of the government and designers. In spite of all this, expecting their family to keep up the tradition is the worst we can think of.  

There is also a correlation between caste and the type of fabric produced, for example handlooms which are of finer quality and which has an export market are in the hands of a relatively upper caste, while coarse fabrics have been woven by the lower castes. The lower castes were forced to weave their own clothes, because of the oppression they had to face among the weaving communities and market was kept totally out of their reach. So they neither had the opportunity to sell nor buy. Even now, the crafts that many NGOs, individuals, craft revivalists celebrate belong to the upper section of the weaving community pyramid. It is necessary to understand which community owns a jacquard loom, a dobby loom, who are the silk weavers, cotton weavers, coarse cotton weavers, who are the middle men, who is involved in dyeing and washing. The caste structure has systemically limited the resources and market to the lower caste weavers. The handloom industry is not inclusive.

 

The bourgeoisie hobby:

Craft revival has become a bourgeoisie hobby. In England, the upper class women engaged in the hobby of collecting exquisite crafts and fabrics. It is no different here. Adorning, show casing their hobby and passion of handloom, handicraft collection gives power, authority and status under the guise of concern for the art and artisans.

​

Philanthrocapitalism in handlooms:

The philanthropic society in handloom involves the designers, NGOs who repeatedly claim that they provide work to handloom artisans and help in sustainable development. I would like to quote Polsky, ‘The aim of the philanthropic societies is not to provide genuine solutions to poverty’, Nickel and Eickenberry, ‘they promise to relieve the inefficient state of its responsibility and begin taking on roles previously reserved for government’, by doing so they limit the resources and market to the people concerned.  

​

‘Tradition’, ‘Heritage’, ‘Culture’:

Handlooms and handicrafts have always been associated with nationalist terms like ‘tradition’, ‘heritage’. ‘culture’, etc. Designers flaunt their ‘traditional’ designs on International and national fashion shows, boast their sympathy and concern for the handloom artisans. They sell their ‘exquisite, traditional, Indian heritage’ creations to the luxury segment, exploit the artisans and turn them in to slaves of capital, promising to provide better living conditions. The Indian designers have been time and again claiming to revive traditions, make artisans lives better, but is there really a visible change or improvement in the lives of the artisans? The answer is no. It is in fact becoming worse. The designers, Craft enthusiasts need the impoverished faces of the artisans and workers to sell their products in the name of ‘sustainability’, ‘tradition’, ‘heritage’.

 

On this Handloom day, I ponder upon the question, is it really necessary to save handlooms with its deficiencies, social hierarchy and skewed economics. 

 

References:

The World of the Weaver in Northern Coromandel, C.1750-c.1850, P. Swarnalatha

Luxury Indian Fashion Tereza Kuldova

https://scroll.in/article/813688/iwearhandloom-why-indias-women-weavers-dont-wear-handloom