INTRODUCTION:

The decentralized Indian handicraft industry has played a significant role in the Indian economy. The Handbook of Statistics and Indian Economy (2006) has pointed out the unorganized nature of this industry. Units within them may be registered or unregistered. It includes wood, stone, metal, natural fibre, Papier mache, glass, cane and bamboo, clay/ceramics and textile based soft goods (KPMG, 2013-17, 2017-22). As per The Working Group Report on Handicrafts for the 12^thFive Year Plan (2015), the operations are generally carried out in households with the help of family labor. Artisans or practitionersof the craft may also be hired as per requirements. This industry is known for its hereditary skills.

The manual aspect of the process confers significance on the crafts. As per John (2014), these crafts are embedded in regional and hence cultural as well as ritualistic contexts. Thus they are not homogeneous. Their significance needs to be understood in their cultural settings. In recent times, new techniques like digitalization have been introduced among others. This brings about a complete revamping of products in terms of style, designs and color. The Working Group Report on Handicrafts for the 12^th Five Year Plan mentions that cheap, mass and factory-made products have inundated the Indian market pushing traditional handmade products out of the market. This contributes to their ‘languishing’ status.

This paper is an endeavor to gain a comprehensive view of the factors contributing to the ‘languishing’ status of handicrafts in India in a global context and policies for their revival. This is based on a review of extant literature and theoretical interpretation of that (mainly in terms of globalization and development) from secondary materials, such as books, journals and databases. The researcher primarily seeks to explore the issues faced by the artisans of the ‘languishing’ crafts in a global context. It elucidates the socio-economic significance of handicrafts in India. The focal point of this paper is to outline the reasons for the decline of certain crafts thereby contributing to their ‘languishing’ status. Finally, it highlights the different interventions for reviving them.

To elaborate further, according to the Working group report on Handicrafts for the 12^thFive Year Plan (2015) crafts can be categorized asliving, languishing and extinct. In particular, Languishing crafts are those which are barely surviving despite erosions caused by mechanization and other global forces. Although these crafts may have enjoyed popularity at some point of time, they cease to do so any more. Not only are these crafts practiced by limited numbers but they are also losing their significance. The interest in pursuing this as a profession is waning. (Refer to Appendix 1–List of Languishing Crafts in India). It needs to be mentioned that despite the rich tradition of these crafts, paradoxically some of these crafts are languishing. The decline of these crafts can be explored by comprehending the trajectory of this industry against the colonial and contemporary global backdrop.

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF HANDICRAFTS IN INDIA:

According to the Working Group Report on handicrafts for 12^thFive Year Plan (2015), handicrafts have been identified as the second largest sector of rural employment, the first being agriculture. Thus it has been a major source of livelihood for the rural population especially providingsupplementary income to seasonal agricultural workers.

Handicrafts constitute 1.2 per cent of the world’s market. 40 percent of the handicraft products are consumed domestically. The remaining is for the export market. Though due to the slowing down of the economy there was a slump in 2008, as a result of various governmental operational initiatives, the exports registered a growth of about 20 percent in 2010-11. The following tables as generated by the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts reflect the contribution to exports.

Figure 1–Graphical representation of exports of handicrafts

Source: http://www.epch.in/moreDetails.htm accessed on November 18, 2015

The above figure reveals the increase in exports. USA, UK, Germany, UAE and France are the principle markets for Indian handicrafts. This is revealed in Figure 2.

Figure 2-Country wise share of handicrafts, excluding hand knotted carpets for the year2014-15

Source: http://www.epch.in/moreDetails.htm accessed on November 18, 2015

These crafts tend to be regional/location specific. For example, art metal ware or metal crafts are mainly located in Moradabad in UP. Khurja in UP is known for ceramics pottery. It might not be a particular region but clusters of a few regions together which might be considered as specialized production centres. Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh along with West Bengal and Kerala are famous for bamboo and cane. There are about 7200 clusters in traditional handloom, handicrafts and modern small and medium enterprises (SME). However, despite the richness of the crafts in their socio-economic contexts, certain crafts as mentioned earlier are in the process of decline.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: PROBLEMS OF HANDICRAFTS-SPELLING OUTTHE ‘LANGUISHING STATUS’:

The handicraft sector has been plagued with problems. According to Jena (2010) as the global market has witnessed changing tastes and preferences, the finishing and processing of these products is now done by machines. There is a movement towards better quality mass-produced goods. Very often production work has been outsourced to countries offering artisans lower wages. The export market is dominated by preference for gifts and decorative. India faces stiff competition in the domestic market from the Chinese handicraft industry due to lack of infrastructure and awareness of new technology. The traditional significance of certain crafts like Patta chitra, appliqué work like Chandua of Pipli in Puri, Orissa, Madhubani paintings of Bihar, Kalighat paintings of West Bengal, stone and wood carvings from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan have found their way in international markets. The link between the artisan and the consumer has been eroded by merchants. For example as shown in the study by M. Ciotti (2007), the ‘Chamar’ weaving communityof Manupur in Banaras do not deal with the final customers. In fact the merchants or wholesalers play a pivotal role in bringing the saris to the market.

Bano (2016) further elucidates the nature of unorganized nature of work in handicrafts. This can take the form of absence of formal training and organizations to represent the artisans’ interests. Thus the artisans may have little bargaining power. As most artisans belong to the economically weaker sections, availability of credit poses a problem. They lack access to markets and financial organizations. This has been supported by Ghouse (2012). According to Giorgio and Smith (2000) they are not able to avail the facilities of micro-credit programs. As a result, they may have to resort to distress sales. Very often rural banks are unaware of the handicrafts clusters existing in a particular region. Moreover, the handicraft sector is considered to be a high risk sector as recurrent borrowing at regular intervals may amount to a high cost for the banks. Local traders or middlemen exploit them by providing them funds at high interest rates. They also function as intermediaries in the input and supply chain. Hence artisans are dependent on them for the sale of products as well.

Liebl and Roy (2003) have pointed to the failure to adapt to new markets as a contributing factor to the ‘languishing’ status of crafts. The changing consumer tastes are reflected in preference for chrome leather, synthetic textiles and earthenware which have pushed out vegetable tanned leather, hand-woven cotton fabrics and plastics. The organized industrial sector reaps in the benefits of aggressive promotional measures and financial incentives Lack of knowledge about updated technology and other developments coupled with resistance on their part to incorporate new changes aggravates the issue. The withering away of the craft and its ‘identity’ compels artisans to migrate to urban areas and even work as unskilled labour.

According to Deepak (2008), a fundamental issue which can be addressed is that of the Intellectual Property rights. The determination of the ownership of the designs can be a problem as the artisan is less equipped to protect the creative innovation. To elaborate, copying is not necessarily considered to be adversely impacting the artisan. If copying succeeds in improving the quality and finding its way to the elite urban market, it can in fact contribute to sustaining livelihoods. However, it can deprive the original producer of his/her share in rewards.

In order to further comprehend the problems of ‘languishing’ crafts in a global context, it is imperative to understand the process of ‘globalization’ and to proceed thereon by applying theoretical perspectives related to globalization and development.

W.W. Rostow’s (1960) Modernization Theory argued that for development, low incomecountries need to adopt new technologies and hence abandon traditions as the latter impede economic development. Economic growth traverses through various stages. The traditional stage characterized by low savings and fatalistic outlook gives way to the economic take-off which starts with more savings and investments. Countries approach a stage of technological maturity and then high mass consumption. Thus they enter a stage of proper development. The dependency theorists like Andre Gundre Frank (1966) emphasize the exploitation of the low-income countries by the wealthy ones. The multinational corporations with their base in wealthy countries exploit the small scale industries where their work is outsourced. The latter are exploited for cheap labor and raw materials. Therefore the low-income countries are ‘misdeveloped’. In other words it can be considered as ‘development of underdevelopment’. Wallerstein’s (1974) World Systems theory viewed globalization as being synonymous withthe expansionary trends of world capitalism. It looked at the world being organized hierarchically along the core or the powerful and developed centers of the system (originally comprising of Western Europe and later expanding to include North America and Japan. These forcibly subordinated the peripheral regions (which included Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe).

Herbert Schiller (1976) who introduced the term ‘cultural imperialism’ shows the dominanceof multinational corporations in a global world. ‘Mc Donaldization of society’ (based on Max Weber’s ideas of rationalization) as highlighted by George Ritzer (1993). He outlines the features of Mc Donalds style of operations which have come to dominate the entire society.¹These features are observed and emphasized in every aspect of society. Somewhere this generates ‘cultural imperialism’ with the developed countries dominating and controlling the developing ones. Ritzer (2003) further analyzes globalization in terms of “globalization” or centralized tendencies and “glocalization” focusing on powerful local actors. There are two points of view which emerge- one being that local products can move in the world-wide market and, secondly, to sustain oneself, there might be infiltration and hence dilution of the original forms. The researcher would specially like to use this as a central point in analyzing the ‘languishing’ crafts and their attempts at survival.

Against this theoretical understanding, the researcher elucidates the ‘languishing’ status of handicrafts and hence the issues that plague the handicraft industry in the context of the global-local influence. According to Bal and Dash (2010) despite the fact that handicrafts are produced in less developed countries, there may be a demand for them in developed countries. The production work may be outsourced to peripheral areas. The availability of cheap manufactured goods has time and again destroyed and perhaps wiped out the local handicrafts. This also shows that under the impact of the western hegemonic forces, traditional values are being eroded. Another trend is that in order to survive, crafts struggle to adapt to western standards and hence become ‘commoditized’. For example, the Chandua makers bring about changes in the appliqué work for these reasons. Similarly, low cost products from the Chinese companies have invaded into the Orissan market. Using advanced technology, they are able to replicate designs from other countries. According to Osmond (2010) manual designs have been overtaken by computerized ones. Globally, consumers now have access to regional products. This has been facilitated by e-promotions. Countries like U.S. and Europe can outsource production work to China. Vietnam and India have also emerged as an important destination for outsourcing. Artncraft (2011) has shown that multinationals inundating the rural Kerala markets with hi-tech marketing has resulted in shifts towards factory products. Bhattacharjee (2012) has shown that small enterprises in and around Tripura have entered into global processes by means of contracts.

In the light of the above explanation, the researcher would like to question whether a market-based approach can serve to mitigate the problems and improve the situational context in which the artisans are embedded. This approach embarks on fusing existing skills with new designs to ensure quality products. It also emphasizes greater outreach into the markets capitalizing on tourism and investments made by the corporate sector. Strategies also seek to provide latest technologies to this sector. The researcher notes that it is imperative to understand the craft completely in terms of its context before administering the intervention. Proper need assessment, establishment of Centers, Institutes and clinics, training and development programs can be undertaken. As mentioned by Kapur and Mittar (2014), design experts have interacted with MSME’s (Micro Small and Medium Enterprises) like the one with NID (National Institute of Design), Ahmedabad. However, there is a lot of emphasis on branding and packaging rather than the craft in its pure form. Efforts have involved short-term projects involving student-artisan interface. The artisan only passively receives new design inputs. The point of concern is that the artisan may still lack the confidence in his ability to design as the latter is an inherent attribute whilst these are external interventions. There has to be an effort on the part of the artisans to map their problems that impede their exposure to markets.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion the researcher would like to state that the issues related to the ‘languishing’ crafts need to be analyzed against a theoretical backdrop. This facilitates an understanding of the status of these crafts and the strategies adopted by them in order to survive. The global-local link not only highlights their problems but also helps in questioning whether design interventions can be considered as a solution. The effectiveness of an intervention is contingent upon a proper socio-economic analysis of crafts in their respective contexts. The purpose of the intervention needs to be outlined whether in terms of the preservation of the cultural/symbolic value of the crafts, whether for documentation and for what purpose and/or whether to create sustainable livelihoods. It is important to understand the cultural or ritualistic significance to protect, preserve and transmit the traditions. In other words a holistic approach which looks at the existing socio-cultural organization of the craft within the geographical context has to be looked at. From a socio-economic standpoint, the preservation of the artisanal skills is imperative to their survival, identity and continuity of the cultural heritage.

END NOTES:

1 McDonalidization of society incorporates organizational principles in terms of efficiency, calculability (calculated plans), uniformity (availability of same products everywhere in the world), predictability and control through automation of equipment (cooking food at fixed temperatures for set lengths of time). Thus speed, convenience and standardization have brought about changes in cooking styles, relationships and variety.

REFERENCES:

1. Appadurai, A. 1990. ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’, in M. Featherstone (ed.): Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity: ATheory, Culture and Society. London: Sage.

2. Art Craft. 2011. ‘Art Industry Overview’, artncraft.indiabizclub.com; Accessed October 30, 2015 at www.artcraft.indiabizclub.com/info/art_craft_industry_overview

3. Bal, R.K. and M.Dash. 2010. ‘A Study on Factors Determining Buying Behavior of Handicraft Items–With Reference to Handicrafts of Orissa’, IUP Journal ofManagement Research, 2(2):24-34.

4. Bano, Razia. 2016. ‘Role of Handicrafts in Economic Development: A Case Study of Carpet Industry of India’, IRA- International Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(3): 512-525.

5. Basu, Soma. August 14, 2005. ‘The Carpet Makers’, The Hindu.

6. Bhattacharjee, S.2012. ‘E-Business connecting Handicraft of Tripura to Globalization: An Entrepreneurial Opportunity’, Zenith International Journal ofBusiness Economics and Management Research, 2(1).

7. Ciotti, M. 2007. ‘Ethno-Histories Behind Local and Global Bazaars: Chronicles of a Chamar Weaving Community in the Banaras Region’, Contribution to IndianSociology, 41(3): 321-354.

8. Deepak, J Sai. 2008. ‘Protection of Traditional Handicrafts under Indian Intellectual Property Laws’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 13: 197-207.

9. Desai, A. R. 1948.Social Background of Indian Nationalism.Mumbai: PopularPrakashan.

10. Edmond De Rothschild. 2013. Annual Report

11. Executive Outlook. 2006. ‘Sales and Marketing Management’s Performance’, News Letter, Vol. I.

12. Frank, Andre Gundre.1966.The Development of Underdevelopment. Boston: NewEngland Free Press.

13. Gadgil, D.R. 1942.The Industrial Evolution of India in Recent Times. London:Oxford University Press

14. Ghouse, S.M.2010. ‘Indian Handicraft Industry: Problems and Strategies’, International Journal of Management Research and Review, 2(7): 4-7.

15. Ghouse, Suhail M. July 2012. ‘Indian Handicraft Industry: Problems and Strategies’, International Journal of Management Research and Review, 2(7): 1183-1199.

16. Ghouse, Suhail M. And Javed Aslam. 2011.’Global Recession-Impact on the Indian Handicraft Industry’, International Journal of Business Swot, IV(1).

17. Giddens, A. 1990.The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CT: Stanford UniversityPress.

18. Giorgio, B. and C. Smith (Ed.). 2000.‘American Express and ATA: Partners inIndia’, Aid to Artisan News, CT.

19. Handbook of Statistics and Indian Economy. 2006. Bombay: RBI

20. Ho, Y-M. and D. Huddle. January 1976. ‘Traditional and small scale cultural goods in international trade and employment’, Journal of Development Studies.

21. http://www.epch.in/moreDetails.htm

22. Jaitly, J. The Craft Traditions of India. New Delhi: Luster Press.

23. Jalal, D.S. 1991.Industrial Entrepreneurship in Small Scale Industries. Agra: AnmolPublications.

24. Jena, P.K. 2010.‘Indian Handicrafts in Globalization Times: An Analysis of Global-Local Dynamics’, INDECS, 8(2):119-137.

25. John, Suja. July 2014. ‘A Study on the role of Tourism in Promoting Arts and Crafts- A Case Study of Channapatna Toys”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Social Sciences (GB14 Chennai Conference).

26. Kapur, Harita and Suruchi Mittar. October 2014. ‘Design Intervention & Craft Revival’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4 (10):2250-3153.

27. Kathuria, S. Oct. 4, 1986. ‘Handicrafts Exports: An Indian Case Study’, Economicand Political Weekly, Vol. XXI, No. 40.

28. KPMG. 2013-17, 2017-22. Human Resource and Skill Requirements in the Handlooms and Handicrafts Sector. retrieved from http://www.nsdcindia.org/sites/default/files/files/Handlooms-Handicrafts.pdf accessed on November 29, 2015.

29. Liebl, Maureen and Tirthankar Roy. 2003. ‘Handmade in India: PreliminaryAnalysis of Crafts Producers and Craft Production’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(51/52): 5366-5376.

30. Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Working Group Report on Handicrafts for 12^th Five Year Plan, retrieved fromhttp://planningcommission.gov.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wg_handi1101.pdf accessed on October 30, 2015.

31. New Kerala. 2009. ‘Indian Handicrafts Sales Rise 5-Times in October, Thanks to E-Marketing’, retrieved from http://www.allvoices.com/tags/ministry-of-textiles

32. Norman, M.S. et al. 2009.Effective Small Business Management, An EntrepreneurialApproach. London: Pearson Education.

33. Osmond, V. 2010. ‘How can Information Teechnology Change a Business?’,eHow, retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/facts_6921902_technology-influence-business_.html accessed on October 30, 2015.

34. Rao, R. 1979.Small Industries and the Developing Economy in India. New Delhi:Concept Publishing.

35. Report on ‘Cultural Mapping of India under UNESCO’s Programme on Cultural Industries and Copyright Policies and Partnerships’, New Delhi: Indira GandhiNational Centre for the Arts (date not available). Retrieved fromhttp://ignca.nic.in/UNESCO_Report.pdf accessed on November 1, 2015.

36. Ritzer, George. 1993.The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Newbury Park, Calif: Pine ForgePress.

37. Ritzer, George (Sept. 2003). ‘Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization/and Something/Nothing” in Sociological Theory. 21(3):193-209

38. Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization. Social Theory and Social Culture. London: Sage.

39. Rostow, W.W. 1960.The Stages of Economic Growth, A Non-Communist Manifesto.London: Cambridge University Press.

40. Schiller, Herbert I. 1976. Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press.

41. Vadakepat, Vanaja Menon and Faisal Al Khateeb. 2012. ‘Globalizing RuralMarkets: Evidence from Handmade Traditional Product Markets’, Global Journal ofBusiness Research, 6(4):35-43.

42. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The modern World System I: Capitalist Agricultureand the Origins of the European World – Economy in the Sixteenth Century. NewYork: Academic Press.

43. World Bank. 2002. ‘IFC Supports Women Artisans in Asia”. In Development News: The World Bank’s Daily Webzine. http://www.worldbank.org/developmentnews/stories/html/051402a.htm

APPENDICES:

Appendix 1: List of Languishing Crafts in India

· Basket making in South Tripura District, North-East India practiced by clan groups of the Halam tribe

· Cele Mandari, Lachue, Dohdu in the villages of Kullu, Chamba and Shimla

· Patha ki Kala by Brahmin women in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh for upper castes (Thakurs)

· Jewellery Making in Mizoram

· Bamboo caps in Mizoram, North-East India

· Maktbi or Bamboo smoker pipe in South Tripura district

· Risha or breast cloth in South Tripura district

· Bridal Palanguin in West Tripura district

· Carrying basket in South Tripura district by Noatia tribe

· Textile weaving, South Tripura district

· Puanpuri or blanket making, Mizoram

· Lungwin/Lukhum or textile fabrics in Manipur by Anal tribes

· Bark fabrics apparel in Meghalaya by Garo tribes

· Pottery in Meghalaya by Pnour Khasi tribes

· Puandum or Brides skirt in Mizoram

· Basketry in Mizoram

· Sculpting, carving and forging of Bhuta icons in Udupi, Karnataka

· Kumbarike traditions or pottery in Udupi district, Karnataka

· Dhokra metal castings, Orissa

· Apatani ornaments in Arunachal Pradesh

· Cane Blouse making by Hill-Miri tribe in Aurunachal Pradesh

· Cane head-gear in Arunachal Pradesh by Adi tribes

· War coats by Idu Mishmi tribe in Arunachal Pradesh

· Shield (Rhino skin) in Lohit district, Arunachal Pradesh by Khamti tribe

· Jewellery by Digaru Mishmi tribes in Lohit district, Arunachal Pradesh

· Wood –work in Nagaland by Naga tribes

· Stone urns by Nagas

· Bead work by Konyak Naga

· Pottery by Konyak tribe, Nagaland

· Sonakong or Log-drums by Nagas

· Takkar or iron choppers by Raiang tribe in South Tripura district

· Wood carving in Sikkim by Drukpa tribe

· HoHo KHo or female dress by Drukpa tribe in Sikkim

· Pokho or Men’s Dress in Sikkim by Drukpa tribe

· Red cane tail by Apatam tribe in Arunachal Pradesh

· Zin or carpet making by Kagate tribe in Sikkim

· Kathar kam or wood carving in Assam by Assamese Hindu caste

· Sunar Kam or jewellery in Assam by Sunari caste

· Hand made pottery in Assam by Hira (Assamese Hindu) caste

· Kahor Basan or bell metal work in Assam by Kohar (Assamese Hindu) caste

· Weaving in Arunachal Pradesh by Wanchs and Nocse

· Pottery by Nocte and Adit tribes in Arunachal Pradesh

· Leather bags in Subausini district, Arunachal Pradesh by Nishi tribe

· Tadak or neck pendants in Arunachal Pradesh by Adi tribes

· Zic-zero or head bands by Apatani tribe in Arunachal Pradesh

· Chambal Rumal of Madhya Pradesh

· Batik printing of Goa

· Thanka paintings of Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh

· Dhokra craft of Andhra Pradesh

· Thewa of Madhya Pradesh

· Straw picture of Kerala

Source: Report on ‘Cultural Mapping of India under UNESCO’s Programme on Cultural Industries and Copyright Policies and Partnerships’, New Delhi: Indira GandhiNational Centre for the Arts (date not available). Retrieved fromhttp://ignca.nic.in/UNESCO_Report.pdf accessed on November 1, 2015.

Received on 13.07.2018 Modified on 16.08.2018

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(4): 849-854.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00141.9