The Strike That Never Ended: Memories of the 1982-83 Mumbai Textile Strike and the Resurgence of Labour Politics

Sumeet Mhaskar, O.P. Jindal Global University

Over the last two decades, the erstwhile industrial landscape of modern Mumbai has been transformed into glass-fronted corporate offices, luxury residential complexes, and sprawling shopping malls. These dramatic economic and spatial changes, however, have not erased the memories of militant industrial actions, especially the one that took place between 1982 and 1983. Nearly a quarter of a million textile workers staged one of the longest and most significant strikes in the world that lasted for eighteen months. During the strike, mill workers fought in a united and militant manner against the power of capital and the state. The unified industrial action was brutally suppressed, leading to over 91,000 dismissals. Although the strike ended in defeat, the memories of the militant strike continue to motivate the mobilisation of ex-millworkers across post-industrial Mumbai. The identity of the mill workers as ladhavayya kamgar (fighter/warrior worker) and the recollection of memories of the 1982-83 strike is central to the present struggle of ex-millworkers for housing, compensation, and alternative livelihoods after the factories had closed.

During my field visits in 2008 and 2009, I encountered a peculiar situation. I was gathering information on the textile workers' responses to joblessness following the permanent closure of textile mills between the late 1990s and 2006. However, on numerous occasions, mill workers and other respondents would swiftly shift the discussion to the 1982-83 strike, its leader Datta Samant or the aftermath of that industrial action. Several ex-millworkers enthusiastically shared their experiences detailing how Bal Thackeray’s decision to call off the indefinite strike in November 1981 resulted in mill workers deserting his sabha en masse. Thackeray was the leader of the nativist political outfit, the Shiv Sena, which was known for its close collaboration with the state and capital. From Thackeray’s sabha, they walked straight to Dr Datta Samant’s office and insisted that he lead the strike. In Madanpura, a Muslim ex-mill worker told me that the united resistance during the strike greatly boosted their confidence, making them feel they could even change the hukumat (government). Despite their old age and frailing health, ex-mill workers were filled with electrifying energy when discussing the strike.

The connection to the strike extends beyond mill workers and unions. White-collar and blue-collar workers, writers, poets, artists, actors, social and political activists, schoolteachers, and residents of Girangaon (literally, the “village of mills,” i.e., the city’s working-class district) have all played a role in preserving the memory of the strike. Popular theatre, cinema, and literature have contributed equally to sustaining the awareness of the strike. Many writers, film, and theatre personalities came from mill worker families or grew up in Girangaon, sharing a deep connection with the mill workers’ issues. Over the past two decades, I have encountered academicians who shared their connection to the strike. Since 2006, following the closure of textile mills, references to the 1982-83 strike have continued to influence discussions on the mobilisation of ex-millworkers.

The Mumbai Mill Worker: More than a Labourer

From the mid-19th century to the 1960s, the textile industry was a key player in Mumbai's economy, serving as the principal employer. Textile workers engaged in militant industrial and political action, highlighting ideological contestations within the workforce. Socialists, Communists, Royists, Moderates, Anti-caste Ambedkarites and Hindu supremacists sometimes united against the colonial state and the mill owners, while on other occasions were pitted against each other. Mill workers significantly contributed to the nationalist struggles and organised various militant industrial and political actions in the early 20th century. They also played an essential role in the post-independence period during the reorganisation of regional boundaries along linguistic lines. They took an active part in the Samyukta (unified) Maharashtra movement, advocating for Mumbai’s inclusion as the capital of the state. During this agitation, more than 100 activists lost their lives, the majority of whom were mill workers. After a prolonged struggle, the state of Maharashtra was formed on May 1, 1960, coinciding with International Labour Day. In honour of the martyrs, Hutatma Chowk (Martyrs' Square) was subsequently established.

Despite changes in labour politics, mill workers developed a unique identity through their work in textile mills and active involvement in labour and democratic movements. This identity was shaped not solely by job stability or social security benefits, but by a strong awareness of their rights and entitlements, as well as the ability to assert political protest and confront exploitation. Mill workers participated in strikes concerning wages, bonuses, and improvements in working and living conditions, and played a central role in the city’s political discourse since the late nineteenth century. Additionally, in the villages, mill workers gained a distinct status, with fellow villagers showing great respect for them, viewing them as “men of the world,” due to their experiences in Bombay.

The concerns and challenges faced by mill workers have been expressed through various forms of art, including paintings, literature, theatre, and cinema. A distinct genre known as Kamgar Rangabhoomi (Workers' Theatre) emerged, featuring plays that depicted workers’ everyday experiences, exploitation by capitalists, hopes and aspirations, as well as their struggles and emotional journeys. Additionally, memorials, streets, bus stops, train stations, gardens, and playgrounds bear names that remind the city’s residents of the mill workers and their vital role in the city's social fabric.

Following India's independence in 1947, the establishment of parliamentary democracy saw a rise in the formation of new political parties and the proliferation of new unions associated with them. Through the Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, the ruling Congress party ensured that its union, Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), became the officially recognised union and held exclusive rights to negotiate on behalf of the mill workers. The advent of universal adult franchise in 1950 sharpened two key domains of politics for India's working class, particularly in large-scale industrial centres like Mumbai. The first domain was internal factory politics, where competition and rivalry among unions led to struggles for recognition, negotiations over wages, and organised strikes. The second domain involved workers as part of the electoral constituencies in municipal corporations, state legislative assemblies, and parliament—a vital vote bank that no political party could ignore. Workers exercised their citizenship rights and voted not only for the improvement on working conditions but on broader questions such as housing, education, healthcare, language, caste, and regional identities. While some workers expressed similar political loyalties in both political domains, in most held dual political loyalties that often contradicted on ideological grounds.

Some trade union leaders who successfully engaged in electoral politics brought working-class concerns into legislative bodies, ensuring that attention was given to wages, working conditions, housing, and labour rights in policymaking. The rise of nativist politics by Shiv Sena in the 1960s advocated for the preferential treatment of Marathi speakers in employment, significantly impacting trade union and democratic politics. The state and capital effectively used Shiv Sena’s “sons of the soil” agenda, pitting Maharashtrians against migrants. Its methods of intimidation and violence neutralised the influence of the socialists, communists and liberals. By the mid-1970s, Datta Samant, a medical practitioner turned trade unionist, countered the Shiv Sena by adopting similar confrontational tactics, focusing on economic outcomes and direct engagement with employers and the state, without a distinct ideological affiliation. By the early 1980s, socialists, communists, and moderates had lost sway over the mill workers, who no longer viewed them as a ladhau sanghatana (militant organisations). It is against this backdrop that the historic 1982-83 strike took place.

The 1982-83 Strike

The 1982-83 strike originated from demands for bonuses and wage increases but evolved into a broader struggle against repressive labour practices, emblematic of the quest for workers’ dignity. Unlike the previous strikes, the mill workers approached Datta Samant to lead the strike, who was an outsider to the textile union politics. Despite Samant’s pro-worker stance, most unions opposed his individual-centric approach, which limited the possibilities of collaboration. The Kapad Kamgar Sanghatana (KKS), the textile wing of the communist Laal Nishan Party, was the only union to support and merge with Samant's Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union (MGKU) in 1981. Workers demonstrated remarkable unity across party lines, defying their unions to rally behind Samant while still maintaining their neighbourhood political loyalties. This dual political allegiance has been a characteristic reflected of Mumbai's labour politics, where workers aligned with militant communist leadership in factories but often backed the assertive Shiv Sena in local politics. As one ex-millworker explained, workers chose communists or socialists for their uncompromising stance on factory issues but supported the Shiv Sena's demonstrated ability to confront state and opposition parties in neighbourhood politics.

The strikers sought to dismantle the RMSS monopoly, which was notorious for its corruption, collaboration with mill owners and the state, and hostility towards owners. For six months, workers engaged in unified militant resistance without relying on picket lines. Yet, the state and capital systematically neutralised their militancy through police crackdowns, lathi charges, and arrests under the National Security Act. Despite these challenges, workers organised militant actions. When the police arrested them, they demanded dignified treatment, claiming they were ‘mill workers and not criminals’ who were fighting for the ‘wages of their blood’. In 1983, mill owners brutally suppressed the strike in collusion with state agencies and the RMMS, resulting in the dismissal of over 91,000 workers. The workers blamed their failure on systematic injustices, including police brutality, police protection for RMMS strike-breakers, mafia intimidation, and judicial delays.

The RMMS blacklisted strike leaders and militant workers, leading many to refrain from returning to work due to the humiliation of having to sign statements admitting participation in an illegal strike and would refrain from agitation and not cause trouble in future. The systematic repression aimed to dismantle the ladhavayya kamgar (fighter/warrior worker) identity, which had characterised Mumbai’s militant working class known for their activism in the city. Workers refusing to acknowledge defeat imposed through unfairness declared that the strike never officially ended. The strike's failure reverberated nationally, as Mumbai’s mill workers had historically played a vanguard role in India's labour movement. The failure of the strike not only stripped workers of rights and privileges, but I argue that it signalled a fundamental shift in workers' claims over the city's social fabric, marking the unmaking of kaamgarachi (workers') Mumbai. These changes set the stage for the spatial and economic transformation of Girangaon, ultimately resulting in the erosion of its social, political, and cultural institutions.

Following the 1982-83 strike, mill owners claimed they faced ‘losses’ and sought state approval to sell surplus mill land for real estate development. They argued this would provide interest-free capital for reviving and modernising textile mills and settling worker dues. In 1991, the state sided with mill owners by implementing Development Control Regulations that allowed them to sell the land. However, the profits were not invested in reviving the mills or paying workers. In 2001, the state amended these regulations, further enabling mill owners to close factories and repurpose the land for non-industrial uses, primarily real estate development. Consequently, between 2002 and 2006, most remaining textile units shut down, resulting in the loss of over 90,000 jobs.

Memories of 1982-83 and Mill Workers' Mobilisation in Post-Industrial

After the textile mills closed, mill workers began reorganising in 2006 to demand housing and alternative employment, as outlined in the 2001 Development Control Regulations. Once the mill workers' mobilisation for housing and alternative employment gained momentum, political parties extended their support. The labour organisers drew inspiration from the legacy of the 1982-83 strike and the figure of the ladhavayya girni kamgar (fighter-warrior mill worker), consistently evoking the strike to rally the retrenched workforce. They celebrated the strike as the last major united worker movement in industrial Mumbai, lasting 18 months and achieving legendary status in the city's working-class politics. Various political parties and labour organisations have sought to co-opt this narrative to legitimise their current activities, even when their ties to the historical event are weak or contradictory. Several of these political parties have historically been explicitly opposed to the idea of the strike itself and had opposed the 1982-83 strike and its leader, Datta Samant. Since the strike was never officially concluded, it provided legal and symbolic grounds for workers to claim that their fight had continued since 1982. This created a direct link between past industrial rights and contemporary urban rights.

In preserving this memory, the role of film, theatre, and literature are crucial. Over the past two decades, movies have portrayed the 1982-83 strike either as a backdrop or in passing references. They often depict the strike as stemming from the actions of an honest yet stubborn union leader, alongside a non-negotiable stance that ultimately led to the collapse of the textile industry. These films illustrate how mill owners resorted to using the mafia to undermine the strike, colluding with the political elite to achieve their ends. Additionally, the failure of the strike is shown to correlate directly with the gentrification of former mill areas, which have since transformed into sites for corporate offices, upscale residences, and shopping malls.

The vibrant Marathi theatre has significantly contributed to cultural discourse, particularly through plays that highlight the struggles of mill workers. The Marathi play Adhantar (meaning 'up in the air'), written by the renowned playwright Jayant Pawar, was first performed in 1997 in Marathi and was later adapted into Hindi. The play is set against the backdrop of the failed strike, which caused a delay in wages and dues, as well as uncertainty about the mill's reopening after it had been shut by the owners. It illustrates how these events impact the family members, who face complex challenges and unfulfilled aspirations. Another play that directly addresses mill workers and the working-class district is Ramu Ramanathan’s Cotton 56 Polyester 84. First staged in 2005, it depicts the lives of mill workers after the strike, as well as the gentrification of spaces occupied by textile mills and working-class neighbourhoods. These plays reignited discussions about the 1982-83 strike and its impact on mill workers, as well as the gentrification of the working-class district. Over the past two decades, numerous workers and union leaders have written autobiographies in Marathi, renewing conversations about mill workers and their various struggles. Several prominent Marathi writers have authored novels set in the working-class district where mill workers fought, especially during the 1982-83 strike, which features prominently.

The invocation of the 1982-83 strike memory by the unions also provided moral legitimacy to workers and unions, who contended that their labour had contributed to the city’s wealth and that they had rightful claims to the mill land. During meetings and large gatherings in 2008-2009, this point was emphasised by union leaders. The leaders also argued that the land was granted to the mill owners for operating the textile mills. If the mill owners were eager to make profits by shutting down the factories and exploiting the real estate potential, then even the mill workers deserved their fair share of the profit. By linking the current struggle to the 1982-83 strike, the mobilisation transformed the housing demands from being merely a welfare issue to one of historic worker entitlement. This made it more difficult for politicians across parties to dismiss the claims of mill workers. The consensus also arose because the demands of mill workers did not oppose the interests of the mill owners, as the provisions for mill workers stemmed from the owners' interest in shutting down the factories and exploiting the real estate potential of the mill lands. Moreover, political parties were also eager to claim their share of the profits from real estate development. By supporting the mill workers' demands, they benefited from exploiting the emotional bond workers felt with the 1982-83 strike.

The unions organised workers’ meetings in those very maidans (playgrounds) of Girangaon, the city’s working-class district, which had been hotbeds of mobilisation during the 1982-83 industrial action. The reorganisation of the ex-millworkers holds special significance since ex-millworkers had been dispersed to faraway suburbs of Mumbai, and a section even migrated back to their villages. Moreover, for the first time since the early 1980s, political mobilisation was not restricted to Mumbai city alone but also reached rural areas. Various labour organisers sought to mobilise the ex-millworkers. Although they came together on certain occasions, the coalition remained essentially fragile. Yet, it compelled the government to distribute the first batch of flats in 2012 through a lottery system and charged a subsidised price. The initial flat allocation was a significant victory for the ex-mill workers. The lottery system's distribution weakened political mobilisation. Many ex-millworkers who did not participate in rallies found their names in the lottery, while several who had participated regularly did not receive flats. Some of those who obtained flats attributed it to their ‘luck’. As ‘struggle’ was replaced by ‘luck’, the mobilisation of ex-millworkers diminished. My visits to union offices between 2012 and 2019 showed a lack of enthusiasm among workers. Despite this decline, by 2025, nearly 15,870 of the 98,619 eligible mill workers will have been allocated flats.

A Legacy of Unfinished Business

The ex-millworkers' mobilisation has yielded tangible results. Through ongoing pressure, especially during election periods, ex-millworkers compelled the government to allocate thousands of flats via a lottery system. Although the process has been slow and filled with challenges, it marks a significant victory. The 1982-83 strike is more than just a historical event; it is a living memory that offers a moral and political guide for Mumbai’s ex-millworkers. The legacy of the 1982–83 strike goes beyond immediate economic gains. It fostered a collective memory that shapes identity, drives cultural expression, and supports political mobilisation. It reminds ex-millworkers of their strength and their rightful place in the city. The reorganisation of ex-millworkers in post-industrial Mumbai also shows that even in defeat, a struggle can sow the seeds for future movements. The enduring link from the strike to contemporary struggles demonstrates the power of remembered resistance to rally communities long after the factories have fallen silent.