Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that though various modes of civil society activism, serve an immediate relief to workers however it surreptitiously works as a safety-valve to prevent the accumulation of labour unrest.

Paper long abstract:

With the change of waves in global politics and the rise of populist/authoritarian government, the nature of civil society/ civic leadership has also transformed. Not only has Civil society taken an invincible role (Hardt 1995) but it has also become a potent force in manoeuvring the institutional state apparatus of the postcolonial State (Gupta 2012). In my research on the modes of negotiations among Casual labourers in the Kanpur leather factories, for instance, one finds that the precarity of work, lack of forums for collective bargaining/unions and cumbersome institutional arbitration sees the coming up of three modes of civil society activism. Firstly, the cumbersome labour laws had made formal negotiation an economically unviable reality for the aggrieved workers. However, a battery of lawyers touted as a civil society, then comes up to fight the case on a fixed percentage. The second mode of civil society activism sees local leaders or strongmen act as mediators between factories and workers for alleged monetary share. The third form of civil society comes props up when certain factory owners collectively form an organization and act as an intermediary between management and workers. However, I would argue that these modes of civil society activism, though, renders an immediate relief to workers yet it surreptitiously works as a safety-valve to prevent the massive labour unrests. Further who adopts which route to negotiate is vastly dependent on the networks and social relations that channelise employment opportunities and also facilitate grievance redressal mechanisms (Desai 2017).