WP242 - Centre For Development Studies

H R N T E X :
6n Economic 4ppraisal
Hridut Eapen
Centre f o r Developrwnt Studies
Thiruuananfhapurau
Sept e9ber. 2991.
Most
~overnments in Yhird
countries have
dorld
promoted cciopsrati ves i n th+? ?t-adit iunal sector a
with
view
e
to
disecanomiesi
ovarcoming -ihe
ctf
o+
activa3y
the
economy
srna1,l
size.
~ h a r a c t a r i s e da-;.J
' ths9e s i e c t ~ r sA!-@ by numerous small producers at
of' t r a d e r s
t h e mercy
cwparative
form
b a t h ir.1
wpears
orgaisi sat i o n
of
patentiel S G ~ increased products on by
and
manager1 a: prabl ems
number of sludaes have
and output markets;,
t h e input.
a+ horizontal
to hold
a
tremendous
overcoming t h e
technical
integration.
However a
s h a m t h a t c o n t r a r y t o expectations.
the
performance! of mo3t e 0 ~ 3 ~ e rve5
~ t ii n particular those initiated by
the state ha3 Seer: rather disntal'
to
be
tt?r tendency
,kowarclss
bui-eaucratlc skrurture w i t h
.
R major causal f a c t o r appears
impasition
a
state
type
p o s s i b l e political interference,
mast such caoperativea d i s t a r ~ r i n gthem .from
aficcts t h e i r
of
t h e i r members, which
terms of motavation
f u n r t i i a n i n g both i n
or!
as a l v c
increased nvsrhead cu.sts.
The: present study is a l s o ah enquiry i n t o the +unctitrr~lrii:o i
a
-
statc'sponsore6 cooperative s o c i e t y
primarily on arl scbnornf c analysis, i t
Cinding.
for
An
and though cur
does corrabora.ke thc
obviaus p a l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n
rsstr'ucturing
cooperatives
to
focus i z
t h e n would- b e
improve
5Lcl.e
{.is& o e w G
thei :- woi..?ing.
t h i s c o n t e x t the collectibn a+ essays i n DuW.
and
B. S.
Baviskar
(ad)
%D!a-.- -St~ares~
~;Q.wR.@c*L~
i-~~~i~r!~d~.f3~r~eX4.evel~~!m~n.t~,
DUP De I. h i , 1 Ci 88.
See i n
kttwood
si nca
tiowev2r
str.uctur.es
th i:5
waul d 6 n\;.;1
the
broxjening
and
have n o t
orqanisati one, we
at? r ndepth sf,~vi'vof e!<
isting
;
:
':
.i
-2
J
3?.tsempt e d t k e
1
.
t , ~ t . + + : - *:I.!
L.
apex
:key,
bcit merely
G:
..
,
indicated
i n whier'~ i t
the ways
.i-r!t- ,:'clnctior~ingof
irrcpi1.1q95
The eral la S t a t e Handlourn W&avers' Caunursti\..c: 3ociety
Ltd.
(hereaqter H a n t e x ) was 5et up b y the % v e : - n e i ? i o!: tlcr ala in 1961
as
body w i t ? \ the
an apes
o ~ j e c . t . i v eof
i n d u s t r y i n t h e s t a t e a n aoound
continuing losses 9ar- t h e past
organislrrg the handloom
commercial
drjradr rtr so despite considerable
a n d i ts i n a b i 1 i t y
f inanci b l support g ~ v e n b y t h s Government
d i scharye
i t5
cause far
I.
The pi-abIi*m
to puskt Lhrr,.t.\gh
i . c l l y in the .Failure of Hantex
rii
at. iw> i !.+?t-
b353
t
i
he.r?dlcc;~;ic l o t h sii+f i c i e n t l y .
ef-Fortc. !-ti do so,
5
.
:;
baiifr7t. 2 . : ~
mar'C:et~nqsL~-ucLuT'u,,
!*!A
produce t h e dc-sirec
5
. ,
. . ( . r i ~ c vi ~e ~>ale+
~~i
ii:!~!~'!.sn
.
2
of
cloth.
5 1-1
.
n<)yt-a%.ai.~s:jta
cotnmi t ker': pr Ocu~-ei!tat72; LGA
pracuretncnt as
iiccun~ulatifiy
1 c l r ' ~ r i y abpsa:'
m,iri::ef,xrtq
L ?
1os;=d~. i
to be:
straf:i-\q?
L!
iL....
:: w a y
I
:
.
some
rii' rw.Jucinq
the
ti3
up i tr;
The .. consequent st:ork
ei:tent
by
a
socially
to a
cut back
in
casts an
the 4 ace
of
i n w i t a b l y lad
(31-1
policy, did
ccrntrary by pushing
sales side
:;a> the absence
i.r.ik5.j
Its
x ? . s y c4er.c err b u i 1 dirtq up an elaborate .
~ - ~ v e r k c a dc o s t s , ~ . 3 i ! t ~ ~ r : . i ! . L t i i .kk~-.tgrab1 ~ f i .
p il irig
ta
sssi sti ng -primary weavers
iiocie'kicr s a t i s i : . e c t o r i i y creates serious
coopet-ative
CQriCerl
.;ur~c.kiar! of
priatary
~ & w e v c r ,Its
basis.
of a
t h e conc,tra~nts
well-thaught
uut
reuri enti ny the production p a t tc)r.t-i
rrpp%ers
.to be:
(a> i t s a m
dynamics
growttr
r3.F
an apex
.
bw-eeucl-ati c.. .,adna
mr&mis&tion acquf r ing a
a+
s ~ t . ~ +ve
t i
structurej
and tb) tha'grawing debt. bkrdazn, .tzrtdcug.i:ak~i-ito a f arqu e x t a n t by
The 'st,udy is avgnniswd irs
',
psi-tdkul~r tire
..
.
of dues,
nu&payrnen'.
..
.
.
i r i iv2h:i.
...
&nd trace
.
the
armwit6 in
~ t y i~narr..a q ~ a w t h
rcidtran,'tu
itu: priincar.9 objscat.vea. viz,
. .:
1, we
fn Section
' t h ~
couparntiva sector
g r o w t h of
cbrnerqjentre! a+ Hentex
.five:sections.
.
.
organl RQ t h e handlaurn
ta
..
..
b a s i s and to markat
~r.
s!a soiind cacpmlercial
.industPy in the ' ~ . t : i s
I
f t~e~haridlaorn
Q a b i iis pr.adciced b y
is'c~xaminod
..
'in Set4iar1'2,
liqitaticns.
perf craaore
;;a%
to.I?B2.-E3'7
.... .
primary. weaveris ' societic s ,
. -.
.
I n .Sse*:bon 3, w e study
Tks, f x n ~ o ca1
r
period 1978-79
t:tte
~f
in same dkpth
the campany
been analysed
f er
'
i n Sectiern ' 4
the
to
. .
cvsluate its recc~f-d i:rw
.
m a p t c Itnk
'
<
.
+t
e:~mfi>a~'~,tal
p e r ~ a p e c t i v e . An attempt is
skpenditure cri
t h e gr;jwiny
1~ljyt3iurratic .;F% ~ t p , Firtii'!:ly in .ssctinn
nppk~iruelwe cSissu:sa G a r
.:',
.
f t fiqy bs
.:i<<iidi
tl are f :'cc>..d -1;:.
~ t a . b l i r h n n to
t
5 in t h e light of t h i s
f.~c>kicysuggestions.
khs
outset Chat t h i 5
Lnal ysis dsss
-
not;.'@ur.dort t a be
ii~%tibdY
its
b+ tt'\+thwncll.ocrm
industry.
In
.
30 f ~ i -as
.
.
to
Next
~ O i r ,
h a n d l ~ o r n s i~
the second
iiscoor-Ira:.!.t
most
traditional industry in k e r a l a , employing a little avnc
wprkars directly.
(1987-88)
the
.
.
-.ab.;i
L?
eC
Hnwavkr, t h e l a t e s t all-India k(andii.oi+ ':~.ri.!sr!s
2 1 indicates asharp decline i n employment a:id:.ci!majs.k Ln
(.
industry.
Mhile.employment h a s
:.
fallen from about
laki?
:'1
w ~ r k c r sin 1976(~)
to aboutbB,000 in 1987-88, the o~trnbcr at looms
shows
a reduction
Estimates of
.
$ r a m 90,03(i3 laoms in
'
employment
~ n dc a p i t a l
,54,2GG~lcitms.
1976 to
traditional ,
equi pmant i rs
household industries are ai wwys subject to large v w r i a . k i ail& aver
and between sources, because of
time
i n d u s t r i e3.
t h e nature of w x : :
rn such
Hawsvsr, t h a t an. exadus of male wark+:f-:-!; has eccurred
in t h i s industry,rcf I e c t s d i n t n c sharu incr-ease ?.il'r/..~
W ; J Y ket.
ratio is not improbable giver7 the Face
L l 1 . 3 ~a v w
weaver hausehold have remained r el atr vel :r. l o w .
I%
as sharp
@%is s u ~ g e ~ t e by
d ' the
Handlaams., Kerala
2
had
of u
Ibtt~tzt!er Cheextent'
a Survey o!. .t51e P r i m a r y
urtdertaken by tk;e
estimated
kdY'Ril7Q.X
9Sgur-es requirt.r+~tv.that.-.
pro bin^
sincce a 4kw .years earlier, in 1905-84,
Wemvsrs ' Caoparativa Societies
age.
PBX
.
about
Df vec.kwate of
64,0@0 looms
in
the
C=,e.rl!rl!s_~a.,~3-Handl~~~~
- -i.r?_
.--. 2ndi~,..2-?.!3Z~QB~ D ~ v aopment
l
Camrnissiancv
S o r Handlooms,
Government oC I n d i a .
Minjetry
f
Textiles,
cmopcrat,ive ' ~ e c t o ralone, and 95,80B total l
hlfhough t h e
historically i t
tcnde?d
ta
.
almost throu~hout t h e 3::a:z.
indi!stry e x i s t s
has
t4 1
cancentrate
Cannanrrs
in
3i:;li
-
These . .t w o d i s t r i c t s continue to dominate?'t h e i i i a d s ' ~ : - * ~ ~
Trivandrum.
.
Crnnanore wi$h a share
: ( i n 1983-84).
=partent
number ,of looms . and
.
of 40
percent of the Ioms anci
.
. .
Hweverc, Trivandrum
weavers in
the
Cr-5. . . ' z : c f i l
has :-ha
W:I,
.;.ac-$seL
c o a p w a t i v e secri-;r, rr.nic5.r
hirtocirally struck strong& roots i n the e r s t w h i le prince: ystatc
of Travancare.
The cooperati vwcorgani sat i o n of the handlooinirrdustry i.n t h e
country
.
had
barem f e v o u v ~ from
years
early
tu
pl-otoct
.the
.
urrorgani~edweaver
markets.
EarJ y
internittent.
involvernant
-from middl emen bath
attempts
A
on1y irc
'
cacperati v i saki ~n
eustained'ef-kart
was made
particular f ram
at
in the
with
very
cloth
yarn artd
,
h u w ~ v n ~ were
state
1c2:ive
t h e pbst-.Ir,dependn.nce per: ad,
the mid-30's when
t h e t~i?.ndluurni r~Jue"cry,
conctituent o.f the decentral i s s d ;sector o.F
thcl
te;.Lii 1 5
in
(as.a
industry)
w e assigned a major r o l e in plnr.tled nzltianai d ~ v s l c p n ~ n t. .Since
then, t h e cooperative r ' s o r g a n i ~ a t l o nof
major supportive p o l icy
the
industry has been the
of t h e W~vernrnent af
I n d i a through which
have been channel isedat the s t a t e I eve1
planned ef f ~rt;(s
.
Notonly
have t h e State govsrnments participated d i r e c t l y by contributing
. .
t o the share c a p i t a l af c~opsr'ativcsandproviding other .Financial
4 .
R~.P~c%,.cI.~~
- ,'cae., . .$H~'v-eyAn,,,
~
@
..
i.
.
P~i-rna~~Adb.tJ.c~~@c~:
Handlnoma, V i k c s Bhsvhn, Kerala,
1983-84
Director of
assistance through loans and cash credit arrangements, they
also intervened i n the yarn and
deal f o r
the
weavers.
These
have
better
product markets toensure a
e f f o r t s , were
between s t a t e s
and
diifering
intensity
success.
However, despite the generally
have
implemented
m e t with
with
varied
low r a t e o+ success o+
" o f f i c i a l M cooperatives, governments continua
t o advocate them,
e s ~ e c i a lyl for traditional household industries, because of their
tremandaus p o t e n t i a l for increased production.
In Kerala too, attempts at organising handloom weavers
i n Travancore
p r i m a r y cooperatives
3 0 * s (S ) .
Hawaver i n t h e
course of t i m e
most of
Rs
early as
cooperative
society was set up, w i e r
assist
primary cooper-atives
marketing t h e i r
Handlaom
outpbt.
Weavers
Cantral
Thkc
theme p r i m a r y
in
1947 thare+ore, a
not
central
a larger financial base t o
Travancore Sfee
Cooperative
Society,
societies were set
ather two e r ~ j t w h i i eregionsaf K e r a l a S t a t e
in
Travancore region
the
was the
Subsequent1 y , c e n t r a l c o o p e r a t i v e
.----a-
the
an adequate capital base, or l a c k e d t h e necessary
mcna~erial enpertisc.
the
in
Perhaps they werr
societies f a i l e d to f u n c t i o n p r a f itably.
orqanised w i t h
are recorded
State
into
--
Moolan
Trivnndrum.
up i n
the
Cochin and Malabar
-
-...---..- ..-----.....
See V. R a j agogal an, ? h g . _ C 4 a n d l ~ d m ~ .Ad
~ . . ~ ~ h
~ c L ! L - . % e r a l a -A_.
- % t ! W f .f , . P . r R d Y ~ a ~ & ! J a r ~ .
Str_uc~~~rfcs-~Centc-e
+or Development: Studa M, 1986, M. P h l l
Thesi5.
The Cachin Central CocmeraCive Handl aomweavers ' Soci ety
and the
Society, C a l icut (7 1 .
b r a 1 5 Handlaom Weavers
However, even t h e s e
prrblema
, ~richur'
regional societies
ran i n t o
financial
- bythe l a t e fifties, t h e Travancore Sree M o o l ~ f nS o c i e t y
was seeking a t emporaryaccolr~mudati
on from the governmenttc;. anabl e
i t t a continue its activities(B).
Since t h i s was aractnd t h e
time
rf unisication of t h e thrern r . e g i o n s i n t u the State .=rf Eer-ala, the
Gmvernmcnt took the d e c i s i o n to merge the t h r e e s o c i e t i e s i n t o an
apex arqanisntion c o v e r i n g t h e whale state.
t h e Kcrala State
Wavt.;ion)
CS S p e r i a1 Ei l l called
Handloom Weavers ' Ccioperative Soci e % y
(Speci a1
B i l l 1960, was passed by the legislature in Mwrizt) 1960
rnd Hrtntex came into baifig i n Jc!l y 1961,
The
membership oF
Hanteic
is open
tc in)
primary h a n d l ~ o m
wravarii
coaperativs soci s t i as
Spinning
mills^ and ( c ) Bovernmant of )r:arala (as per the Bye-laws
'
'
'
(hersuf.t s r F'lrlS) 8
(b) Cooper-at$,ve
t h e centrs.1 cooperative society i n Cochin
included handi cr8.Ft 6 t)s~t:i
cjes hand1ooms and
was called
the Cochin Cottage Industrial Narketirrg Society.
Itwas
later bj f ~ i r ~ c a t e idn t o two.
Earlier
In H a l a b a r the
COODt ex.
primaries were
originally attached
to
see ~ _ r _ ~ . e e . &-+
d ~ nhe
~ -...s e.F Q ~ . C ~ . - ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ! . C ~ - - . O ~ . Q ~ - I ~ ! O L
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p : . , p . r ? ~ . ~ . H ~ n d . ~ ~ ~qeserve
o . [ ! ? . - ERank
~ ~ n ~of~ rI.n?d.i ~a,e ~
Bombay 1961.
amended
upto 31.12.883..
WS.ttt
l a t t e r accoun-kinq + o r aver 30
the
rt
percent of t h e share capital when
Hantex i s , what
was set up,
in cooperative literature, wuttlcl be tet-mad an ' o f f i c i a l ' or s t a t e
spansored cooperative.
' local '
d l d attempt
quvsrnmerrt
to
f osteir
initiativeby p e v m l t t i n g PWS to own4[E per-cenL a ~ fthe .share
c a p i t a l and p r i m e
capital
The
importance had been given ta
from member- societies,
AS
A
way
mobilising share
uS r a i s i n g resources t o
achieve its o b j c c t i v e a ( 9 ) H u w ~ v e r , over t h e years, ,the p a t t e r n of
cwnership changed arastiral l y i n f avaur cf theynvernment which now
owns &almost C?S percent w 9 the share c a p i t a l
theFWB actaunt for
on its
a meagre 4percent.
awn, H ~ n t e xhas
t e n d e d ta
:See Table 1) , while,
Hence rather than standinq
depend heavily on
governmamt
s u p p o r t aver t i m e ,
For a11
then,
p r a c t i c a l cturpmetti
H a n t ~ sis
a
government
organisati en, though thecomposi tticr! aC the Board af Directors does
allow it relati veaukanony,
However, s r r u c i a l functionary of the
organisation .- managiqg dlrszkot'
-
xca government nominee.
Ofthe
16 members, 221re r a p r ~ ? ' ; ~ n t a t i v
of~ stheprimacy cooperatives *ram
the dif f er-ent disjti-i ct5 ancl +uur are government: numi nees,af which
anais the managing director-. a n t t h s r i s Diractuv of Handlaorns, and
t h e remaining t!~oar-ar - e ~ r c s s n t e t i v e sa+ pal 3 t i c a l p a r t i e s ,
i m p o r t a n t to notethat t h ~ r aare at Z%ast thrcebuf It
of the
organisation which can
i m p i n q e an
busi ness/cammerci al ent i t y r
.--....-.--..---.
-. ,.-.....,.-.--.-...
See t h e Society's Dye-Laws.
8
-
It: is
i n 4eatures
its functioning as
a
(a) Beingan o f f i c i a l coapcrrative, itsadmit~Sstra?rivcstrurture and
fctnstioi'lir?g clasel y
of
medt
qsvsrnment
arganisat.ion which
rt?aem~:e t h a t
ntakes Aecision
a+ a
bureaucratic
making ccrmbersome
involving elaborate prucedc\u?5 iwhi 1% raising eritabl t shmcnt casts;
Ib) Atthe %ame t i n ~ eyi ven t h a t c o n s i c c o n t r o l can be w i ' e l ded
by member socie-2-,ies. non msrket. pressu.-sa ,an be made to beer on
procurement/distr i bution
am
plans
based
rwrorsentatian
on
on the
Trf vandrctm r e g i o n ,
GC
rlr~:h
market
Board
Iniri~ica?.to t h e a t - g n n i s a t i o n ' s
trends;
i s heavily
which happens La
(c)
and
that
given
i n favnur
weighed
have t h e 1 arge2.t
G+
number 04
primary weavers c;oc3.et~rc~,suri1
pressures can also have n regional
bias.
stt-anal) suggests the
bdhile our. a n a l y s i s
f i r s t , the i n f e r e n t i a t
recent
whom
is
the
t.vxcforrse an ;b) and :c) indicates t h a t i n
years pressures aupeat- tfi have
cloth
ogerati~nclf
procc\red
r.atl.tev'
operated on what and from
that>
the
total
quantum
a+
procurement.
Since
t h e setting dp a+ Hankax,
there has c e r t a i n l y been a
gruwth uf t h e cooparativs 'handloom s e c t o r , thocrgh
coverage hes been subject
its extent and
to vastly di.F#erirrg estimates.
While
earlier tigures suggested that almost 37 percent of t h e laamfi had
been brcupht undarths e u o p c r ~ : ~ l v ss e t t o r by the l a t e # f f t i e s , the
1976 Census revealed that only23 percent 05 t h e loomswere covered
by cooperati vas t r . e I . s t i v e ly :ow a g a i n s t the all-India
average
a+
percent i n mid seventies!''
about 33
covet-age.
were
Qf
i n t h e c o o p e r a t i v e sectar, suggeslinq
c o v e r i n g 60
, oy
1993-B4,
the
the estimated 93,000 looms t h a t year almost 64,000
the industry had
percent
1s 27,000 loornswere
isCT7-88 the
t h a t over two t h i r d s of
been covered bnc) the State gcrvernntent t a r g e t of:
of t h e i n d u s t r y b y t h e end af the S i x t h P l a n
(59130-85) also acl-tleved.
In
Howevor
j.
Almost. 42.3 percent of
tl-le
looms, that:
in Trivandrum and only0 percent in Cannanore.
Census eskimatcs
t h a t about
of the
52 percent
weavers were covered b v the cooper&tives.
Concomitantly, the
number
a$ societies
has r e p i s t w e d
an
impressive irtcreasc (See T a b l e 2) tttauah i n the years i m m c d i a t e l Y
f a1 lowingthe
set k i n g up sf Hzntes ,the grawth was r a t h e r s l u g g i ~ h .
f t really accelerated i n t h e e a r l y
under gr-avc suspicion,
ow ever,
etnd
A
eighties, which in + a c t came
numbst- af tihem suspected to be 'bogus'*-
numbers alone do n ~ give
t
a c o r r e c t p i c t u r e of
growth of
household
the coopeflative
industry is not
sector.
like t h a t of
Working a+ looms
looms in a
rarely are laoms di%cai..dsd i 4 nat b e i n g used.
number a+
looms
indicator
U+ the
actualiv
working is
s i z e uf t h e i n d u s t r y .
the s i z e
more
mill
-
in a
vtrY
T h e r s f ~ c ethetotal
appropriate
as
an
In 1976, almost. 9 percent
of t h e looms were idle; in1983-U4 the p r o p o r t i o n was higher at 53
10
S ~ ~ R ~ R Q -? ~
I +fkh-e-.
,- . H i ~-.P~owrdGkg@yh
1- oh t h e i _ P ~ o A ~ . ~ ~ t ~
.Industry,
--- - ------ ..-1-92.4Government oC Inda a, Ministryof C a m m a r c @
popu.1a r l y k:nawn as t h e Si varaman Commi t t e e .
percent and 5
Imms out
OC
percent of
64,eQG 1au:n%
idleness in if?87-EB
i 5
t h a t is 38,000
t i : a lazrtna weve damaged,
t ! ~ t .here
i ~
active.
'
TI>e e s t i m a t e
ef t h e 54.,000 laams w e t - e ~ d l ev l z aniy 4 4 , 2 ~ 0loam+
Simi l a r l y mure ti-~an
?ima11 i n s i n e w i t h 10-id@
*f those working
I..,?,:!
i. 0.1:
tile
caopcrat i v e
rj;
18 percent
were
working.
societies
are
l ~ c i n s . R 1ii1-qe nuinbet ar.e dormant, end
mg~.c1-1 less t~ii*nna14 m a k e a
bhile three f o u r t h s
-
for. t h e wh.ro3.e r,andlaon~sector
of
t h e 5.35
p r o f it.
In r?8J-.84
sacletles in existence were
working, t h a t is 4 3 5 I n nurrrbar, Leas t h ~ nh a l f , . w 183 societies
mnfy .were runninq
xi; a pv of it.
u u e under 1iquidati Q ~ I .
rcnartcrd to be .dormant!.
smcirtier
).
CSbo~t: 1Lt percent or. 92 societies
societies were
!I\liine of- t ha, tactot-y type
Et
mayalso
re~orteS1BC, t . r o r . k i n ~were
be ~aintedout that BE.
~roducingcloth but
oGt:-le
had no
And a1 t h o a q b over h a l f thewlxkere in t h e induatrv a r e
crslcred b y the
cctopera.t$.ve rrlrietics, o n l y
near 4 u l l t i me emplo',fme;lt,
that
is
about 50
gel-cent. p e t
more than 25t3 day:;
j.n a
jrr;l,rr;
more than h a l f have work, f o r b a r e l y 2a0 days.
Hence i t
sector
in
would appear
terms
of
that the
growth of
the ccr;~ps!--atjlve
has
1oclms/saci st i es/ernpl oymsnt
quantrtative than r e a l . When w e e x a ~ i n ep r o d u c t i o n
t h i s cannot be said w i t h g r e a t confidence.
a+ lonq termtrends because of
It
15.
04
been 5or.e
cloth, evm
ddif T:c:,ilttt,
2aik
sharp changes in production f i q~\t-e%
i n certain years, reflecting t h e probl cnts of rasti ~ o t nqprodrlt-Li'3rt
i
---.----
-...---
'I
---
1983-84 Survey, u p - ~ i t .
in the handloom sector (I2 1 .
Ontha
hole p r o d u c t i o n h a s s t a g n a t e d
around 300 1aC:h metres and i n f a c t d n ~ l i n e df n
eighties to 254, l a k h metres.
early
the seventies and
(However, an ear 1i er ser i es
.from thesame source g i v e s suwewl>at higher estimates of production
+or the yeara
table;.
1379-80 to 1983-.-ti4whlth is a l s o included
in the
Sance 1983-84 pradurtion has shown a c o n s i d e r a b l e upward
t r e n d reaching a pea,k uf 40Blakh metres in 1988-89,
but given the
findings eS the 1987-08 Censua i n respect a$ working laoms, i t is
likely that these cstifnatta.; are tu same e x t e . r t overstated.
However, in r.elzti >.#eterms the raaperative sector must
have
grown s i n c e p r ~ d ~ i t i ~ in
f ? the private sector has declined f a ~ t c r
and t h e cotlperativw+ nnw sdcco!~nt +or a little over h a l f the tatel
~ r ~ d u c t i o n .Product i unin value terms has shown a d i s t i n c t upward
trend, p a r t l y on
acccrunt oS changes in
product m i x towards
the
hiqhorvalusd itarns and p a r t l y .because o.C: rising prices especially
s i n c e the late seventies {as w e observe I n t e r ) .
%n b r i e f then, t h e p e r + ~ r m a n c eo+ t h e caapsrative sector Mas
+av +romenviable and the i n d u s t r y can h a r d l y be s a i d %a have been
-----.----.-.-l2
..-.- .--
Estimates of hand1aom production a r c general l y derived
estimates based on assumptions regardir~gno. af looms
working
teetimated only at! d i . s c r . e t r t i m e inter-vals),
quantity af yarn consumed and average d a i l y production.
f n the case a+ cooperatives inSormatsan is supposed t o
be d i r e c t l y collected from t h e production unita through
a quarterly r e t u r n .
However a l l d i s t r i c t s d a not
regularlycallect data nor is it certain t h a t the direct
The estimate beingextremely
sensitive to the assumption regarding number o f active
looms, qiverr t h e sharp +aZl in ?oomstretwecrt lQE35-84 and
1987-80, i t is pert;inent .to azk on what b a s i s have t h e
@st.i nates s i nccp 1783-€34 heen made.?
method is a1 ways +ol Lowed.
wgeniaed on
a sourid commercial
Froblems sltch as
basis.
nm-
availability a+ yarn at, reasonabie prices, stocks of unsold clotti
leading to cindct- en\playmer.t, ~sudi!c, .& maleworkws, low earnings,
yersisk.
What is.v a r y d i s t u r b i n g is . .the ~ n f . o r m a t i o nthrown UP
by
the 1987-8R census act-ordinq~ ta t.rhichtl,e average monthly earnir~gs
per cueaver in Ksf-att? is Icss khan Ra.2Q0 per month i t h e fowcsk in
I n d i a ) , iompared :oEs. 346
The
state
of the?
L!I
Aridhi-a Fradesh, Rs.315 in 'Tamil Nadu -
to some
reflects
r
extent
the
inabi: ityof H a c t ~ ; : -LC Lni,=u vene e3 fectivelyin tho pr~curernentand
marketing a+
h a n c i l o ~ mci nth, as
su?ply to n!enber si.riciies,
also t h e
purchase of- yarn
This i a revealedby T a t i e 3.
for
Mast
crj+
'
t h e data watiave an prwcurarvunt', sales and stacksir, in value t e r m 5
which.Cails .ka b r i n g out t!>e g ~ n w t h r e c o r daf Hantax in real. terms.
Hence using t h e implicit p r i c e series getberated i n Table? 2 ( t o t s 1
value of pt-uductisn d i v i d e d b y the quantity o f c.lutll produced) to
drf late 'procurernmt by Hsrrtex i n value terms, w e deri vecl a c ~ i e
rs
an
procurement
in
i n t e r m t i nq r e s u l t
fwward
quantity terns.
, demo1 i shi ng
oy the! Harltex o f f
prinaril y due to
d&er
throws
up
a
very
to a lat-gc e x tent theargument put
irials
that: accumulation of a t s r k s was
aver procurement,
on the method t~sec: by Hanter:
This
It also raises severe d a i b t s
far evelilating stutks.
H o w e v ~ r .!.re
discussion ~n t h i s till afterart a n a l y s i s c+ 'its a c t i v i t y i n
the yarn m a r k e t .
That procurement and s a l e s of y a r n b ~H a r ~ t t ?ha=
~
S Y and large
accaunted
for a
small p r ~ p u r ~ont i of t h e
ytrrrr
requirements of
w a v e r s , bacomi nq almost n e y l igi ble i n r e c e n t y e a r s , is we1 1known.
Mhile
sixties
irt the
and . ; e v e ~ - ~ k i c s , s a l e s
UT
y4rt1
increased
siqnif i c a n t l y f r o m about Rs.27 l a k h s i n 2 9 6 A - 6 7 to over Rs. 2 crares
b y 1979-80,
i n the elghtsers t h e r e nas vary
$luctuared between Rs. 2.6
Rs. 86 l s k h s i n 1989-239.
annual consulnpti on oC
- 2.50
It
little progress.
craves declining La as
low as
I t isnot easy to ~ b t a estimates
i ~
af t h e
yarn b y . t h e
ectopzlrati v r hand1oam
sactar.
Sarneparigdic es.timates r , z v s ? i that z+;was v a i ued at: around Rs.S. 00
crwrm
.in L97&; 1Fi crat-es i n 1903.-84 and r e c a n t estimates put i t
at Hs.lb crares or 3.75mn kg.
s a l e s to
Pd3 we .Eind tttat
Camparing t h i s broad1ywit.h Hantex'
z t p r ~ v i d s dabout a
auartcr of t h e i r
requirerncntsi i n 1976, w h l r h d s c i i t ~ r dto 2tE p e r c e n t i n 1983-84 and
In recent years it was as low as 5 percent.
Hawa.,/er, t h i s
pear perit=crmar!ce o f
against the anomalous yarn si ?:uation
can b a summed
almost 75
ctrl
, ti?e
Let us
t h e state.
t h e ycirrt
i
be viewed
1 . n the s t a t e , w h i c h
!.tank f o p m )
w l r , s v ~ e ? -dii~pt31'1d
~
l a r g e 1y
required by
which a l : ~ a s ti4
- f ~ v ea r e
cooper-ative
the
on yarn from outside
elaborate i t + L t r t h e ~ , There are
the state o-F
qavernrnent mil 1 s
existinq
ta
tne -statameriek t h a t t h o u g h t h e S t a t e p r a d ~ ~ c e s
aevcent csf
handloon! sects!-
sills i n
ii-I
Hsnkex k35
50 spinning
are govcrnn!ent or
quasi
spinning mills, +our ape
under Kerala State T e x t i l e Carporsti gn, +our w i t h National T e x t i l e
Corporation
entirely
and one
with
t h e gmvprnment.
Jepandsnt an raw cattan from
All
the!
m i l l s are
outside the s t s t e .
Thes~
.ills produce almost 21 mlr kgof y a r n annually vaf ued at Rs.90-IQJ0
erwes.
O f t h i s 26 ~ a r c c n t o r 5 . 5 rnn
k g i s yarn in
hank form
(incidentally much belaw t h e Texti leC~mn!~is(iiioner's5tf p u l s t i a n af
38 percent).
The ruoper&t!ve sector as we noted e a r l i e r requires
kg o f yarn and
about 3.75 mr:
i f ws assume a s i m i l a r
quantum of
consumption b y the p r i v a t a sactbr the t o t a l hank yarn requirement
of the
state wculd oe
kg v a l u e d
7 . 5 rirr
aggregate terms t;lerefors, the
a t Rs.32
crores.
mills are producing only about
In
25
percent lass thanwhat i s t-squired f o r t h e entire handloom sector.
Nowever of t h e tcrtal
RJ.
haina produced o n l y 1.37 mn kg or
hank varcb
5.8 c r o r e s worth, i5 sold ?.nsidm t h e s t a t e and t h e rest moves
out of tho state pv-ima:-i'..ytucheckpasts connectec! withPkharashtrn
and
the nsighbour-lng state o f Tamil
rerouted back t a If;srsic),
hank yarn meets
Nadu ( a p o r t i o n of which is
It implies t h a t i n t e r n a l
less than ZO percent o f the
prodccction of
requirements af t h e
weavere and airno5.i: 6 mn k g af varn or over 25 c r o r e s worth of yarn
has t o come i n
+ram o u t s i d e t
aggregate terms, t h e
I.
Hence w e
note t h a t although in
praductim of hank yarn by m i l l s within the
sthteis o n l y marginally inadequate, thedeficit is mngni+ied sir?ce
more then 75 p e r c e n t 09 t h i s hank yarn is movinqaut o t t h e skate.
A major reason cited f o r t h e movement of yarn abt o.fthe s t a t e
war tha differential r a t e of sales t a x on yarn between Kerala and
TamilNadu.
While t h e sale tax on yarn w i t h r n Kerala fs 2; percent
----I'
Data 09 i n t e r s t a t e movement of goods into and out of
Kerala, p r e p ~ r e d b y the! Pureau af Economics
and
Stat1 sti cs f o r 1975-76 and 1930-81 cunf i r m such' atrade.
sales t a x oC 25pertlen.t on sales t a x (that:
plus adrlj:kiot?al
p e r c e t i t )which adds up to 3.73 percent ,in Tamil Nnd!r 4:hc
@.75
t o t a l tax
T h i s wrirld make yarn f ram fami 1 Nadu cheaper
2 pet-cent.
i 9 only
Itr;
out o.(: K o r a l a ' bcca~rsc. of: Igwer
and induce
tr-adsrr; to move y 8 r n
demand,
thi 4 year 's KEY a1 aBudget ~f t o r repeated rrqu,estc, t h e
( 13
govnrnaent has agreed k a s c n l e r t
d i S + e r s n t i a l . r a t e a+
moves out
05
the
dirjrussiuits & t h
down to 2 percent). Hov)cver, the
sales t a x i s not
and is
state
t h e o n l y reason ~ h yyarn
n o t cansumed
a'?
cur
wf+ici.als at Hantex, Diir~?cS;oraCc u:rf Handlc)bms,
#erala State Textile Corporation (KSTC) and t:l?e S e w
visitecl,
In
within.
prirnar.J.~swe
leasttht-.ea .important iscasons manti~naclwere:
tci)
very
little production by out- m i l l s r?rFcer.tain high raurite of yarrr l i k e
80.4,
1805, 124)s :,.rid virtually na
price un average b e i n g hiqher a+
(c)
production of combed yarn;
(h)
y a m produced indiqcnously; and
poorquality of y a r n produced try m ~ , a+
~ t t h e ' ~ e ~ . ~ mills
l i l . with
a few exceptions.
af production
While t h e r z i s a rnimts<:ch b e t w e ~ n t3a p a t t e r n
(in c ~ u r ~ t ~b yj l mil 1s ar\d khc ~ a t . t e r l -uf
, cansumptian
it is; not primarily in terms
by the caoperativs sector,
af the
Alt..t?auqh it is %ruet h i i t plcaductian of
very Sine cauntf; af yarrr.
cta~rntsabave 80s is r t 2 11 on1 y to the extent: a+ 3 percerrt
(and
af
combed yarn aimact: neglfgxble) while the coaperativcs requirea\#er
7 percent nf such yarn, t h e
the
majar counts
Q$
yarn
409.Totsl prudtrctl.nrc of
d e f i c i t i s much
consumcd by
such yarn
larger in respect of
t h e handlooms
viz.
upto
is about Lwo-thir-da . uhile its
In
.hue
chwtaga i n
produced.
respect of 1-10s
This count of
Similarly t h e r e is a
is a
11-28s is being
over
yarn appaar-s tc, have
r e l a t i v e bvcr production
although the
Hence,
There
fcurths(''l 1 .
and 21-40s;.
a market etutslde;
which too has
match.
over t h r e e
consumption i s
r!
market outside.
0.F
counts
t n e requirement
deiirit in
O+
41-60a,
6i-B0s almost
counts 21-4Q)s i s much
Irrgcrr ,shortape of +,hef irter c o u n t s t e n d s t o get exaqgerated s i n c e
(a) i t forms a hiah p r a p s r t i s n of the yarn baing
consumed by the
socimties i n Trivandrum district, in particular Neyyattinkara and
hence a t t r a c t s immediate a t t e n t i o n $ and (b) p r i c e s of these yarns .
have
general.ly increased st much +aster
counts (IS
rates than of the lower
.
Aa rerqards
t h e ? r i c e of vat-n pr-oaucecl indigenously being on
averagehigher than t h e yarn prorj*~cedinTamil Ncrdu or Meharashtra.
some data w i t h
the K S T t .:ol?f
.md M e produced
estimated to
t h a t w i t ; > Lha
I4
Tamil ~adu("
).
Harave,
additian esf t r a n s p a r t
it is
and other
mor9 economical. f o r societies t o purchase the yarn
0r.1closer enqujryi t appears that the pr-oblm
comingf rom outside.
-
A 1 so average p r i c e oq 40s
i n k n t ccapsrntita spinning mills i n Kerala are
be higher than in
still surpriril-,g
charges i t is
i I-ms this.
.
-.----
-..
Data un P a t t e r n at Production is from f l ~ ~ & S ~ t ~ - ~ t j , . ~ i
BUU-!L-~_~..
Southat-n India M i 11 Owners ' FSssociatian,
Cai m b ~ t o r e .
This ir.
Hnnt e x .
revealed by
data
on yarn
p r i c e s supplied
by
6 e a R e p w t of the 611 India ~ e d e A t i o no f Cooperative
Spinning Mills, (RIFCOSPIN) Bombay, 1984-83.
is not so much higher p r i c e s
in
i s a
general which
a+ i n d i yenous yarn,
r a a l l y acrious
AS
poor qua1 ity
There a r e
r;hc.rtccsiny.
c e k t a i n ~ t h e rregion specific prub1~;ms. The s o c i e t i e s i n t h e n o r t h
i n t e r a c t mc!ch
more with the
d i r e c t l y and
however, the societlesin the sauth are well
paying withautdelay.
known
a p i n n ~ n gr n ~ l l sbuyirtg
defaulters; a l s o t h e frtismatch i n counts ss r e l a t i v e l y more
serious in t h i s r e g i o n .
some depth on
We h a t e dwelt i n
questian is,
why cannot
su.ff icient goad qua1 ity
of
t h e yarn problem s i n c e
the : i n d i q a n o ? ~ s mills produce
hen\: yartl upto 48s.
the productian s t r u c t u ~ ei n
the
at least
By a reavqanisintion
at l e a s t some
m i l 1s to meet the
yarn u p t a 4Gs (without f o r g e t t i n q the need far
e n t i r e demand for-
rais!. n q a s i s t i n g qua1 i t--y standards) arid g r e a t e r mutual interaction
among a1 1 t h e
orQanlsations c;onrlec:ted with
yarrt production
and
t h e .Former sgrseing to produce gaod quality yarn of
consumption,
required counts and the Zatteragr-seing tu make payments promptly,
it
should not
be i i n p a s s i b l e
t . ~maks
,
another but
more serious
attempt t o P-ect i f v ttii 3 :..noma1V .
Prices of dif+arcnt
increasing
con+i r m s .
f a s t in
up
recent years,
Theof f i ci a!.
t h a t prlces have
v w i a t i e s af handloam
.
as our
cloth have
siubsequent
at Harttezx p l e a d helplcesrres?r.
discussion
They argue
to be raised s i n c e procurement prices are
and the Latter are? i n c r e a s i n g
been
going
primarily b e c a u s e of high wage
east and' high yarn cost. While it is true t h a t wagerates per i t e m
Produced
or
perkg
ctf
yarn are on averagehigher in t h e cooperative
sector and ot'h'hsrbenefits too a r e g i v e n , the iranyof t h m s i t u a t i o n
is that tni Keral.a weaver, r e!!laxr.rs
sm
+ar as
yarn
corrceurrer!
j.5,
fluctuations in i t s
there is
tna cast aS ydr-n
r a l a i n the yarn mat-ke*;
a
Cact thrown
iri
ti^
rta daubt.
p r i c e , w z t h an lipward
respect af tne f ineu v a r i e t i n s .
reduke
t 1 . i ~ Quarest i n t h e cottn.try.
regarding thc
trend, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
Hence our ab j e c t i v e ~jhould be to
by m a k i i i g
adequate hank yarn available La
!?~hatc\lerthe? p z ~ texper-iencts).
t!-~ecciursa
CIS CILI~-
s t u d y , whict?
HCW~VPI.,
has a l s o
contributed to inr-r.eas;~rrap r ' i c e s needs to be taken coynizarbce
And t h a t i s , Cha ad hor:fixatj.on
Xrr
of marqins
oat.
on different itants arrd
varieties of ~ 1 9 t hL y Haritex i n an af.fart: t.0 Irrcreaae total .sales
rwanue which w e will diacus.3s l 3 t e r .
S~~E?~S~.~J-Q~~~~-.~!:!!:S~\~~.
.-kk??M?Unlike
procurement
it.
inargtnal
intervsntil3n
and sales af c l c t h is
the
in
mclrE:et,
yarn
t h e majar a c t i v i t y of Wantax.
Nnt aniy harjthe p r o p a r t i an o+ soti eties from which pcaccrrcmcr~t i s
made increased aigni t ' i c a n t l y
stateas much wider.
,
xF.5
g a a g r a p h i cal
spread w i t h i n t h e
However, t h e societies in Trivandrum continue
t o daminate n o t o n l y bstausa their share at 44)-42 percrertk i n k n t a 2
procurement
Table
4) b u t
i s t h e h i y h s a t though
axso
because a
production i s procured (I7
l7
?
.
lt has declined o - v e r t i m * : (See
much larger
prsparticir?
a? t h ~ i r
For inetanre in
1983-84 t h e p r n p a r t i ~ r r oC rsl-udu.ction
prccur'edin each region (i.n valiie terms1 i s giver) bclcw:
F'rocut.emcnt
8.1 ~ F ? I * C E ? C ~ ~ :
oF Production f i r ; X ;
Tri vendrucn
In valita t e r m 5
kt-ere has teen ail ~ m p r e s s i v eincrease in the
valumaof c; 0 t h pr ocured f r a m e\m- Rs. 50 l ~ k h 5i n 1966-67 t o about
Rs.350 l a k h s i n the l a t e seventies (as g i v s n in Table 3 ) and then
a sharp rncr-edse Frt she e~.rlyei?.lgnties
to over Rs.750 l a k h s l s i n c e
therl it h a s titaat~ated arr3ur:d Rs. 650
-
R5.74l0 lakhs exceptin 1986-
87 nhnrl it almost t..e&.ched ti?e :cvel of 1982-83.
i-tante" wz;.s
3tc9~~trethcnt
increased
t.2
dl-ourrci
15 percent
abou-t: 25 p e r c e n t by t h e
dec: incd.
I
p e r c e n t ; hC~eve:- i ~
In t h e
S S
#,\id seventies; there wins a
e a r l y eighties
srmre since
the sixties;
seventies pr.i mari l y Geca~tse
shat-p i ncv.ease I r\ ths l a t t c r . ha1f of
s r ~ d u citan
in
then
i t was
i s stagnant
around 40
I
nrbund
25
percent.
However. whenwe luuw at t h e s e r i e s on pro~uremento f c l o t h i n
real terms the p i c t i 1 . r ~is r a t h e r
an increa.;ring trend.
67, it r e a c h e d
5). A f t e r
titartinq q r o m about 4Q l a k h metre* in 19643-
abrjt.tt 8
1
d l a k h mett-cas
quantum procured has
1380-83.
s t a r t l i n q (See T a b l e
i n 1973-74,
fluctuated between 80-85
The Increases i n
since the13 the
latch meLres
i981-82 and 1982-83
u~to
are a ~ e r r a t i o n s
Qui lon
Kcsttayan~
Ernnt:ula m
T r i chur
Palghat
Kozhi kode
Cannanore
Source:
Der i ved f ramSurvey Report 1983-84
FI!~,c.c~.l.--R@u~r.*,.*,,
1W3-94.
gp-,q& ba.nd
"anten
because 04 ourmathodnZagy
a
-
a dccl ifie i n p r o d t t c t i a n w i t h more than
proportionate! decline i n v a l u e , results
i n a 'fa31 '
I t rsnot p o e s i b l e 'thn,L actual pyicas have Callen.
1907-60 too,
i n price.
In 1956-87 and
production has i n r , r ~ ? a s e d but: \lalue increases
smaller p r o p o r t i o n ana i~enceimplicit p r l c a aqair~ 'falls'.
by a
Hence
nr f i n u thatp:-a~w-emunt has re~nainedsluggisl? sraund a quantum or
e#-85 ra 90 lakh metres $or airnostthe last: one and a halfdscades.
A iew aspects sf Tabla 5 snowld b e nstsd : I T
for
camouting prcrcuremerrt
estimates
i.7
The methodology
q u a n t i t w t t v r t e t - m s can o n i y g i v e t h e
dawnward b i a s s i t ~ c eprocurement
an upwzrd h i a s and ao
prices, which are irtclbal-v'2u.f s. margin c.f aroundi2-15 percent f a r
the societies, are h i g h e r t h a n ~roductiongrices.
argued t h a t .the
p a t t e r n a+ pcocc~rement may vary from t h e p a t t e r n
of production, since .the
slow m v i n g items
soci.ekies may be d i s p o s i n g
t u !-!antex.
Jef 'Lator shou\d be usen,
t h e p a t t e r n of
#rotre,
klowever.
pr ocuremend.r.4-01
+raaflit a b l e 6, w e can
i o w s vrwy
closely
the
. .
morecwer, v e r y few societies maeared
financial
pdsi t i urr
There? is
as
t .:, undcr.ta.l:e! msrb:atinq on
we irlenkini,c:d
low v a l u e d ,
a wezghted i m p l i c i t
wattern;
(3)
(2) It: c o u l d be
A
earlier, sdme
price
see t h a t
production
ta be in a sound
1arge scale.
problem
w f t h the
~ ~art h and 'ta t h a t e x t e n t
estimates of product ian of h ~ . r l c l l o ~cl
aLtr
V a r j . ~ t-~i.z@.
~.
I=lc~duct-i.m-.-~+
..Y~
I
#
?
. hQ
.._nd .-1-es
,t!3.mAQh.
t ~ ~ n X ~ -:
v- .19Q-S.-.03
.
( i n parcent)
----------.-- --..-.-- ...----.---.---.-aduc t i
Sai es t hrrl 14ant ex@
-- -.--. - ------...-- ----- - -- Pr
-----.--- -------------... ..--------.-
-.)-.----.--.-----------
-.------C------
9t1
.-
29. :
6.4
12.4
t3.9
4.4
11.5
21.3
bhot r as
Sari s
Cungis end K a i lies
51.1i r t i ng arld Coat.i ng
Bed street 5
Towel L;
Others
- - -. --------.----------
Total
- - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . C - - . . - - . - . . - - - . - I -
33.,S
6.1
11.2
7.4
-r.. 3
25.7
263. Lli
-- ----...-.-------.
-- ---- i09.0
.G?
-- -- .--.---.-.- .--...-...10--0..---.
.--.-.----I----....---a_.
.
Source r
19R3-84 PWS Sur vev w .sJ-~.
C Salesthrouyh Hsntex by t h e Societies is Yroccri-erneft', b y . HanteSm
series
can v a r y .
declares a v e r y
liowevcr
, unless
drastic revisiori in
estimates are valid.
(41
t h e s e figufas, the
M i th0u.t
procr;remeot,
very
ttrv
e i t h e r because
questionable (See table
atgnif i r a ~ . r t chanc)t-s
value of
derivd
Given such a s i t u a t i o n t h e - r s l i d i t ~
stock estimates given b v Hante.:aec high1
3).
Hendl oomh
G~rectcv of
the
irt
the
have :-rean
ctocke could
q ~ ~ a n t u n of
so r a o i d l y ,
the a t o t k s are beirra cvervalued ( o f which there i s
@ v i d e n c ~O
) r the product nti k nas chartged a ~ e r w h e l ~ t i nyg li n 4avour
0f
(5'
h i g h e r valued + a b r i c s , wflir,h does clot appaal ts have happened.
These
data stt-enpthen our. arquncnt that i t
is not too much
procuremant b u t inadequate s a l e s which h a v e ~ugmentedstocks.
However
SUpges;
i t is possiuie t h a t &hat
t h a t it d i d I~appec~
irt
i;
was procul0ed was b a w d an
fct-~y e w s
irt
favour of TrivandrW
large ui o p c j r t i or1
an over w h u l m i ngl y
s r c i e t i c ~ which praauce
of
Ihatis. The l a t t e r is genet-~1Xyacceptedas a slow movang item anti
shauld be the f i r s t tobe [-educed in a year of reduced proc,t.:.remer.t .
Hmnevw, t h i s isnot alrvays t r u e i n actual practice. Fr-on -Lhs c?ata
i n Table 7 which g i v e s t h e annual absolute c h ~ n g einpru~9rhifiertt--
ryirn wise, i n
each region i n
an attempt t c r capture the p r o p o r t i o r l a t e s k t i ~ f s ~
incr-ease or decrease
&I\
-
we
see that: i n c u r t s i r ?
ymus when procurement decl irted sharplv, the share o.F
f t l l much less oras
I--89,
3 0
1937-88 it in f a c t rncreased.
we do f inc! a 1 argo ilie.=rease ir,
t
1 v.xvs.nilrr!m
in
Hui.!aver.
the amalrr, t pt-ocuced from
Tr i vmdrurn.
IJc now turn to Hantex
t h e procurement p r i c e of c l o t h , Fente?: put.;
2a percent
On
ipvolvct!\e~tiic
m a r k e ~ i r c qa.(: e l o . t h .
'
ilrn , ~ \ : ~ Y . ~ . c ! Einargil?
A
3C
.b>!eI ? L A Y . S ~ T-.is.t'.j&
$
S Y Q ( I I 10
a t w h i c h p r i c e f !: i s c,c.lcj.
pcrcmnt on small items such -\a' thur"::,c.!' to about 3 @ . . f fparcecit
?
czn
prlycstw material.
3c:-ca;l!-.o;:
and evert 4R
average maruin has recs;~.Liybeei> rai =ed
Sale8
of handlaom
c l u t h b),
proqrrssed rapid1 y f v-omeouut
\;:i.
.
ln~.
The
pet-~~?t?L.
( i ~ i V.?~LI.E. ? : c ? t - m ~ l
2.180
58 l al..hu in 1L?ti6-57to a 1 ~ 1 ~ Rs.
i ~ t
5 crmres by the end of t h e seventies.
1980-81 the rate
tu 2".
~ A S ~ V iM
te
A f re!.-
sharp increase 3.n
o f growth i7;.; be.zornz .-luqjisi-,.
Scrbseq~entlyin
f a c t i t was n e g a t i ~ e f o t .a .Few)yearc it? tl?e eighties.
111
relatlon
tr tmtal s a l e s af handlourn 1-10th Hafitex ' s h q r a r. ncrsaseci cu aln\ost
percent i n
5782--83 i'iho
Cmmittee, though it is nat
value w quantitv terms).
tat.qe'i
l;r?vis;dasd by
v e r y c i a a r whether t h e y
the Siuaraman
mean!:
it
1 r!
Si!.!c-s, t ; i a r ~ , 5. t dec3 i;led sharply to 25-
i
30 percent,
Summing up: T h w c i s no d e n ' y i n ~t h a t Hentex' a c t i v i t i e s have
decelerated since t h e earl y eighties bath i n terms of procurement
and salesi
appsars to
(in
v a l u e terms; ; pr.tacur.emant of
~ B V Pstag!\ated Gince
c l o t h in real
terms
the'secund ha14 of the segenties.
However, the sharp431 l I n it& r e l a t i v e share ( t h a t
is i n relation
to total production and sales i n the r o o p e r r t i v e sector) i s a b i t
p e r p l s x i r t ~ : . At-ethe societies able to beartfie burder! of di5pasinq
of a I
~
.
r
p
r of i pruduction
, therebyaccounting
f us erltn05t
70-75 oercent c$$ t h e sales. Given t h e overall performance &these
societies; t . h i s dues not: seem possible.
over estimated as also sales?
Clr,
is productiMI bein@
While data an looms from the 1987r
88 Census skggests that production could in f a c t bamuch less than
what is claimed naw.
84
couid v e r y
estimateso+ total sales from 1979-80t0 1983-
well be
exaggerated,
s i n c e fo c o n j u n c t i o n w . i t h
production figures t h e y im:y
l:.ttlr
Hence, w e
can conclude, thatthere appears *Lo be a rjkagnar:cy/+.@* a l . e r - d t i o n in
Hantex' activities
brought out
i n the cripl7ties.
though rrof:
s ; t i i t i ' r . t i c s sirrcc
b y published
.the
averstate t h e growth ui t h e cuoperw'ci ve sc_ac+;ot-,
as shat-u as
is
latter tend
to
Xnfihe r u l l awing
eicctian we ewami ne t h e mat-k.et ii+rg 8 t t - k ~
t c t r a and aol icy o+ tictn t e x ,
s ~ p p a r t c dby a f i e l d v i s i t kc;
.
.
1
I
th2
s a l e s dcpatrj in the
I* we compere Sale3 ( i n quanti'ry) w i t h production :in
quatity! there is v e r y little sr.ack.: as estimated urrcfer
P r o b a b l e Seuc!:
.
..---. .-.-
------.
.
I
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
---
t:r-odb.c ki G!?
',
L!
-.'
t i r ! l a k ! ~ t i i t F;s.
metres)
---..)---Llr--1-
1979-80'
1980-8 1
1981-82
1982-BJ
1983-84
.
.
I
_
_
.
.
.
-
Sales
Zmali.r,Ft
i
Lakh)
---
---
---.-
t
...-.
.--- ....- -.---... -.----. ...
230.67
t 2 S . 73
4.0
2454,53
242. a2 r P73.82
7-86 223.96
225.37 1684.65
7.38
252.54
242.46
IS71,SS
h.48
216.74.
. 29"j.'~~23@I;.3 3
7.33
293.28
---.---.--__.I......-- *.-.".--
--I-------.--
.
.
a
-
--
Probable Stuck
Q
D
V*
( I n l a k h t i n 1.akh (in 13s.
metres) metres)
lakh)
.r---.-.----l-.."-..--.--.--.--.--.-
6.12
t8.66
-27.15
25.72
2.64
36.74
147.09
(113.
Ih6.67
-------------...-...--.--28.56
Source: Survey Report SC?O3-a4.
Value o f q u a n t i t y ncik said i s e s t i m ~ t c dby multipLyinq w i t h
*
i m p l . i c i t price,
Hante~rorganises the m c r kef: i r ~ qof c l o t h i t pr ocures f ram t h e
menbet- societies primari i y throuqh i,,bocrt 2413
are irtterstatei
tat^ tdlbich has been d i v i d e d
a; 1 c.errr the
5pread
which 14
de?pot-s
i n t o eight r e q i o n s ( i n t e r s t a t e d r ~ w t sc u n s t i tuta the ninth r e g i m
The Larger majority a f t h e depots
which w e have not s t u d l e d ) .
one-person
(or
snd each r e g i o n has at
2 peraan) estsbl ishncnts
least one cmparlun and now r3om.
.are
There is a l s o an i n t e r n a t i o n c l
ready made garmf2nts show r-dun\ eittacl~edtoi:te Tri velndrum show room
mat-ketinq t h e
p r c t d ~ t c t r of han4:ex Lncernat iunal
.
Besides these
salesare also done t h r a ~ t y hagcr.sies(not many) open a i r s t a l l s and
at exhibittons 2tc.
Ea:h
depot stocks q a b r i c s it-, accordance w i t h
t h e 'insurance wcnourtt. f i x e c l 4i.r ~t m d
a m ! r , l c ; r ~ ~ ? r - t m c m t(s t h e 1stter
to goverrtmerit ser vanta
sclbstanti . ~ 1
~ a r t cit.!
i a?-1
over three f o u r t h s of t h e
period adding gpto T'P1
13
.
~rivar~dr.um;
ca.n be q ~te
i
we1 1 known t h a t
1t i
t h a rebate
s ~ l e e ii n a )reat- are Oul-ing
davs (earlier
c o v e r s t h e maaor f c s t i v c i l s ,
Of
~ a l r sare in cash w c r e d i t
it
was + o r
days!
which
Oncm aloila accounts f crr 40-45
t h e sales followed b y C l t r i s t m e l ; ,
Deepava!. i ,
Viahu and Fal:r.id=
The propoftion of sales dut- i n g rebat<.?apnears to have increased I n
r e ~ e n tye&r5.
It
was about 75 percent
in 1007-438
and 87 p e t . ~ e n t
in 1980-89.
E a r l i e r t h e dcpclii; mannqerr, oceparcd quarter1 y i n d e n t w$
items t h e y required ;.rhict; was forwarded to the Regional
the
Managers
sent them to .the Head Office.
who i n turn consolidated these and
The
latter than
region wise
the
consalzdated
classiCying t h e m ir,\to two broad categaries (a)
r region; and
~;peci.$icati,or?ls~
c l o t h raqirirred by
( b ) c l o t h required f ram a region.
The l a t t e r was
then sent bazk ta t n e regional, managers in the forma+ p~acurcrnent
orders, to bedistributed ta t h e coop~ratives j o c i s t i e e r ~ l t h i n their
ragfan.
Some
~ z h e c k was
produced and nnce
Central d e p o t
k e p t an
whe+her the
ready were brought f r a m
3;ttached tc
9ach
despatched to othcrr+gianrr a5
fhe p r ~ b l e m sw i t h this
Det-
goads were
being
the ~ c x i e t i e 5LC? the
regional manager's
of;fice and
their requests i n c a t e g o r y la).
lay primwr-tly i n the Lead
ti:!~e
g i v e n Car
production and matcC~ing o f s ~ ~ p p lwyi t h what the depots had asked
f a t ( 13
.
problem
Whxla .from t h e s i d e o+
- o f ten t terns nut:based
t q make up the
morm on
on at-i gi nal requests waul dbe given
in~uranceamount;Srafi Wantex ' ~ i d at h e probiem wars
account of the ?ormet-.
very close to
t n e deoots, the l a t t e r was .a big
The t-eq~testsw ~ u l c f coma perhaps
rebate per.iud, leading t c r a scramble to g e t things
produced and despatched.
becauseof d e l a y
Cis Car 8s
the? sac19tie9
system
was
not
base3 on
kmors b a s i c problem was
any
scientiric
detarmining/predicting runsumel- pr-afercrtcea.
depended on impressicrn~ of: the dcpat
demand.
c~ncerned,
in processi rig procurementarders, very 1 i ttls time
war given to them to uxscl,(.t..r the: w d e r r ,
that t h e
Herb
The weavers l e r g e l y prtlducad
system
of
The whale exercise
managers r e g a r d i n g
market
what they had been always
little
producing and tkntexrnncict ile;rv
togain c o n t r o l over
attenrpt
whatshauld be p r s d u c e d I n Ixnewirh m a r k e t demand i f not directly,
then
at
recent1 y
the PWS.
least through
i ntr-aduced,
While some
t - + : q l ~ i r i n geach
depot
statement showloy t h e i r ' zkuck i n hand,
stream lining
manager
war
ta give
a
anticipated stack a f t e r 3
finerr,ths and a montnly r s q c - i i r ~ t n e n ta f t c r t ! ~ a tf w the next b months
kn
a.n attampttc. pt-c.cur+,ewh;zi:
was reouir.ed
ontima, there
was still
no basic change in the prccudur% fcr aetermininq wilat is required
which we brinq
have
e
LiC
latar.
a
reqzarr :-;i se
list
oS t.he
depots
~i t h c a r t s i n
perCormsnceindicatcvs 1 i k e saZcs ,expenditure, and pra.Fit/locs f o r
t h e laat fouryeat-s t?66-a7, 1987-80,
wise
1988-89 a . ! ~ d1989-90.
The age
rflstu.ibu+;ion lsf the depn'l.5 (See T a b l e 8 ) shahs that almost
h a l f are ' o l d ' whi l J a
being s a t
q~tartot-nun!bering about 53
up on 21.7. t51
khan Hantex
are
v e r y 016,
was established; the
largest number, 31 was belwceri 1?&7-69.
Q r a ~ ~ n56
d of
n@nf.
t h e depots
were opened durinpthe seventies; opening a5 new depots was rather
slt.tqgish
i n the 80s
-
csnl y
around 30
Hantex ' growiirg i i n a n c l a l difficulties.
-
prcsumabl y b e c a ~ i s c0 4 .
Aae D i . ~ ~ i , ~ i . b ~ t i f i _ - i q f ..-3i;i?-- 2 . e E.s~i.&&ke~-..gf,.Focc
~-~~~
..
cr-~li>i.j,p*-S.. $ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ - Q ~-.+gE.
~ - - o - Y
-------------..-----"... --..-- ... -- ..-- ...... .--.-..-Year of
agmninq
Ho.of
Ah
Depots
1
2; a:
XC.~);
C.sttits
aewin.; p:of A t s
-
-.
-.-----I---------------------
As 7. 04 i4a. a i O e a ~ t r A s ;: o i
T~t4i
s a i c ~ n q loss
Total
?-a&::&ng 1906;87-89/?!2
L-~a~inq
SeooLii
DGQOLJ
..-..- ._..--...- - .-----. -----..--.
-----------------a----..-
us.
!
...--A-
i7
93.2
4;
b4.d
17
i-a&a;Ai961
52
Li.5
27
4O. G
8
.
- - - - - - - - - - L - - - . . - - - - - - " - - - " . . - - - - r - ~ - .
T~trl
186
3 6 mi.
---------------..---------.-r-r---.
#8tts:
'*r
.
L
L-C..--.C..-
...
.---.--)--.---C-----^---
1.
lTi@i
1.
Ue3~.
44.7
St.
..--..-..------
1Q8.8
-..-
---------.-I
38
----.----------.-------C--L--------C-------
+ Total i s tarcen 4s 1 7 1 r i s e . inciutinq 7 i o r uhlcir no d a t e
o i openlnq i s giveni
r
- ..- -.---.
I0LT.i)
----
fin a n a l y s i s oiF t!t~+l
i s t a f ( J e f ~ ~ ths~, w e v e rshows t h a t o f t h e s e
193 state-wide a ~ a o k s , uc~frs, & s u t
.a
"se.f:\~.uryeat-.-5 styd z l ? a ~ i43
~ J~CUP-P'LICJf vstiir\ a l l f ocrr
p r o f i t i n al:
.te ~.es+.t,t h a t ; s &*out ?4 dkpats a3 tef-natcd b e t ~ e e n p r oift
year .3,
*at
I
and li.!c.s
ysais
'?l atr 38 percent were making
i l f he ;j : . z t t h e
at; ! e ; l % k ,
t;lc
t h e last .twa
.dc&?ats'itaking fjroCit far
!. F:
:I;L).IYI~C.\:~
marqj, rsa; ;y enhanced ta 7 6 )
.
T e d v a i l a b l , ~i n f ~ r m a t i ~on
n tho
.four'-yrat-
;,rtsfzk
iiiab.!.rt!~
t h r ' g l d ' ones set tp !.;-i
are ' v u r y o l d ' , t h a t
4:hLr-rJ
-
e s t a b l , isher?
unly
in 19b2;
' m i d d l e -aged',
tnr'ee
percertt
in trte e - g l - j t i e s tisee
1 owest gjroi>uf-ti
. ~ r. LI)T:
t h e total number
cieaots
o i bepats
)
disccrrt t h e
a little 1-5
than
one
t h a t is set
up in
the
in
the
,See Tat1 a 93
.that
are ' young'
region).
i cs in
Trdci!ur,
account far masr
.
1s
tilase
table 0 ) : (ti) ~iut-pt-.i.~i-n~j'l):
ti?c
l.:hs:?e proqit: mak.iny d e p o t s
K ~ l l a m , Ernakulm and Kozhikade
making
e n a b l e s cs to
.)Jhc~~ i : < x i e s &r~d
,
a+ these mui-e than ha1.C
i s 39t up
32 p r r c c e t are
seventies ar;d
cileputs wh-h%-
'!.~L.V.Z?!I~~~U~II
K~ti;i..yam,
oC the pr'.?+ii
Hcwever F t nlust- tie r-emenrbercd
thatthis furns on averaqe not murethan 35-53 firrccnt cC t h e total
nunber of depots in @ach af these regiarrs.
Tri.v a r i c l u - ~ ! f i ~s' h a r e i n
i n + a c t . ideell y , our iielci c,urvrsv should h a + i n c l udeql
a isi it: to the dacgts it? at least: OF!^ 2 5 x h ~ s eregion4
perhaps Ks,,rtsik w e , to c a o t u r i r ! , ~ r t h - S c ~ u ~ -rh
li j +~rancer.
mJ
show rooms have ir? general
them we includedin tni s qr3up:
i n the list a+
W m t s fa11
, -,
c~l
l i l i - r.t.!f-u
3..
..;t+.ii
ct ctres?
depots S e t
a1 !
not
I
tlrd
:
,- 5:
.
?
sufficient one
f c.r
c e n i f i t i r;n
bi.tt~i
+cr
9r.r.i; t:. LuL
earnir:g
p r o - f i t ~ i eSi!it.y
earr~lng high
ogci
l ~ r
5!7
Thissuggests t h a t h t gtrer s n l es i s bnece~si~ar
:r zr'.?! l-y
a suff icierrt
-
t h e ' c ~ t a ?numot-r a*.: L I P ~ # ~ L'LS=
19B-';.-5'(?, 3.1p:..jc+.
to? 85
w i t h i n Che
<dl
r , :-:<",A,.
:.
S ~ Q W ro~m/empc.r
TI!!.:i
i ~ a k i n gueuvts.
to s a l c s i r t
ranked according
Q
nc
amortg .tne h i q h e ~ ~ tI.+
depots are
ranking.
loss
4 i/eclv
-.
per+crn?sd i4ai 1 : cl1:nrj:;t
rtot
iii?tf
c.
red~!ce
c
axprndi ture counts.
Wfwe w e
draw some
axplain how p r o f i t
1ess::lans
i s calr~i.:at~c+
l
on
'dtp8t i s
per-cers!:
gene-ated through aa: r.5.
why - t i m e 5
1 Can
incur
say
A
bet-
Zhu
*
t
I
-
:-::;~t
J
i
!!!=rti:.is~~ed
.
a 20 s e r t s r ~ t
ii; boric-z $ o r each
.
CY.C-: !.!.'!
s~')oc~~u
E?,
>he :,r!rpluzj
.< 1 3 3
w ~ g ~ 6nd
e ,
!
~eductcd.
-9
Depot G hcvf ncj :4igher s a l e + kt1211 anather Deoot
loss; i"ls
sales not high enough.
54lm
r?:IJ.:
L
.
Fr-ctm th'.5
urluiapr, rent and i n t t z r e - ; ~e . i
I.c.ltitPu.:
L I ~ + ~. . . - , L. ~ Y : ~ C I
1
J.I t
.
. ..- ...
average, as i . L s pr-of i % .
- 20
.
: j ~
i:!.ip
earlier ,or! the procr.!rentsr?t: o r i c : oicl
~
cdh
wqin
: ? . . s ~ = i : - ;ie
;e
t!!z-;
*t-cjnt
t?aca;.tae its e:,.u!?naittrre
Since ?daycrcu;t~..&1-:lc!
%hes*two daputz
and i n t a r e s t w i l l be hlq:.
,;.J
wrtiy.
is higher ur
at: Kure or-
less the
3,-e oileut- i w :,?rst>n JepsLs,
s t a c k s a r e high ior s l t ~ r n a t c t l y
rearm, rsduclnq pro$it. i n the case ~f
t cf.egot v+iu.h higher
One of the reasons why3 lac-gu t:unb.=;~'.of t h e
'
sales-
very =*Id' deputs are
making
e pra+it
wakld be
the c,avil?q
We1 1
Ln r e n t .
located,
rcasenabl y b i g shop spaces, are Secomi ng i n c r e a s i n g i v p r a h i b i ti ve
Hsncs in respect o f rent andl
in terms of the rerrtal,.
t h e r e is not
much scope o4 reducinq the taka1
volume at'
1argr;r
amai:.rlt; hcjwovcr 8
per ;.tnit
cs, will b r i i ~ q ddwrli.rcuat
saJL.-..
redtrcirrq stocks
wage cost
and b y
Empori a and
i nfrerest c e ) ~ tew?n 4urtttet".
s h o ~t-aofcts nave per-farmed b e t t e r 1st-qelv due to such economics of
si x e . 04 course other th&.racter-i% t ic 5c.f e!npcrrF a vi;: mare spa.ci our
and a t t r a t z t i v e s l - r ~ w runms, bekteln +aci l itics
number uf
larper
j.
ten19
f o r display,
and v a i v i c t i ~ s , wauld a l s o
nruch
i n t e t - ~ c t te
The o v e r r i d l nz i.~api>i~
twnce .r{ ah arpe ual ume a+ btisinesscannot
making d e p o t s (in al; -Fuui- ;1rar.5;
- tcwnging
.
far
.!-r-om Rs.3?,ClflFJ
.-.
Qn t h e
to a
ine:;irnl;in
titr-,at- Firriid:
t h e 71 graf it nlac:bi.\q
i s the smnL I. sireof their sales
a-f ahatit; Rs.2.5
1:he 1c.cr;rst sale5
d c ~ c j t swas
lakhs
fsen,
f i g u r e recorded
over H s , S lakF.15. Hence, as
suggested earl ier- , ~ r ~i ? e ! ' . ~.;.a
s?wogl
.
d gener a1 l y rcs~tl
ti n a 9ro.f it.
However, another. m y tu makc; profrt in s u c h a s i t u a t i o n i s t e
increase
t h e mcrrsir!
i
t
ie one
&-F t h e
measures
~resut-tedta in i t s a t t e r n ~ k stu increase s a l e s
i-evanue.
ha+ t h e average m & r ~ i n incrrc-raficd to 25 percen-l: ir:
3989-90, it has P-aised maruins vet- y
Hantex tias
Not 91,rly
the la3t year
sharp1 y an at, least ofie f a s t
w v i n g i tm
- p o l yecter
shirting t2'
rf m inelastic demand.
It was perhaps on suchan assumption a l s o
that theBengal S a r i s , very paoular
rates
exarbitant
incmrrect
presumably cn the assumpiiw,
)
(almost
i n Kerala alra, were ~ r i c c dat
Rs.2SQ per
asrjumpti.an i% barnc
Sari )
.
That
it
was an
the large u n s o l d stacks of
out by
tlrcst saris i n rr1rnos.t every depot we? visited.
The intricacies of
Mntm p r i c i n g p o l i c y a r e still notvery clear to LIQ but one thing
which struck us
was the very sharp increases i n prices sametimes
evm twice in ayear for almost a11 item5 and varieties.
Kerrla
' t o r t h u ' of
the
cheap variety
shawrd an
Even the
increase'+ ram
R3.3.30 two years back: ta Rs.6.38 now: a double dhoti (I@@
x 1003)
was priced a t Rrs. 75 i n 1989 Orram; Rs.
Rs.96.
.
casting
CI Knsava sari which
Rs. 4501 nawj price of
85 at S ast Unam and ncrwrosts
was p r i c e d at Rs. 345
l a s t year was
Lcrnqi material had lncrceased from
Rs. 13 toRs.22 per metre; satin sheets (9G? i: I Q B ) c o s t Rsrr. 19B last
h a m and wars p r i c e d now at Rs.214.
Theirtct-eases d i d not ssm
have any pattern and were apparentlv very ad hoc in
nwly
designad ti,e and d i e c a t t a n
wlcome e f f o r t a t
similar
type
of
n a t ~ l r t . The
sarierr, ( w i t h blouse pieces) a
d i v e r s i f icatian of
priced a t Rsi245 and
to
t h e product
were however
above campletel y out: af l i n e with
non-handloom cattan
fjarces.
Thouoh
prices
we
0.F
have
compiled a t a b l e on prices af Hantex c l o t h , both procurement ZPP)
---,..
21'
-.-
I n f a c t H a n t e ~has indulgedin an ' u n f a i r ' practice which
could a l s o be described as a shrewd s a l e s policy by
stamping w new prr r e o f Rs. 42 an e x i s t i n g stocks af
p o l y e s t e r ~ ; h i r t i n gpriced ear-iier at Rs.36, a 13percent
increase.
and selling prices
(sea
increase in PF and SF mgvs similar-ly ( h e n c e a n l y increase i n SP
i s g i v e r ! ) t i 1 1 1908-G9.
SF
few varieties
Evcnsa i t does q i v e a feel o-fthe fast: changing prices
T a b l e 10).
-
(SP) it ral.ates t~ a very
because uf
Irl t h e lacst: year t h e change is higher in
the increase i n
the margin
(SP/PP
:.(
1168) to 25
percent.
A t t h i s j u n c t ~ ~ r -when
a
there isalready a tendency f o r handlaom
prices ta increase r a p i d l y each year such adhac p r i c i n g
measurer
we .feel a r e cshc3rtsighted and liable to boomerang as was suggested
very forcefully- t o us; i n the course o f our f i e l d v i s i t . f t is no
.
..
wondw t h a t t h c r c i s further bunching
of s a l e s around rebate time.
U l s c ~ though
,
sales i~n vatiis) haveincreased f ctr almost a1 l d c ~ o t ~ ,
it was g e n e r ~ l l y conceded t h a t t h i s was
more due to
prices than increases in q u a n t i t i e s sold.
movement w i t h . theCcsnsumsv price index as
increasing
We compared t h i s p r i c e
B
p a i n t a f rc.ference: the!
ratas of cttangain t h e latter- ars much lowerthan in handloom cloth
p r i c e s ( 2 21 .
Rnd f r o m a quicksurvey we,could sinultaneausly do
prices of same comparable millitarnsi, 1 i ke d h o t i
, scttrnund,
on
c~ttan
s a r i , p o l ~ e s t a r shirting and sari, it w ~ sevident that the increase
i n handloom pricgs was h i g h e r .
22
Consumer Price Index f o r DifSeren.1: Centres in Kernla
---....-.-..
----------..--
1983
1986
1907
l?B8
-----.-----------
t 3.97'0-71 = 100)
1989
-.--I----.---.--IC-C)-----------------.-----..----CI----------
T r i vandrum
Percentage Change
32 1
350
378
4-9.0
48.8
---------------...----.---...---.-.---------.*..---
3 ~ 5
4.5
420
+6.3
.
.
.
I
-
So~trcee Kerala €canensic Review, Vari oucl Issc-les.
It
may bc
of.frcts o$f season saTo!.i.
d
the -frequent
nnted t h a t
?'tiis as;
is, there r s r,o
Cons~tmer.p s ~ c h o l o g y , being
denying the f e c t t h a t cunsctmer-s wait f o r
the rmbate peri odtc D L t r c r * a s e hand1 uotn -f iibr ics.
a l 5 ~rational and
hendloorn cloth in
handleom
t h e a+$
'khev
season.
c l o t h , a r e rrs w ~ r e v i e w
eroded
-
pi..~.rchasr; man
preCar to
Tlsc
handlbam
is f a s t being
and of betier- quality
e x p c r i e n c ~that
their
But coi-isumcrs are
i t r.; 5 e ~ a t . 1
k r~m~ earl iw- n o t i a n o+
clmth being cheaper
through
prices a l s o
ccoitld qathav-, in the course
WE
our v i a i t s i s a c;t;ri.ous problem.
nhrt it
change i n
increases i n prices
of
a majar c t s n ~ t r a i n ton promoting
salrs.
Our, survey
con.t.ic.ni~dt ; .rjespiciori
~
that
have gone i n t o niaking
t!te
h c r d l y any ef f arts
attractive.
pr.3du.c-k snleab.\c and
There
is almast a complete. absenceci8 c-hanga in design, c o l w t - o r pattern
i n traditional items oC prodtt..ct~an, a d d ~ d t okrhich
quality.
.
is a d e c l - i n s in
Hence, Where apyei.ai-rj .to be l ~ c kof variety even ir: i t s
The chdn2es
s h p l r products,
k i n e f ntraduced
in c e r t a i n newer
i tmms are wal come but: inaoequatc, 5csi de5 O s i rrg h ~ r dy l pub1 i cised
tttlrse . are a1 so sa!ne.t,i m o s
inatancc even
zn respect
a
L
1i
a fast
9.l;
wi t b mar k a t trends.
r;or;ing i tern i i ke
Far
polyester
s h i r t i n g , c h e c k f s t r i p e desriigns which nray have bornin .Fashion s'ome
years
back are
campletei y
c*luurad material.
cut now
f n favour
of
p l a i n sirlgle
The mles ofprintad sheate which appear 3.0
e ~ o p u l a pi tern can cst-ke.i ,?I y be boosted w i k1.r goaddesigns.
11-
the basic
problem w.i.tl-;
t h e marketing
system.
infrastructitre f a r rc.ar!.:etir\q i n t e r m s of shop apace and
b~?
Hcrsi n
'While the
lcrcatian
of depots i s quite :npres.ive
tthaugh not
.
entirely f a u l t l ~ s ) ~ ~
there is -no i nnovati vc 3 a l e s p o l icy based on market research and
sustained e f f o r t a t product d e s i g n .
at p l a n n i n g
Hantex has nade same a t t e m p t
what t h e societies should orodtice throuqh its Demand
.
Ori e n t d Product ion ~ r a ~ r a r n r n e ~
However,
~
t h i s is neta sustained
a++ort, had a f f e c t s less than 2-3
percent af praduction; it has
h e l p e d 1argel y I n stream1 eninq procurement by t h e depots.
Summing up; t h i s a n a l y s i s af t h e marketing network af Hantax
our
reiniorces
empbael s
as t h e
expenditurs
avganisatian.
only
on
increasing
way 5f
sales
generating
T h e attempts at increasing
and
r e d u t i ng
surpluses +or
the
margins, and frequent
changes i n prices .to-..sustaircqrialac~ revenues a r e seen to be short
si ghtedand ad hoc w i t h pasai b1edel.sterious ef Sect on sales, w h i lc
same
attempts made
at product
d l v s r s i ~ C i c a t i c j r .a r e
welcome but
inadequate.
R&orc
wc at.tempt ta anal ysethe f inanci a1 perf ~rntanceof the
organisation, we digress a bit 'to answer a question t h a t may v e r y
well be raised; 'Is it +easible ta siq;lrzi.ficant:.y ir'lrreasrthe s a l e s
af hahdloom f a b r i c s in
K9rala7
The
handlaom sector as we
knaw
23
F w instance,
i n a bustling,
commercial town like
A t t i r r g a l t h e depot,
wa% too ~ n t a l la n d . badly i n need of
venovatiun or i n Chirayanki 1 , c j i ven I t s insuranceamaunt
was too small, WE wer-e t o l d t h a t t h e s e problems were
already taken cupnj.zance o f . Anathcr d e f e c t we noticed
was the campleteabssnce a9 same notice baardta announce
new i t s n r s / v a ~ i e t i e 5 . Also rn0l.rj.t of: t h e depats d i d not
have any display space a r p r a v i s i o n a+ geed show cases-
24
See F_epPp_ct,-.
.-sa- F L e L t ~ r - ~ ~ a r l ~ ; ~ - ~ - E . v _ a ~ - ~ e _ t j , ~ n ~ . a d prepared by Hantcx, lYH9-90.
trernendcsus compstitiun -From cheaper mil l
crntinues to face
pmrrloom c l o t h despite .the pr-atection i t enjoys.
and
( I n Kerata, i t
frees competition from the clieaper hanctl~omc l o t h from Tamil Nadu
tw).
Powerlmms,as is wsi 1 known have, brazen1y v i o l a t e d orders
m reJtrvation
i terns
clf
to 5% axc'tusivsly praduced
.
list has
{the
recently been
otc handlooms
.
enhanced).
And
all
this i n
an
tnviranmer.rtin which nan-cotton and blended+ a b r i c ~have made a b i g
mavkct, production a+ which on ha~-tdl.oomsis st.ill
entry i n t o the
very small,
and per capita
consumption of
cloth has tended
to
rcmainlsl~tgqish. Hence, there i san i n-bui 1t constraint to r a i s i n g
sales uf haandlaamcloth substantial ly.
as~umethat t h e s e p o s ~ i b il i t
y oi.
Hawever whet prompt3 crs to
Hantanincraasinc; i t r s share o i t h e
market is t h e v a s t p c t e n t i a l t h a t e x i s t s in t h e
s t a t e on account
of r (a) a h i g h propensity t o cansum cloth as rndicated by a nru.ch
higher
than
a11
India
ave!-age
of
proportionate
per
capita
expendit~treonc l o t h i n p , and ( b ) t h e l a r g e s c a l e movsfient a+ cotton
$ieca goods i n t o tl-re state (since Kcrula h a r d l y praduces
any mill
clath).and even handlaam cloth,from outside, primarily Tamil Nadu
md
Maharashtra.
F,
Large amount af clnthcomes i n t o Kerala tllrauqh
informalchannels too, p a r t i c u l a r l y throtighthe Gulf and att?er rmn-
rrsidentKeralites returning horns on 1 eavesr atherwi sa.
There are
a290 itinerantsellers + r a m otl.rcr p a r t s oS I n d i a p r t m a t - i l y dealing
with handloam satcees a+:those stateamore v i s i b l e of course rn the
cities
- suggestinq
a growing t a s t e towards
c o t t o n sarecc;.
bt
larst a pat-t 09 t h i s could be substituted by )?antex t7and3aoms.
While i n 1975-76 t h e value o4 c o t t o n p i e c e goods coming i n t o
K @ r a f a through
the farmal channsls
handlaom goods
w ~ Rs s . , L575
was Rs.2261.72 l a k h s
Ial.strs (by road alone)
Han.tcx in that. year wereRo.2h0
and m+
fibs sales of
lakhs or 16 percen't ofthe incamin,
handloom cloth and 4,7 p e r c e n t of a l l clu'kh,
By 1,980-81 t h e value
of c o t t o n piece goods had risen to Rs.3076 l a k h s and
oS handlo-
Swles through Hantew that
cloth on1y marginal l y t o Rs. 1078 1 al;hs.
year had r i i ; e n
to hs. 673 l a k h s o r 4 Q 'percent a+ handloom 'imports'
aione
percent a+
and 14
conclude
t h e t a t a l 2s
To
that: Hantcw has curneracl the
'imparts-'may be -Far inare thari a year.
largeness a+
t h e market;).
some extent
market.
w e ma?
( O f course these
The data o n l y indicates t h e
Hence there
does exist a p o t e n t i a l
m a r k e t that can be tapped b y Hantcx.
$-ecj>-qr~.
-4
F.insn-c:-~&P-erLo_~,m,m~-nc:~~~a-f-~.b~~~~c
In examining t h e 4 inanccs o+ the Society we can s t e t e witnout
that considerable windaw dressing
mincinq matters
with
stoc;..~
(in value)
understatingi ts Inssss.
while prefjarlng
has been done
the accauntrj
theraby
We haveanal ysed t h e accaunts for roughly
the last decade 2978-79 ta 198Q-89 (See Appendices 3 and
4 for a
summary o+ t h e P r a $ i t and Loss Accounts and Ral ance Shhht)
.
In almost
every
the carry-forward
'
year t h e s o c i e t y i n c u r r e d a 10sfs ~ h i c hw i t h
loss f.rm the beginning
the p e r i o d r e s u l t e d
R e p o r t s on Inter State Movement of g o o d s i n t o Ccrala .and
n u t af Kerala, 1975-76 and 1980-8:, Bureau a+ Ecanamicr
and Statistics, K e r a l a .
i n an accumulated
'
loss uJ: aver Rs. 3 crorezs b y
I n fa r t
1989-89.
lms i n c r r t a i n years was a:jse~wed t!:, be higher aspar the audited
statement, largely because r l a a i n g 5tocb:s had been overvalued
Ihe interest due had basn understated.
The audit: statement
1W4-8s f o r instancs painbccl out t h a t t h e l a s s far t h a t
R ~ ~ i 4 . 1l 5i ~ k h s , and ths accurnt.rlated lass, Rs.174i.31
or
sf
ar
year was
lakbs,
while
the cmpany's ownaccoitnts r=,hc;;weda current l a s s a+ Re,. 26.94 L a k l ~ s
lakhs.
87
This was p a r t i a l Zy ad j u s t s d ever the years 1985-86,
and
1987-00:
huwevcr
1akhs
R5.20
about
rutstanding. Althotigl? loss la4t year is seen
is
still
1986-
refriaifis
ta hwqc declined, i t
nat possible to state this kith can.fidcnc,e wi thou"ctke atldltaa
In .Fact a1 lbwint:
8tattmmt.
$ 0 t~h e
above pending ad j~tstment and
perhaps more,' the? accumcil aked l a s s could v e r y we1 1 b e aver. Rs. 3,s
crmres thuswiping ou.t the net worth sf the company.
In financial
t ~ tn
h i s would mean t h a t toe campany had become insolvent fZ6 1 .
S t is not very di-fiiccr1.t tc, 5ce how tbis has happened: whllt?
~rlms,vrhich constitute t h e
roeitty f a i l e d
sfqectt vs
te grow fast enurrgtr , cxpendi ture { i r t t h e ayqregate)
inc;rerrcrd a t a much higher rate.
S ~ * S W8S
2'
volume af busine?is f r r r 'Cks
5.83 percent
per
The cornpotrnd r a t e
anrum over
this periad,
oC qrawth
.ti1
b u t it was
I t may be noted t h a t except f o r t h e meagre amount o f
Reserve and C a p i t a l f und, tne yest o f therssarvas, G t ~ i n g
i n the nature a+ provir;ianc3 rsSlacting 1 i a b i l i t . i ~l ~i k e
g r a t u i t y or v a l uetinn oC assets ec~. depr,ec.iati an aren.qt
included in shareha1 clers ' net worth See B.c;f,!t~.ay-.-=,t-~~.k
ULcLha_
w
re~ O f f f i , c ~ ~ I I . \ ~ T ) i . , r ~ ~Rantbay,
$ . ~ r . y . x Vo!. 1 , Ezr p i anat nr y
Notes.
.
between 12-14 percent f a r e s t a b l i s h m e n t charges and administration
and other expenses.
in
four years
when t h e
r a t e s of
neqative,
Xn +act between the yearz198J-84 and 1388-89
znnuai percentage
chanqe
in
the
expenditure were positive and h i q h .
re?tcrccl on investment ,ROI ( t h a t
capl-cal empluyed!
,
sales wan
mentiunoc!
items
Needless to say
of
r a t e of
ttte
is n e t p r o f itllcrss a5 a percerit of
t h e c e n t r a l p r o 4 j . t a b i l i",
f o r rrcost aF the years (See Table 1 1 ) .
prof its to s a l e s
abave
change in
r a t i o , was negativm
Similarly' %he r a t i o of net
t h a t despite a
was r t s y a t i - v e which suggests
2@
p a r c m t margin i t provides +or on sales, Hantex has not been able
to {:ens?r.etr a s ~ t f . f i c i e n tsurplus s i n c e e n p s n d i t t t r e is t o o h i g h and
s a l ss a r e not1 wrge enov.g!l.
C e r , t a i n Sactclra whi chhave a dampeninq
e f f e c t orr income F r a m s a l e s strouid be nahcd: a i the unnecessarily
Aang
d e l a y by, t h c oavcrnm@nt i n clearir~q up
its dues
arganisati~n. 4 b e r e t v r e d u c i n g rhe latker's iiquidity.
awes Hactex
abaut Hs. i .4 c r o r e s
cror-e5 nn credit
A C C O U . ~ ~ to
~,
a5 T a b l e 1 1 nhaws
in r e b a t e
to the
It
and a n o t h e r Rs.
still
1.5
g~)ve?rn:f)ei>k
~ : e v v a n t s ~ This r ~ p r e s e n t s
almost 3.6 months' sales.
Hawevcr
the amount
Hantexawes t o i t s sundry creditors,vir the p r i m a r y societies fumt
w h i c t ~ it p r o c u r e s cloth is milch higher at R s . 5 c r o r e s ;
i n v e n t o r y 40 s a l s s r a k i c which increases cbsts
income.
B9!
[b) a. h i g h
without adding t a
X n v e n t c r y / s a l c s r a t i o vias a v e r 12 months' sales i n 1988-
Tho~!gh i!:
is not: a.s
high as i.t: appears in
value terms far
r e a r ~ r r r jdis;icus+ed earlier, i r i physical terms there is c e r t a i n l y a.
scria~csproblem ~ + s t a c l r so f t.ti.vsaLd cloth which should be d i s p o s e d
of.
the #v,pendik~\rcside the question
On
wrre r i s i n g so fast..
We
USE " c h e
is why and what casts
common, s i sttdi ncocrre staternen t: for
t h i s a n a l y s i s wherethe vat- iaus i tams o.F awpendi t u r e (uato t h e net
prmfit/loss stage) at-eexpressed as a percentage of ss.'les tcken as
in.
It: shows what pevcsnt:(sr..gs of
n e t sale5
i5
ab~siorbed b y each
individual cost item and the underlyingtrends (see. Table 1 2 ) . The
expendi.ture 15 o+ course
majar item of
cast
D.):
purchaamd'since it is a markat i ng 01-ganis a t i a n .
iten 'of
cost i s
ascab1 ishment
qocrds
Ths n e x t l argent
sale.ries),
iiwaqes and
charges
praocctred/
fallewt?d byadminzstratian and athsr expenses (whf ch inctt!de!s r e n t ,
bmnus,inlrurence and advartlsement/publ ici ty)
livmn separately
. ' Irltsrest
' has been
cast
to t h e
a r q m i ~ s t i m . Since a large pr-apartianai the! i n t e r e s t due
has not
brm paid
rsince it. is
an i m p a r t a n t
(on 13over.nmen.t: loans)
i?s r l e C l ~ c t e d elso in
i t e n t 04
i t s burden is ~ t n d a r % t a t d . T h i s
in the
Table I1
r a t i o In,tersct
and Bank
,Charges as a percentage of t o t a l l o a n s ( s h o r t term andlong terms)
which is f a i r l y low at 7 $ercen+;.
The pitture is somewhat skewed
Muever t h e
pr.currmrnt is
..
cS eae.
broad t r e n d s are
seen ta be v e r y
rduc? the prapbrtianate
because of t h e lar'gc 1 0 5 s ~ ~ .
Whi :F? the' expsndi tcrre
an
high i n the initial. years as t o
shares of t h e o t h e r . i terns to v e r y small
nun)^^, the larger increases in establ i.shmsnt rherges and
other
mvWhmads inabsolute quantum, i n parti eul nkastabl ishmcnt charges,
has lmd t o
4
-
f a i r l y sharp lncreaaas i i ~their r e l k t i v e shares since?
Hence there was a
sales rbsarbed by
sharp decline i n
cost of pvocurement/purchase
the p r o p a r t i a n a+
in the l a s t
two
yeat-e,whi 1s establishment charge3 increa5ed t o l l p e r c e n t by 1988-
89, (Crem about: 5.7
parcei\,t i n 1978-79); administration and ather
esparrses accourit f a r 8.5 percent and interest: far 7.04 percent.
The above analyrris: s u g q e s t ~that inthe f a r e of
in saies and a high
to ad just
by
t h e company ha.d
r a t e of growth i n ovcrhrads,
r-cclrrcirrg
its
proporti onats
a slow growth
abeol utc
I aker
and
e x p e n d i t u r e onprocurement, since increasing1 y a 1 arger preportion
of
its revenidre%were t..eing m e d up
adrnini~trstion.
What
to suppart its Own '3taff and
is of interest: to ua i e . h o w rrsrc thc'cunds
b e i n g generated tu enable the s o c i e t y to cantinus
func.kioning
in
such a s i t u a t i o n .
'The
largely
answer is
that long t e r m f u n d s of the
a+: qovernnisn.? funds? were b e i n g
company (made up
used
pctr pass% w h z ch become?% avi dsrlt f r am at.: anal V ' S ~S
Sheet.
(See fables 13 & 14).
i n respect of
short
fgr
0-fl
th:?
term
Bal anco
While '!'able 17 %how.; the s i t u a t i ~ n
working c a p i t a l , T a b l e 14 rndicates t h e Sources &
long terms funds and thelr use,
From the Carmer
it would appear
t h a t the warkirtq t a p i t L i l position is v a r y cumfwrtablee current
assets exceeding cur-rent. I r istb5 1 i t'f e5 and the cuv-ren-k ratio
being
overone! almost: throughout t h e p e r i o d . However, it i a e v i d e n t t h a t
the r a t i o in t h i s case daea nut i n a i c a t e h i g h l i q i l i d i t y because of
t h e existenceaf very non--1l q i i i d , overestimated stacks.
The quick
r a t i o which indicatcsg more cr?rrect- picture shows a f igure of less
than ha1-f
-$or recent years.
t e r m f inanceand it3
'I'ablc 14, 9j.ver; t h e s a u r c @ S o f long
u ~ ii zl a t i on.
W
e f i n d t h a t ,there is an excess
of long t e r m +irbance e x a c t l y e a ~ t a l to the working capital.
Hence
Img
term .Finance; ic b a i n g ~ t m d b t r reve?nuc parposes imp1ying
2
gr~wingdependence n.f the s a l z i e t y on~)ovcrtrmcn.l:Itsans and even mare
su m i n c r e a s i r ~ gshare cap1i a1 o a r t i c i p a t i c t n
This hes kept t h e
c~c?c~E+.~(IY's,
From the abuvc
srciety is i n .
ir
cJebt/equityratio low
anzl ysi:~ ane can
increase in
percentage of
1
salras.
wbsot-bed
-
l a s s then one.
v i s u a l ise t h e dilemma
the
its pt-~curementactivity without
Any fncreasc in
guaranteed
by t h e government.
by
w a ~ r l d immerdietely r a i s e
the
with
the
procurement
which
csmmittedexpendi tures on ostahl. i rhmerrtand administrati on tgrowlr\u
year) wauld r e s u l t irr incres9i~g losses.
each
Wenrc the erpent
nate5sity to puskt up sales, and identiqy ather sources of Cunds.
the questian is why are ecgfablishfnent chargesgro~i(?ga t such
r h i ~ h r a t e ? T h i s , 5.f
argmisstian appears t n
we
Jaok at t h e
have b e e n
staf*ing pattern i n
the grawing
due to
the
tendsncy
tmrrds a topha,avy burewitceatic strcrcture i n t h e o r g a r r i r a t i o i ~Srclm
the marly eightis5 p r e c i s e l y at: t h e t i m e when t h e rate
i n sales decelerated.
Let
u.5 l o o k at: Tabla l r
a+ grawtn
which gives
us a
time series on t h e staff p a t t e r n anclgrawth in Wantax from 19-73-74
In termsaf actual numbers there
cmllated from theAnncta1 Reports.
appears t o be a c l i y h t deceleration in growth,
strength of 380), the number increased ta 480
Framat?out a %%a++
r n L986-87 and t i w n
declined t o same extent, h ~ w e v e rsame tategaries (Si.t.ter, c u t t i n y
master, garment manager) arcs now included
sm the
fall
in
numbers. may b e
minimal.
i n s i s t e r concerns and
However,
what
is
imwdiately gtriking from the t a b l e is t h a t f r o m 19817-82, t h e tap
quarter
of the
chert s t a r t s
filling LIP.
43
While
i r ? the
esrly
seventies; tharewau a FLniince O.F.Ei cer-Cum-Sser'eta~y,+rom t h o ear2 y
Manager, and a F l ~ ~ n c i akssigtant.
l
there is a Finance
eighties
Similarly, t h e Chip+ Marketinq O f f i c a r a f the seventies isrr~laccd
by a w t i t l l e team
- Marketing
Deputy Finance
rlanagsr' Cgeneral) and a
(trrsrVrniea: )
Assistant,
Clffi.cer
is
which
Mansgut-. D e p u t y Mark:et.ing kanager,
e n v i s a g e d to
M a r k e t l n q Manager-.
(on Drtputatiur:
In
#imam t h e
it
Deptcty Marketinq Manager
f il.!.ed up
be
1987--8Bt h e
90017
p t s t a*
Gepartmen-t 04
and an
~ 6 e ca1
i
1ndr.rstrieri) war
filled up, the ncec! +orwhictt is n o t very c l e a r , ~ i n z e * r , h 9iv.ector
e
is
of Handlooms
-
already on t h e
t h e c r e a t i t n o f new
With
30ard.
top, tttc l o q i ~aC increase in t h e lower
po%ts/upgradation a t . t h e
catcgat-ies ha.s a l s o to he leulir>ucd thrcrugh g i v e n the 'Slue print'
approach
of
structure.
o+.fitial
torsperativcs
Hcntc theye
Tcck~nlcal Supervisors arid
numbered 36 i n 1970-79).
the
way down
ta drivers
aye
.Far
28-12 senior
almost 'YE
kn a d d i t i o n
and i a s t
UDC
c3.f.
r
o r - g a n i s a t i anal
S~ipcrinkendents, 11
(the! l a t t e r
and L9CI
n m b e r s zakes
The largest
grade w c w k e r s .
numbers employed areas Depot l'lar~aqcrs.-. G r a d e il a r ~ d I!.
have b e e n
~tsc;i.ful
i f the anneal r c p a r t had
break up between g r a d e I and I t
does appear
p l a c e all
It would
cuntirt~redto give t h t
(unlesr its abolished) s i n c e t h e r e
to be a terldency at:. times (as i n 1981-32) #or large
s c a l e tipgradation u# grade XI ~ a n a q k r s t aGrade I .
have occurred aqain
-
It appears t o
very- recun.t'Ly b u t cannot be shown becauss a+
t h e absence o4 a breakup.
W
e havenot, been a b l e to sti.idy t h e p r o p u r r i o n oG total salary
b i l l arcocrnted for
b y the cii-F.fer-en?. levels a+ s t a f f
44
a5 a l s o the
changra in paysales over time which would haveadded to the costs,
8ur intention
here
mxprmsion of the
intre!aSe i n
was
to
merely
indicate
arganisat:ion, which in t h e
t h e volume 04
bureaucratic
the
absence uf a
business has c r e a t e d
rapid
large? committed
cm~ts.
From the above, t h e urqancy to increase sales i n a s i t u a t i o n
ef growing overheads, irjithcrut resorting to a qctrther reduction in
In the ~ollowinqsection we
praturement, comes out very s h a r p l y .
examine the marketing netwark and
if i e l d
Houses;)
v i s i t to almost
in
the
owlicy of Hantex, scrppcrrted by
a l l thc s a l e s depots (now termed
Trivandrtcm
region,
to
understand
Ha~tet:
passible
cmrtraints i n eb+ecting e quantum increase i n sales.
Bcctibn 5
P ! ! U - c a - t .9i~ 5 .
From t h e
s u c i e t y i s in.
r
above a n a l y s i s cne
prcentaga of
dilemma t h e
Any increase in its procurement a c t i v i t y w i t h ~ u t
i rtcreane r n
guaranteed
can visualise t h e
sales
sales,
absnrbed
by
immedi ate1y raise
wcruld
pro~urement which
with
the
thr!
committed expenditures onestabl i shment and administration (growj.ng
each
yeerr) would rasubt i r i i n c r e a n i n g )
n&cssity
I ~ s s e s . Hence t h e urgent
ta 'push up sales, and rdsntif y
other sources of Sunds.
Hence, a ma~orpolicy conclusion that emerges is the need f o r
c v o ~ v i n ga dynamicmarketi ng pol icy which i 5 +caeiblcand pregmsti c
and does not: at t h e same! t i m e ,
First,
of
averriding
sdd substankially tu costs.
imuartance
i
the
clearance
o+
accumulated stack:+.
However, beCorci? it is done, there is need t o
physically which would also g i v e us a f i r m i d e a af what,
verify kJ:
percentage o f t h e s t o c k is l a s t moving av' s l o w muvin$, a neca.ssary
piece
c?f
ir!facrnati@n *or rnerket, a n a l y s i s .
Second, arrd an
'
esser!ti ai pf c requi s i ?; f ~ r - s y c ; h ~ . a ~
$ ~-, ~
, !p. g~ ~
sa_Jq,.:
ape. . .stnsa1.qc,,
'S.-e&l an ' &nnual.l.y; .- of -..he. :ammtnt .pra.e~\.r.e.d.,
- .-"j n
". t~ .
phy'&kai-'t&+h).by
i t & r e n i l i ~ r i e f y j~
~ ~ r l t ; w o ~ 4..: l.is
.-.~ , . ~ ~ , e
(
'
..t.Jh e,..*..;n+t~,qc
:,
.
'
,
b'f 'an''ex . , p w s t , mk?K&t' surv&t .an:.
current kr-ends,,. ,Same
khijulb"kl:&b b e .rdll e c t e d : !on prices .
items.
lrfe -haw
rmii
..).-7
inf.0rma.tion
o f broad? y . . c.amparab!,p.,.lp,iJ1
to t-he .cure camponant of thi,5
PO$i -C.y- .. -v i ~ . ~ ~
L p ~ ~ d u cde%ign
t
and d i v e r niS:,,cc>t.t;itzn ~ e l l whxch with ,Seed back on
market
trends based lar-q~?.Ly 0 ' 1 ' the
abave data
cul l rlted, wauld
relentless1 y b e tfyj.ngout new d e s i g n s , p a t t e r n s and products.
On:
the basirii a+ this Hante:twould prepare an ex -ante production-curn-
sales
p l a n which wcrctld
saci etiss.
p a t t e r n of the
d e t e r m i n e t h e praductian
There is endless scope f u r creation of deinand
area a4 c l a t h
in t h e
cac~sumptior~
ir! oarticular o f Saris which should be
fully e x p l o i t e d .
We recommend
a gradual d l verui f i c a t i anwhich
does n e t a l t e r the character af )<erala handlooms and i5 adaptable
to the rhythm of handlaom praduction,
b e aveduclion
To start w i t h there ~h-~.crM
-in the production a+.d h o t i s
production of s a r i s .
and
a shift towitr'cls the
Saris h a i d a large p o t e n t i a l , (but ngt. at the
p r l c r s now baing C i x e d f o r them). Evidence f r o m o t h e r s t a t e s such
a
CIndhra Pr-adesh
greater
buoyancy in
and West
Pengal,
t h e handloom
~ h e c rthere
~
is r e I a t i v @ l y
sector, indicate?= that saris
con?stitute almost: 31 percent and 36 percent
r,..i
t o t a l praduction
rmspactively; wtrlie 9r!
Meraia it i s 6 percent and t h m proportian
m i dhotis is a b ~ i i t30 pcrccnt.
the
%ale of
sheets
'
increasing
There is p o t e n t i a l f o r
Even
and f~trnishirrgr;,
in
the case
o+
traditional i terns dssi gr-, chanoi.-.zrould substantial l y improve sales;
for instance i n
-
the d h ~ t i
sz; rzvc ~ u r etold in many depots
- the
unattractivebraad one ccllbured ' kava' cauld b e easd 1 y replaced by
r thin designed
1i r l e (su cuinmarrly seer? i n mi 1 3 dhutis)
D i v e r s i f i c a t i ~ r ?itself i s not s u . f C i c i c n t
thrsccond i m p o r t a n t = > I e n ~ n f04
: tLheprr;lyramme.
r r r i s or more st'leets
icj
i ~ o t&at
w e cnvIsage
.
- p r ~ d u c tdesign
is
;lust producing marc
- new varieties w i t h
new dcsigns.patterns and, ca?.cjc-ir catiibtnatians, which are attracti vn
w i l l be s a l e a b l e . Tha Har-!tex Process Hause c?.t
Bt;l ararnapuram wottld
have t o alay an intplsrtar~tr iil-s artd should also he s t r ~ n ~ t h n n e t d .
,
.
This has to be &cc~mpa!liedb),
mf
a l l the depots
in need D.F
th~sughadvcrtisenentsi
in
a massive rsnovatlon pvagrammc
i t and a
wide p c r b l i c i t y campaign
the media, and even at t h e level
0.f.
depatsby providing good d i spl,ay yl assspace ' (1 acking i r t most)
r.rnall notice
new items.'
hoard
to be put
the
, and
autsicjs announcing t h e a r r i v a l a4
The advantsqes af goad salc?;warnan/man s h i p ,
tadroj tl y
turmurdfng the custatiler net to l e a v e the shop w i thwut making some
purchase)
should be emphasisacl.
There is a general 3mpres;sian
ab@ut the lackc& i n t e r ~ ~ t ; e n t t i u s i a s mamartg t h e sales s t a f f of a l l
qmvrrnmmt straps urrX i k c in p r i v a t e shops.
be rm&@d.
Occasi unn'l
discussions
T h i 3 impression shoceld
with
depot ma.naper.s
for
# ? i ~ i o nand
~ suggestf nns waul d creaks move. 9nthus.ias9 and a sense
& involvement
and cammit..mcnt by all cancernrd
i n promoting t h e
However a very important aspect o f t h e scheme is the ability
to carry f t out without: sharper increases irr prices.
Cantralliny
the p r i c e and quality of yarnset?ms t n be at l e a s t one wayof dairy
it;
the other
is
to
keep
Hantex '
an
a check
is suppc?%edto
dif9erontfal) margin which
averaaE
ccver its
:.and
~verhead~i.
aim at. providing 50 percent 0.f
Hantex should in t h e long run
th?
yarn required by t h e coaperntivc societies and buy back t h e clotb
produced according to i t s plans.
A s + a r as keeping a control on averheads is ccclcerncd, which
makes i t s own
demands or\ resources a v a i l a b l e ,
we feel t h a t
the
organisation has to c a r e f u . l l y a9sess increases incor;trii w i t h every
step it takes and minimisc it., p a r t i c u l w r l y erstab'i ishmentcharc~es,
4s
stat'ed earlier, we have n o t
made any swqgestions r e g a r d i n g a
complete restructuring crS'the o r q a n i t s a t i o n .
Howevsr, a n a r e a where
costs can be refitrainad is opening af new d e ~ c t s l s h u urooms.
~
whale
$ ~ c u s of attention
shotild
to production
infrastructure
0-f
shift f r o m
bttilding
The
up marc?
attractive, good q u a l i t y it-,
bath new and tradit3onal at campetitivc prices.
A n important implication
the
whale
question of
the
of bur atudv is t h e n e e d to revim
i n - t e r n e l .arganisatiort o+
..
af f i e i a l
cooperatives,so as to mal~cthem less rigici and mare responsive t e
producers
pertinent i n
and
consumers '
an economy
industrial sector l i ke
important role to p l q y .
needs.
T h l s be+comcs particularly
chslractarissd
by .a
large
Kersl a , where cooperatives
tcaditidnll
will have
an
CThis paper borrows hcavil y from a r e p o r t
erstwhile
government a+ Ker'a1.a.
f
;l
prepared f o r the
~ w i \ Z d like to thank
all
those. i n Hantex , Div-sctorate af Handloocs,
Kcrnla
Textile Corporation, mnnaqele.s 0 . F aZL depots
in Trivandrum
r q f o n 'and o f f ice bearer+ af
Ncyyattinkara I v i s i t e d ,
nothave been passfblr.
a ,few
State
M S W V B ~ ~cooperakites
'
wi thaut whose !help t h i s
study
in
would
Ttrzfika araduo to Rantan Vcrhadevan for
h i s comments onafi ear1 Fer d r z i t : ta G. Narayana and Fynrclai
internal semi ear.
T wo:~Iti 1i
0r-k
L.--LLc
rmderad by Prof .R.S. + t i in
+
Y\
Jaynkumar -for hisrctsear?.;?,sssl st.avza.
Sobhana and Ma.
Thanks are due to Ms.
Ftadhetaani .Foi. fsatiently typing3
rev
-r : .- i l v y cc-~ccr$ti-,ej
2iztrict
------.--------....--- ----
;J-:.O
LG-X
;
+.erala ;t.iLc
-------------.-.
!r;tii %st
.-LN:..c:
---?
8t. ; I ~ W C%a~:!i;i
S
Y\I
PBNL.
3ili
i ; ~ i i ! t S h h f ~ r ~i
~!
.
----------------.
- ----------------------------"------------.----.-------..-----------_
L
?a?t:rr
L:
n
Srn~t_~
~f. the ~ ~ - 0 3 e r a t i Sactot
~e
.
^---_-___-*-L'__---------------'----------------------------------
So-c.oer.ii3ive PrrC:,ctitiii
Yecr
*
pr.,-
2
-
54
Value
..,, -,-,"
,---.. . ..---..-. -..----....,-
,
,
,
,
,
..-
.,
419
: $ i s2s
$1
SP
SSt;Z*
:9t9-70
1'372.-71
1371-?2
423
1973-76
4az
5 5 ; ..62
451.24
63k. 72
637.47
??T. 32
1~7i-yf
1975-fb
t ~2
99;. 3';
4.j~
4:;~
+, 2
48 -";
5 ri
54$
547
c,
L-1
7,
n' 7
423
42;
4:2
-
lci7e-rc
1979-SE
'r76@-8L
!$el-52
t$82-83
1?5.1-64
0 '
2.3
r
J
iCh'4-85
t 985 -86
1986-FJ7
1707-58
545
538
593
-390
1980-8'1
592
-----.-..------_--
--._----
,..
481.
?ib
197s-77
!?37-,71!
Qaanti t.y
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
1966-47
19&7-63
l?b5-.b?
:ff2-7;
C l o t h bv Co-worta(ves
--"'"-"'-""""'----------
:
oB-..!?%
679.3s
b8Y. @a
=6aS
1264,7?
1293.82
1 bh3.53
jC;?1.4.3
2384;. 38
52t3.Ci
3!45.18
;25&. '75
8192.92
----,-,---r..----
.
423 29
379,4!
*>?a. 39
-9
3;74,6?
585.6'1
;55?,48
3:35,92
351. !4
295.06
270.00.
219.30
!?f P.J
#
a t s . aa
21C.67
2?2,82
225,39
242.47
!;24!
CfSZf
295.P4 <574!
38l3.88 (4851
;ZS, 5 5
5BBs 16
552.23
509.10
--..- --.----...--..-------------------------
Saurcet Oirector a+ HendSonms, V i L a s Bhavm,
Tri vandrum'
Note5 : V a l u e I n Lakhc R ~ : p a ~ s ,
*
I2gC)*
:J85)
Quantity i n Laehs !=!etres.
F i g u r e s ir! b r a c ~ s t sa r i as g i v e n ' b y the
Circctorate Q$ Hani!looms e a r l i e r ,
...------*-----------------_-------_-----------------.------------------------------------
Total tl?*.>ertx fro: Coi i 3: P
Frclc
Salhs kt W e h ' ~ Sales Stack5
SK
whict, % Co1 3 SY hent as % of t k ~ g has % of of Yrn of Y
m of Cloth
Frx 8?t
Prod
!!ant
Tot Sales
Ye+
CO-OD
--------11-------------------------1-.----------------
lW7
1Y74
;968-6?
1%9-Xi
1vrc:
:?l-7
..
iq;').??
,
1,737L
lqib-75
!
639
616
6:6
296
37
1C
620
3132
37
423
628
6S!
46:
hC?
5
37
2%
?,?5
662
6
1cn-2 6 2
?28
1373-79
684
X3
1)Afl
516
!';5-76
19%-Y
535
!35
1380-81 516
IOEl-92 567
E: :
213
$ 2 - 551
I ! 565
1
- 565
3%
366
571
372
30
1985-85
530
lP&-;rb?
1957-1!
11919
520
5S0
3!2
592
$!:
k ~ t Sen
: s
M e
55.26
5?.15
i7.69
1
lt.10
15.8
57.1@
73.66
4
93.9:
.?LC2
il.jh
52.33
56.66
663.52
'2.54
129.43
!q.tC
If2
1
9
3.:: 169.05
1?.5r3
22.3
25.29
2Y
i;i
22
2:7
261
2
232
2:.;
?6!.
274
2:
2%
24
!:g
86.31
ue.3
35.23
S.22
4i.bO
52.93
81.60
63.E
5!.Ob
P1.93
2f7.5:
22.3 253.67
2.35 32G.:1
51.66 ' 55.8;
221.3 206.60
6
666.67
132.9 166.?5
7?.3 C9.Ob
155.37 155.19
72-62 3 0 . 5 ;
L2.E
152.26 9
?50.5b
Z6.9
36.16
71.95
71.52
.
27.20
195.67
273.1C
143.39
13.C7
19.5i
25i.20
5T.69
66.36 5 1 1 . 3 10.59 516.13
17.51 656.3s
35.10 6X.F
77.55 749.59 65.00 791.62
7 5 , s m,:& (9.x f6S.T
7 . 650.96 28.n ?23,!4
2.2'1 g 0 . W
79;.5?
iJ.05 651.3
.
f1!.13
75.45
?::,43
24.3 565.14
5!.ij
717.36
2 . 1 3 a3.13
50.5: g3.6(. 15.x $59.79
%.QJ
150.57
3:.kC!
?12.&7
156.i0
?!$.x
i3.C
n!.!:, 236.56
65.36
55.?@
3S.M!
3.F
26.69
17.C3
?!.I11
23.3
232.13
260.26
!.%.,R 253.63
227.58 2f7.58
:69.16
21?.87
i39.G
139.M
?6.:i
-27.72
73.13
26.25
1bS.C
33.91
--_----_________-------------------------------------------------------------1
D i i ~ t c rnf Hj~dlocdtr.Vibas h e m . Trivsndrm.
?7.69
67.95
56.18
9.81
54.58
S.27
111.57
91.12
46.N
165.61
194.29
27b.S
138.18
468.7!
5'2.?6
596.33
623.65
630.01
%l.lZ
323.0!
970.63
T6k 4: Ptrcentage Dist; i t h c n of Fccr~u;ement
'/t~l
znion
E!,!
Q.W
l'v'
;C!G
- Regicn ;rise
PlM
KSH
riKD
CAM
----------------------------------.--------------s o t ~ ; M!U?
ccrvs WI!IJ?
%fie: Sae 6s T&le 1.
-
Mtc : TVR Trivandt-:nBfl
SKY~
~slue S.;C.Y~ value
- r ) ~ l KTfR
i ~ - Kattwam
O(n
WYS
mlw
- Emakula
SCCYS
-
v81ue sxvs~ l o d e wvs
TiHR T r i c h ~
~lvc
:able 5; Eatiaatei P r a t e r e ~ e n ta+ C l o t h b y Hantex
f ri Pu=sLi t a t i v u T s a s
--..--.-.---I..
Year
..----"-.-.-----
? r o c by
Kaktez i i :
iriiu~! 8 s .
i n IdtSc:
.i,p9i;cit
.
--..-.-..I--C-""I-L-..
Price
---.I-----
Proc b y venten
i n Buantitv
( i n l j k h nstres)
Ilis.in lakhsl
?tblc 7: Ammi Absalute Chsl7t in Frocwement - Rvion Uix
......................................
Yezd
Wl
Q-N
KM
EM
W
R W , ~ -------------------------KOZtKD W-------Total
va~Les@cvs miue
velw
value
mvvol~
veiue
value
~slue
.......................
---------------Icitj7
S K YM~~ W~
Y
S
WYS
SKY~
WVJ
;MY~
SOCYS
1965-66
1754-67 10 li .35
1'363-6c [email protected]
1959-70 -9 -?.65
2 5%
6 9 4
-6 2.29
-3 6.6
167:-72 11 2!.51
2 3.79
2 -2.53
1572-73 -15 -7.S
622.G;
110.27 ,-63.53
197%
197G75 0 21.4!
5 5.!6
2 2.75
1075-76 2-9.65
!I-&.%
1-7-21
1976-77 1. 59.01 -1 r.34
0 2.54
1377-7; -1 0.2?
0 1
2 .
ltT3-79 C; 5 D . h
-1 -1.2
-1 1.23
la;'?-80
685.96
2lQ.30
? 3.41
!?P%tl 17 39.46
O 9.75 -1 i.??
1921-22 9 32.2
-2 3.N
1 -0.46
1982-8 13 3 . 9 -2 11.6? -1 2.37
1°93-66 3 -8.90
0 -9.91
1. -1.90
198;-35 6 *fiw* -1 6.45 -1 3.5
1935-~,5 4.12
1i.n
0.35
1936-8' I 7 2.35 -1Q 4.N - 1 5 %
1997-80 3 9 . N
!n"*'*
? ?$.::053-t9 -1 """" h . 1 6
1- 5 .
1 1.30
? 6.33
-:9 -!2.22
-2 0.25
! -0.m
-1 1.16
,
4 2.52
15 7.71
4 3 -1?.42
!5 15.16
25 25.2L
5 1.41
27 i . 7 9
27 5.57
26 4-05
2 2.32
-2 L.6!
-5 6.N
3 2.5:
2 62.93
0 4.S!
1 -?.%?
-6 4.?3 -2 -4.54 -17 -17.P7
520.99
C11.67
-3 G.60 4-3.4E
-2 57.49
-1 13.50 26 50.75
12 I:.$&
2 1.30
3 -1.!9
7 1
14.20 20 -32.13
i4.61 -1 -7.35
10.99
3 1.m
0 6.72
1 77.73
2 1.5
O1 .
-1 1.69 4 1.22
C-2.52
2 1.66 -3 9.96 -3 L.lr 12 7.53
? 17.21
-1 -2.22
1 2.53
-3 1Z.13
1 :.!5 -;n) -6.q -24 59.94
016.3
-1 4.36
1
0 10.6'
517.20 12 161.15
o 3.24 1 2.57 -3 13.45
1 21.92 12 U.59 SC 152.65
3 5.75
0 4 . -1 9.13
-1 11.69 -2 27.46
L 65.8
O 11.62
b 3.M
i 6.27
F 3.23 -3 *xaxt'
S 20.S
C *""'
F 4.41
-1 1
1' -23.56 -0 "'"" 4 3-.I6
? 3.95 0 -3.i-1.61
-2 6.73 -2 iS.46
3 -10.66
t11Rat
2-72
x*xfXl
15.95
21.57
26.79
6 16.15 -55 !9.b -3 17.75 11 116.61
1 29.3 1 9.57
2
10 44.54
B 4.27
2 4 3
2 -i.E
0 -4.5?
5 ""*'
? 11.72
(3 """
1 -?3.%
9 2.26
-1 3.75
,
Ila.
*OR
b ;oi rii
D
4 o c i v aroiit
ZQ. o! Copczr
st;.iic?@Ititi t
si
bar
i?ib-E:
t5
*t;.tnq loss
,*-a
.rri-3? t s
1?5f-FO
,--I)
. - - - - ..---- .--I:$:-%
.
-
1. ?ri~&lu
24
.re..
-..
r---.
.-------..--..- .
..
*-.L--..-U------------------
iT?.Sj
iE
2
+f
.
:m~u
(%.I?
..
1?'
lies
IJ
r
B
;la:
.*
.A
t2i8?!
,35,?,
b. ?ii#iai
:.
iT
7, i
.)
...
a %nux,i
I??.;!
J
1.n
A&
-.
15.:
-
:a0
3
ili.51
.,
i1.Z
9,;
t
132.2;
-------.------.---.---.------------------------------------------.. -.
:?i
3;:. ;
43
1afl.C
-
;a.;t
.
I
:&*ti
-z3ti:::
3.4
.,..t!
$.tee.
Tr!d
J
,*s
.
&
a
-
;268&
141. :i
khiW~
9.Z
4
rJ.5
* at
:
LC
na
15,;
I
:)+.31.
X lrirhv
9.5
1
(13,8!
(4% 1;
c, w u
26.7
7
it. S
3.4;
S.
2a.9
5
2.0
':hA
2. 61lrt
Si t af all
snots utraq
4 vclr i05n
.
lo. a( &pats
.
t
z
O
~
~
-
-
:
~
~
~
-
~
S H a llietm 8 ~ ~ M9 tilii
5
w
3
1
.
kt: :F:gmrs i n Srrcrri i r e ss gr3jcr:ror t o scisi t r r k
=
=
L
=
~
w
~
=
drw!s is ircg;r.n.
T
~
a
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
- 1995 to 1990.
--.----------------------!in Rs.?
Tabie 10: P r m t and 9l!ira R i m of Hanter
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - I - - - -
Varietv
1995
SP
sp
1989
1998
1987
!%6
PF
13
'%
PP
9'
3
SP
Fi
57.m
(13.51
67.60
72.m
li7.51
60.70
86.m
I!5.5!
70.00
61.10
50.90
79.60
19.51
66.46
95.a
79.32
%.GO
X.06
9
F;
SF
P
%,Dl
76.S
(14.21
tG.1'
------------------_---------------__lf
M l e Vaishtv .
100s
65.90
37.80
50.3
41.75
.(ft.S\
b8.R
lfund~Sct
double 1@Os
6l&
Sirale
?b.N
Vsishtt 2/10
n. a
Furnishim
57;60
!25.?1
68.10
U.@O 26.00
?1.?b
40.00
'
(5.91
ia. 3;
29.02
(7.71
n. s
n. a
23.38
,,,,,,,,,,,-,,------~-=~=~----,--~Z=rZ~C==u-----..------------
Source: lientex k o r d s
-
-
9 Selling Rice
2. FP w m t #ice
3. n.8 not wsilsblc
4, F i m s in bracket ' d e r SF refer to anmml chmtse in SF.
It was same for Pi. In 190 the change i n R is different
md these f i w s are giver, in h k c t urdw PP 1990.
.Notes : 1.
-
(23.61
35.50
38.8
3!,90
(6.11
n.8
60.00
(9.6)
---
--
(19.3)
n.a
108.M)
8R.W
(15.6)
(11.ti
10.00
$,f
fh.&,
t0J
43.00
(7.3)
M
--t-
________
------------.------
____ _ _
1 w - f 9 i09i-85 lax-?: l:EY--;-W
_
_
_
_
l
_
-
~
~
-
_
.- .____---_______..--------I%!-!$
i?d?-3L 19Z-i3 193:-52 13.V-31
l
-
_
-
-
-
~
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
i?P-!@ 1976-3
-
~
~
~
LCHL?;?jic.L.q:
---.---..-k!
;.7:e
r'
tt?! hlnc~
.,.iCl tx!s::J
y.52 - 3 . 3 5
39.57 25!.!3
5%,?a i75.14
at.$! !*3.23
6.55
I?.!J
ii..!:
312.65
693.62
337.;9
S3.13
31J.'17
247.9
32.45
115.32
2i9.51
623.5i
F7.27
33.97
37G.3
3t6.Y
27;.6!
25.95
9
?V.CO
259.54
72.23
20!.24
219.40
hlrti~l%?ICS:
. - _ -16.S4 -15.53 -9.9i
-8.25
-9.iQ
1.?3
5.3
C.S2
5.E;
.
9.95
1.02
!.JTBI! %ti3
1.15
1.15
:.li
1.26
i.23
1
1.35
.L
C.LL
9.33
0.62
!I.*
2.5
? 8.t:
0.83
5. "!t b f i t ?,,lo '1
-3.13
4.e3 -iL.:t -2.72 -2.5;
-2.9f
C33
b. 1;:31:. ? m nRatio
?.63
3 ,
3.61
3
5.3
:.??
3 .
I. !5,% .:::tk~~hoidrp
lo I m t h s 3.c:
3.6:.
2.s
2.5;
%.:I
6 .
3.2
l.Z.1!:Afh?.taCC/OSbsl.% 9.62
3.31
:I.JC .
19.32 11.M 11.4.~
:.Isl. 4 knk CIX to L
m3
7.12
5 .
i.40
7
.
3.1
2.r:
!b.i::::+*ikltihsldu!r.H.bi 12.1s :1.32
5.73
7.g
? . ~ 5 6.25
6.!5
.
, ..
!i.:?:.::~.!.':t&4
i d t i 3,
3.75
?.3i
5
l.:r
. . ~ i
i.iS
1.75
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.,,,_-_-,,,,_,
,-_,.
.,,,..,- - ., ... ..,,----,-.---,-,-----=ZZ==r---j.R41:
?.k2:X:v
-9.51
0.73
--
I
-
-
-4.16
1.11
1.66
5.63
-1.23
3.2:
2.95
I:.@
7.61
.5.$
2.0%
-
-3.U
0.91
O.16
O.7
1.99
0.65
!.R
6-59
C.25
1.67
1.G
O.?1
0.83
-1.50
3.2?
1.95
1
7.23
5.3
2.22
-
"0.m
2.33
i.ei
1D.76
6.7:
6.Ql
%."6.2
2.65
1.N
11.37
7.10
6.45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---Sales
(Ykf ~ F C X ?
1:~.in stock
of fin. wodsikii
071 12.01;1 900 105.U15 1122 !tClSm !:I6 !fl?.Kfi: 10: l E . 3 loti iX.GL= 113'2 lX.!Xl
? T.66:
9 P.?%
? 0.72%
1: 1.?t,% 3 2.C?t
3 C.22:
l! P.o6%
53
.
f.2
i.O?
16
1.Ej'c
4 4 . 6 5 12: 12.33 i23 -11.2.6t
9
: .
.
551 1)
6
1
31
!.
539
n
------------------------------~-------------.----------------
19?2 106.?0% li6f llC.22t 1263 111.96% 1154
l(16.m1102 165.6fS
lCf? lbl.E!%
1238 1W.:6%
_-------------------_-~---~-_----_-___-___1--_----
-1 2 -4 ,
- -4.; 3 ,
- 7
- 1 -2.3 1 3
-7 i.
------___----____________~-~-~----~---~-__-_-_-_-_______._-~__--------~-----
t'e t Lor s
1------1---------1----_-~-~---~---~---~-______^____1____^___________._______-____-___-_-___-_~~--------
------
)um,t Assets
--.-Y
m
1
14.2:
16.22
12.?1
1.01
9.05 10.05 22.05
2-22
9?3.03 SGf.lJ 530.G1 623.46 5?4.:? 572.31 Lba.76 388.15 271.55
wlcrs
?.?I
12.55
i ? 1:.55
5.6
7.?7
7.26
7 .
2.99
1.66
Frakvt.lr?bwl.reb.1
130.9 53.50
93.06 65.73 lk2.Ol 173.76 117.1
90.21 39.72
31.?1
FF~I kt. ibh.
151.11 161.35 I ? .12.62
!
236.5? !75.9& 213.90 165.35 109.08 78.83
f ~ l E W t . I m ~ t . d i v . , e t c ~ 3 . 0 ~ 25.7e
c.tn O.C?
3 . ~ . C
O.?J
0.m
0.00
0.m
Mvmw
P.13
29.21 27.72 10.52 15.33 N.38 20.70 16.36 14.E
8,52
Slosme a w ~ t
:57.5:
iZ9.55 126.23 103.Lk e 2 . 3 i26.lr 1!3.6?
7?.Y 9
26.35
Rculvablcs
3G.3 21.J9 32.52 3.5.57 31.58 Zi.76 25.19 14.63
6.65
7.02
WK A~srtf
IS.$? 15.99 16.54 13.53 lC.17
c.:!
1.k3
1.20
3.77
5.55
.hbtful &ts
3.9@ 0 . 3
0.M
2.M
0.9
I).N
0.25
0.N
0.m
9.M
Ilrtd Cwsi!i
5.1L
5.Q;
5.61
5.61
5.6!
5.16
6.57
?.55
7.93
L8.05
Wltesh
31.F 21.22 12.29 19..37 26.54 5.3 i.29
1.32 11.3fl 12.95
!.I2
9TO.U
Cltlh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tctrl C A
!I1
15N.X 162.43 12!4.2"Lllh2.5$
!1%.57
6.45
196.8
0.81
7.57
67.57
c.00
0.62
17.29
8.9h
23.29
0.00
R.09
21.16
86!.?1
656.66
516,32
119.31
1.9
i67.66
27.3
3.76
1.56
5iS.g~ 648.76
3i1.76
113.15 53.68
27.59
?3.52
30.37 23.13
1.38
1.SS
256.87 202.88
60.56
19.62
17.s
1.85
176.56
YJ.15 tU6.M 596.92 429.39 308.85
2Sb.49
1!76.9L
1091.50
-------------------------------------------------------
Llrmt lisbiiitie?
-------
3 r d ~Cnditors 4 8
Utbr Liabilities
!ottmt dn
h i t 3
kSr !offwino C
a OD
506.17 i01.93
25.16 6n.50
:3!.29 1?2.91
1.26
L.36
713.63 697.91
S8.6; 261.55 2C1.61
56.32 51.3 ?9.82
115.43 18.31 101.1:
k.21
3.76
3.12
5bZ.17 693.Z 9C.79
256.86
62.45
87.16
2.21
250.63
Z2.89
72.Q
-
----------------------------..------------------
kttl a 1111
1377.20 12E7.M [email protected] 923.11
975.59
--II.-----------I---------------------------------------
ktUUklwCaoit8l (I-II\
:-z:.,
213.m
153.23
133.22 219.8?
221.25.
273.517
251,M 2M.m
227.25
207.16
16h.52
I------,r;~r::~-z=::======:~---~~~-==r:~~~z~:z=:~~z=:::z~~z==~::=~~z
Tablr !6: SALANCE X
E
T ANALYSIS (IIi
-----------.---------------_--_ -.. -_-___ -..-Rskdh
--1958-59
ASSETS
-Fixed Asjets
I~st~ts
carry f o ~ l r dLOSS
Total kstts iHii
1987-3:
156.:
!3.%
6 .
4.22
312.77 2t1.23
673.86 415.66
---
1'396-67 1955-% 198.5-Pj 198-84 /982-E3 1981-82 1@0-81 1979-80
126.43
H!!-lc
C
_
_
_
117.51
111.85
66.27
4
3.97
3.76
3.76
231.33
361.75
168.71
lbo.76
X1.M
136.52
252.17
36.M ?35.58
-26.53
63.16
3.S
57.5?
2.36
52.64
2.36
61.50
%.3@
179.75
81.26
167.u
166.7:
203.55
197.34
123.23
[email protected]& 156.69
1.31
22.25
9 , 52.9
1t.37
43.6
197.06 187.63
E?.% 473.65
!E7,63
453.55
85.00
50.54
U.U
2.36
!.E
66.06
&ti.
95.96
%,h,
Finsnced by: ,
Shsn-halders'
funds
--------------
Psih
jhcn
Csital
361.96
139.9:
lt6,i.
i.31
12.!C.
35.Z
1.X
9.3
3.S
11).10
35.42
2S.H
R e m:
R ~ s . fvld E &ID. ES.
Gratuity fund
Otb?m
*cd
Lms
1.3
1.31
1.35
25.9
27.35
M.86
28.ie
59.36
.
1.31
26.00
i.31
3
15.69
4 .
1.31
12.57
3-27
1.31
12.17
S3.W
187.63
609.82
323.55
---
@A. of Kerale
Total L1 f i m lIVl
Excess of 1T f i m n c t
O W bets ( I V
III!
-------
-
218.2
218,:;
686.36
568.69
217,Ob
565.00
197:63
6:Z.S
115.72
IN.?
2!3.@0
153.2 t86.Z 219.$8 221.2 ?73.?0 236.79 36.m 2??.25 207.45
:bl.t?
-------=------------------------------=----.-----------------------------,----------,,,,,-,,-----------,------------A
-------
,,,,,".----,,,,,,---
SLCS
aut
vth sue
drlver rl
. ar2
61
a
2011
191
194
1711
171
1611
1511
11
*
9
9
13
1:
13
10
:2
3
6
5
3
3
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
35
9
11
1
1
1
2
1
!
11
1
1
11
1
3
w
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
!
27 ?
1
:
26
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
25?
1
1
1
16? 9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19? 21
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
b
i
h
466
(625
4BO
162
f6n
1609
1
9
i !
7!
---------------------------------------------------l
SCC ~ ~ 3 r d
----
Totnl
Sanstiontd
ie
?
dahcdar
attender
1s uorker
c m t u
fitter
c l i t t h Inasttr
~armcnt mgr
71
1
37@
376
1660 i459)
235
3%
(517)
372
rsn
6
3
s
is29
41:
sud
456
~6
sj2
W
r6ul
--------------------------------------------------------------------[sko
<a $ewetax F i m Officer c u $ ~ ~ t a
d ,r Cnlef
~ nar3;etiMGffim + Accumts Officer
E l , Eegiml kketing Oitic $ Technical Assist
:: Ce5SM1 D?wt l'kmlerlbmot I m t o r s
I Sales Assistant : Uatchan ? include uatchm
Notes md Refmmcs:
1. In 1976-77, wsts smtimed wm regional arketing essistant(31. ptl
2. Nas a wst of Exct ?%notion Offic?rs.
-
assistant(?). accouotant(1).
~ J O administrative officer
Key: fa - ! ! m e wager n - rarketing mmw
na RW r?simsl m f a - f i m i a l assistmt dm asst atainistmtive assistcmt
ww: 0:fr - munwnt oftictech gffr - techrllcal cfficefsctv suotd fstorv wwrintendcnt
CeD w & ~ o tmanaaeveh :up - vehicle suoavisw
-
-
-
.
-
Imerdil; 3: SLYNARY CF A F i i t LOSS ACC@NTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19V-dQ 1'937-96 l?16-57 1935-26 i386-85 la?!-36 la!?-M 1951-92 1980-91 i979-80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C
Rs. hakhs
!T6-79
IYIIL: .
.-
Sl!!
,
:U& !n#,
;r.in $to&
$fin. 9o06kiF.
973.56
i3.3
65.26
QS.26 112!.44 1116.09 1M2.09 lCK6.R 1!32.27 1N.6D
'20.15
6.32
8.83
7.63
2.51
10.8
110.13
Q16.61 736.87
6.19
6.63
551.56
6.57
2 %
ig.53
1Fl.H
30.Y
1253.42 :i~l.lO 1101.t3 11M2.96 1237.99 1164.18 102i.29
239.lt
5338.72
!25.16
59.18
51.55
15.05
96.9
35.65
-----------------------------------------------1031.52 116:.?2
------------------------------------~---------------------rr)lflW:
--
tmia Osgcs
WWe
Llria, YaOcs tte.
h..d#rr. Em.
haislwc,
Id. I bk chsm
kmciction
62.75
76?.35
!07.7:
1
5.32
69.5!
45.21
5i.S
5S7.55 i?t6.;3
133.54 %.7t
25.96
75.3;
3.N
5.6
SE.53
56.2?
J.SC
6.9
3c.N 33.39
BX.94
962.;?
77.!?
72.4
2.G
5.M
9.a
52.63
5.g
50.72
&.?I:.
12.25 65.!5
867.00 lf16.1,9
M.52
55.50
56.45
6 .
56.66
6.t?
5!.1?
3 .
59.86
j.22
15.26
39'3.59
66.2?
r7.91
1.15
61.33
3.35
15.?2 13.16. 4 . 2
S!e 33 ?37.?0 5!1.X
k1.7i
3.E9
51.25
62.3C 23.69
22.9
1.N
27.X
2.35
S'.l
2
!.EO
.
6.2
XO.:!
?.?O
E36.S
595.W
t.59
-------------------------------------------Z.30
!OQ.Sl
1199.F !311.98 l?l;.64
1!21.6:
IN&.19 1236.25' 1157.65 1C21.95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WCt L@5I f ~ th!
r YW
-31.63 -67.95 -6i.w [email protected] - 3 . 2 4
-?fi.;3 -;:!.3!
-1bi.X -1%. ji -103.71
R.hw adj. for tk ~ e e s
-2.Ca -16.03
-1.73
* C~TY fw1 3 s
-31.22
-81.26
2.77
5.76 -15.30
-&5.3? - 1 .
-!? 2?
-C5.%
0.66
-95.N
-Jl.Xl
6.1:
5.15
-?.I!
-6Z.G
-'.F6
-55.6%
-k1.36
i1.9t
-63.66
-51.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:a$Wl. to !IS
df I& a W k t m t ~
-312.77 -251.3 -231.53 -1c.P. N -!!(.29 -1Q9.74
-133.S -182.77
-.:.26
-55.52
-71.70
105s
Itbls:
m !W fa tht vw
.W kn fOnf&d10%
iwh Lus fa tk rear
(Ullai~ &Sh 1035
-31.68 -67.06 i s . s b -.!fi.s
-2i.f.6
-232.61 -1E4.65 -136.39 -!0j.71
-7i.87
1 .
47.52
3.71,
-5.3
2.L1
I.1L
- 5 . -39.5@ 43.66
-13.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-7.18
-36.66
-75.3? -67.G -51.35 -?Z.lt, -g.3j -63.6
-27.98 -6!+.hb -62.06 -23.64 -22.65 -21.23
7.62 -0.35
2.30
9.22
-6.68
---~---L-=~==~==r---------------------------r----------r----------------------------------------------____-_-_--_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------261.B -232.61 -1U.65 -l!f.OS, -i05.71
Af~exliuI: SCMiIARY OF BALAMCE ShEiTS
RsRM
-----------------------------------------------------------..I--------.-----
1988-29 1987-88 1986-87 !QE-36 1934-35 1983-56 1982-83 1981-82 1480-81 1971-50
----------------------------------------------------
liabilities:
--..-------------------Share-holders' funds
-------------------P a i d - ~Shere
~ Capital
Reserves:
31.96
Res. fund & C ~ D ,res.
Gratuity fund
Others
Sscured Loans
1.36
25.92
256.60
236.56
226.13
2?9.6&
197.31
185.23
168.74
Llh.69
139.94
lil!j
I
---------
Sovt. of Kerala
Deposits
1.31
1.51
12.56
i.31
1.31
19.9
12.87
64.78 . .38.?7
12.17
36.66
187.63
le-.63
187.63
118.72 119.10
?.?I
1.60
1.54
1.31
18.17
65.g6
1.36
27.35
66.%
1.36
??.I2
66.86
1.6
26.01:
52.99
2?.2e
i?.59
b8.6@
2L8.if
26.54
257.06
lT.?i
127.63
6.26
6.35
4.21
3.76
3.18
506.17
23.14
130.20
713.63
li11.93
60.59
:.31
33.21
I&.?
--------
Staff 8 agency
Current Liabilities
1.38
1.85
281.68 256.86 250.63 167.46 113.18
51.36 25.82 62.65 32.89 27.38 27.59
115.63 108.3~ 101.12 87.16 72.32 56.M 30.37
563.17 19L.52 550.79 515.56 446.76 31.78 256.87
57.45
23.52
23.13
202.88
------------------Sundry C r e d i t ~-PUS
~
Other Lidbilitles
Interest due
Bank Borrowing CC & 00
Assets:
------------
Fixtd Assets
Investment
Cwnnt Assets
Yarn
Cloth
Others
F r m Govt. freb+s~l.reb.
From Govt. fhvt. ser)
Frcm h v t . (grant. div. ,etcl
Advances
Su$oence m m t
R~eivables
Other Assets
Doubtful dzbts
Fixed O m s i t s
BsnklCt~sh
Carry torward Loss
l??.Ql
697.91
!!.67
56.2'2
261.65
1
It,,
1t.C
179
13.4