The features that characterise the tea garden labour force have their roots in history. Tea plantation economy has been, from the very beginning, faced with an acute shortage of labour. This led to the large-scale recruitment of labour from different regions that were far from the plantation sites. The bulk of this labour force included groups and communities that, in administrative parlance, have been described as tribes. People, in general, however describe them as Adivasis. Because the Adivasis come from different regions, they are marked by different linguistic, cultural and ethnic identities. This, in itself, poses serious challenges to the emergence of any form of leadership among the Adivasis.

The conditions of work, wage structure and living conditions in tea estates have been depressing from the very beginning. There has been resistance to these from time to time all through the colonial period. Resistance was, however, in general either individual or involved a few people. Of course, at times, it also involved groups, which were kin/ethnic-based. Such resistance, generally, remained localised. With the emergence of   trade unions and trade union leadership, the struggle of tea garden  workers moved beyond the their ethnic and localised  struggle.

In all these struggles, however, there has been a marked absence of Adivasi leadership. The problem of Adivasi leadership is not confined to only the plantation estates but prevails in all sectors in which their labour is used.

The general thrust of state policy for tribes/Adivasis in post-independence India has been one of integration or inclusion into the various domains of national life. At least, this seems to be the general ethos of the Indian Constitution if one carefully examines the provisions laid down in it for tribes. Many provisions have been made in the Constitution for protecting and promoting the interest of the tribal population in India. One such provision has been reservations in politics (Parliament and state legislatures), employment (government and semi-government sectors) and education especially in the institutions of higher education and learning. Where there has been provision of reservation, there is some visible presence of Adivasi leadership. However, where there is not, it is marked by a conspicuous absence of leadership. That explains why they are visible in the political domain. If there was no political reservation, tribes would have been represented by non-tribes than tribes. The presence of Adivasis in institutions such as the Parliament and the state assembly is statutory. However, where such statutory requirement does not exist, the presence of the adivasis is hardly visible.

Had there been no policy of reservation for tribes, would they have been able to represent themselves? It is unlikely, at least in the earlier phase of the electoral politics. The participation of tribes in the freedom struggle movement through activities of political parties was, if not rare, marginal. Neither would there have been serious and systematic effort to recruit tribes. The fact that most of the political parties were constrained to build cadres from within tribes rose from the constitutional compulsion of reservation.

Despite the presence of tribals in the cadres, they have, on the whole, been deprived of positions of importance in the political parties. Such a situation cuts across political parties of all persuasions. Interestingly, this has not been the case only with the political parties but also organisations such as trade unions. To illustrate, the tea garden labour force in West Bengal and Assam comprises, primarily, tribes. It is a different matter that Scheduled Tribe status has not been accorded to those in Assam. There are a large number of trade unions now affiliated to different political parties, which have been working among the tea garden population. Yet, the leadership of the trade unions, even at block level, has always in the hands of people from outside the tribe and outside of the labour force. In the context of tea estates, Adivasi leadership is at best confined to tea estates or tea estates levels; it hardly goes beyond. As to why this is so needs to be explored and examined. It may, to some extent, have to do with the domination of outside leadership in trade union organisation in the tea estates. Historically, outside leadership in the context of tea estates has been a necessity. However, at present, it has become a process and mechanism of wielding control and power, of excluding the Adivasis in participating in organisational and critical decision-making process. Of course, there is a shift in recent years.

This is not to argue that only tribes can represent the interests of the tribes. Even non-tribes can do it, and they probably can do it more effectively than tribes because of better articulation and network, and mobilising and maneuvering capacities. More often than not, however, there has been wedge (social, political, economic and cultural) between tribes and non-tribes and the interests of tribes have often been sacrificed to the interest of others.

This has been the history of the reservation for tribes in the last fifty years. There is not one single political party that has thrown up any leadership of a national stature from within tribes. It is doubtful if the national parties can make such a claim even at a regional level. If this is the truth after 50 years of reservation, one could have well imagined what would have happened if there were no reservation. Can such a question be posed in the context of trade union organisations? Is it appropriate?

The extension of reservation provided the tribes space for sharing and participating in the state decision-making process. However, the question that arises is, has not their participation in the Parliament and state legislatures been merely formal and symbolic? Have they made any contribution in terms of posing questions and participating in the debates on issues or enactments? In the event they have, has their contribution been effective and substantive. It is difficult to extend definitive answers on these fronts, but information and hearsay invariably suggest to the contrary.

What is the extent to which tribal legislators have been able to effectively address and articulate the interest and problems of the tribes, whether they pertained to tribes as a whole or tribes of a given region/constituency or some specific group/community? Have they been able to initiate any Bill towards the welfare and protection of the tribes and the promotion of their interests, and pursue it? Have they been able to stall any Bill or project that had potential of adversely affecting the tribes?

 There is a big gap in terms of intellectual, organisational and mobilisation capacity in the Adivasi leadership. This is an aspect, to which not much attention has been paid either by the political parties or trade unions or even NGOs who have been working among the Adivasis. For all purposes, Adivasi leadership is totally dependent on regional and central leadership. They are unable to, on their own, take initiative and decisions on matters that are important and crucial to the organisation and programme. An organisation and movement cannot hinge on outside leadership for long howsoever charismatic or effective they may be. The trade unions have to look into the matter seriously and find out ways and means whereby this problem can be resolved and the gap mitigated.