THE GARMENF INDUSTRY IN INDIA 53 came from families where the men \veie factory workers and cleiks. In Madras, migrants were a big proportion. Both income wise and occupation wise they were somewhat higher. Interestingly in all three regions, the age composition was similar : between 20—30 and there was a sizeable proportion of m married women. In all three regions these women made a substantial contribution to their family income. In both Delhi and Bombay there were many earners in the family. In Bombay the women's earnings helped to repay loans, pay for children's education or buy consumer durables. The working class family can survive or move upwards in this period of rising inflation only by sending as many as possible of the members of the family into the work force. It is possible therefore for the management to recruit them as temporary workers. In a situation of tight employment if big units recruit more women, this 'segregation'may be seen as an opportunity. The reluctance of women to struggle or their weaker worker consciousness is exaggerated. It depends much on how we interpret their responses or how we frame our questions. The decentralized sector everywhere makes it difficult for workers to organize. In an industry where dismissals and closures are swift retributions, struggles are unrealistic. That m?n workers share the same fate can be seen from the situation of workers in all types of light industry which generate employment in a slow growth economy. We saw examples of this in the garment units which employ men workers only. There were ex-workers who recruited new migrants from their native region, provided the kind of reassurance and facilities that migrants need in a new place and in turn extracted long hours of work at low wages. One of them had a tiny room with 10 machines. He was very frank about the rates he paid. Labour relations are marked by various kinds of personal ties. It is not therefore surprising that a similar phenomenon exists in the garment units. Do men and women 'prefer* these conditions or see these as small compensation in an otherwise bleak existence ? For many women in our sample the work experience was something valued—it seemed to give many of them a measure of self esteem. There are marked regional differences in this aspect. The Delhi women had also more house work to do; in Bombay, the work was shared between different female members although men never heped. Perhaps Bombay has more of an industrial culture. Conclusion To conclude : women in the garment industry do not represent a clear case of occupational segregation but within the work force in this industry they have only a temporary status, enjoy less rewards for experience and have little or no chance of managerial or supervisory positions. Their special proclivity to this occupation is not because of a gender-linked occupational syndrome. In the Indian context where tailors