THE 37th Indian Labour Conference (ILC), held on May 18 and 19, 2001, ended unceremoniously without any conclusions being drawn up because of the united resistance of all the trade unions. Immediately thereafter, I P Anand, a senior representative of the employers’ side, patronisingly advised the leadership of the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) to rethink on the wisdom of a BJP affiliate joining hands with the Left trade unions, in opposing the ongoing reforms measures of the NDA government at the centre.

V Krishna Ananth, writing in ‘The Hindu’ on June 25, 2001 deplored that ‘the pro-Left trade unions, which had managed, on their own strength, to dampen the spirits of the market enthusiasts’, had agreed to "build" a stronger opposition to the reforms package together with the BMS and the INTUC. Referring to the developments at the ILC he wrote: ‘the pro-Left trade unions seem to have allowed themselves to concede the leading role to the BMS.’

The reaction of I P Anand was understandable but not that of Krishna Ananth. Thankfully, these two voices lamenting over this development do not have the same concern. The former was getting frightened at the prospects of the reforms process slowing down. The latter, however, is not in any way disturbed by that prospect. Rather, he (Krishna Ananth) was getting worrisome because in his perception, the Left unions were seen to have ‘given up whatever was left of their political agenda and agreed to reduce the trade union movement to mere bargaining over wages’.

First, it should be noted that the forum was a government convened meet and the question of anyone conceding the lead to BMS does not arise. Even as Krishna Ananth has averred 'after all, the BMS is today the largest central trade union (in terms of membership figures)’. It is the scribes of the likes of Krishna Ananth, who behaved like the uninitiated and floated stories in the national media, as though it was a first ever event of a trade union to have come out in the open to charge the government.

In fact, no one in the spectrum of Left unions was disturbed by the BMS leading the charge against the government at the Indian Labour Conference. All the trade unions viz. AITUC, BMS, CITU, HMS, INTUC, UTUC, UTUC (LS), TUCC, AICCTU and NFITU, in their joint meetings held on May 20 and 24 in New Delhi, had hailed the united position of firm opposition to the government policies, taken by the workers’ side, at the ILC.

But, is there any basis for anyone to surmise that ‘the unions will be reduced to mere mercenaries fighting for economic issues, pushing the political agenda completely under the carpet’? The ‘reforms’ package itself is a politics driven agenda. Opposition to it is the biggest political fight in the present day dispensation. Furthermore, a mere glance at the specific issues identified for the countrywide united movement will testify to the contrary. The struggle is :

1. against thoughtless privatisation of profit making and potentially viable PSUs, including the defence sector industries;
2. against the move of changing the labour laws in favour of the employers;
3. for immediate enactment of comprehensive legislation for agricultural workers;
4. against removal of quantitative restrictions on import, much to the detriment of industry, agriculture and the national interest as a whole; and
5. against the policies leading to severe aggravation of joblessness and unemployment.

Can these be termed as mere economic issues? Are these bereft of any political agenda? If that were so, why the employers and the ruling polity are getting so disturbed over this unity? These questions cannot be parried.

Then, is it for the first time the pro-Left unions are seen on the same platform with the BMS and the INTUC? Public memory could be short, but not those of enlightened journalists like Krishna’s. During late seventies, all the trade unions joined together to defeat the infamous ‘Industrial Relations Bill’ and the Boothalingam Committee Report, which doled out a recipe for wage-freeze under the guise of an ‘Incomes, Prices and Profits Policy’. What is strange now, if all the unions cutting across political spectrum come together to fight the reforms agenda of the government.

Krishna has also misread the developments on the trade union front when he asserts that the pro-Left unions had refused all these years to coordinate with the BMS. This, according to him, was because the BMS was then not opposed to the idea of reforms as such but only expressed opposition to the way they were being implemented.

It would be appropriate to put the record straight.

The CITU, for over two decades, had been pursuing a proposal for formation of a 'confederation of trade unions', so that all the trade unions can come together under one umbrella to pursue issues of common interest to the workers. That the same has not materialised is another matter.

After the collapse of the Janata Party government experiment in the late seventies and resurrection of the Congress regime under Indira Gandhi, the central government unleashed fresh attacks on the working people. At that time, the CITU took initiative to form the National Campaign Committee of Trade Unions (NCC). All trade unions, except the INTUC, joined the NCC. During the eighties, the NCC became the springboard for powerful working class actions, including several marches to Parliament and all India general strikes against the price rise, unemployment, ban on recruitment, attacks on trade union and democratic rights, etc.

The policies of economic reforms ushered in the last decade of the 20th century have been implemented by the successive regimes, viz., the Congress, United Front and the NDA. During this period also, the leadership of the BMS was disinclined to join the common movement. The sponsoring committee of trade unions, comprising all central trade unions, excepting INTUC and BMS, came into existence to carry on the resistance movement against the reforms policies. Even at that time it was not the case that the pro-Left trade unions wanted the BMS to be kept out. Alongside the activities of the sponsoring committee, the five major trade unions viz. AITUC, BMS, CITU, HMS and INTUC kept meeting periodically to coordinate their actions on issues over which consensus could be reached. At the trade union level the pro-Left unions had never been adopting a ‘touch me not’ attitude towards either the BMS or the INTUC.

It is true that a rightward tilt in the economic policy will eventually lead to a rightward shift in the political canvas as well. The pro-Left unions have all along been conscious of this and had fought this rightward tilt. At the same time, they have not refused to join hands with the BMS on trade union issues, as Krishna would believe it to be. This cannot be decried as sheer economism, as the fight was not limited to wage related issues alone. The latest example is the struggle against BALCO sell-off. Mass of workers mobilised in the fight against right wing economic policies can be won over to the left political discourse, if conscious efforts are undertaken. One does not expect the pro-Left unions to demand the workers to swear by anti-right politics, as a pre-condition to join the common trade union struggle. This has been the experience of the working class worldwide.

Trade Unions are conscious of the differences among themselves, not only on the political agenda but even on the approach to the ‘reforms process’. But they are all united because an avalanche is coming on, which seeks to jettison the trade union movement lock stock and barrel. If the trade unions together cannot save the day for themselves now, nothing will remain of the agenda of individual unions.

Krishna Ananth accuses the Left unions of not internalising democratic and secular ideas into the day-to-day agenda of the unions. He visualises that the BMS-inclusive unity will further dilute their secular and democratic political agenda. If only he and his likes would bother to acquaint themselves with the debates and organisational exercises that the Left unions, particularly the CITU, are zealously pursuing in the fight against communal and casteist forces, they would realise that such fears are unfounded. This is not to suggest that all that is needed is already being done and that the Left unions can stray into complacency.

The last decade of market oriented economic reforms has had many fathers. The BJP, sitting in the opposition in the beginning of nineties, accused the Congress of hijacking their economic agenda. The United Front, with all its nimble fingers, tried to push through the reforms agenda as fast as it could, despite the innumerable hurdles and speed-breakers placed by the Left, politically and on the trade union front. Those who are presently at the helm of affairs in the country’s governance, seek to roll over the indignant fury of protest, not only of the workers but also of all sections of the people, fancying a political consensus on ‘reforms’. The fact that workers, including those owing allegiance to the saffron or tri-colour brands, are coming into the arena of struggle is sure to make the disastrous ‘reforms package’ an orphan, sooner than later. But, this cannot become a reality, if the pro-Left unions renege on the task of building broader and broader class unity. It will be the worst sectarianism and not an act of pushing under the carpet all kinds of sectarianism, as Krishna Ananth would imagine.

It seems that Krishna Ananth is not that much bitter over the ‘unity’ of pro-Left and non-Left unions against the reforms, but only takes exception to the ‘celebration’ of it. When common ground is identified and action plans are drawn up for the upcoming struggle, nobody would expect a mourning to be declared! It is not the ‘celebration’ that Krishna Ananth derisively comments that should worry anyone who fraternises with the pro-Left unions, even from a distance. The real cause for worry is the unholy, albeit unintentional, united front that is emerging from the constituencies, which I P Anand and Krishna Ananth seek to represent, to scuttle the united offensive against the reforms package.