People's Democracy

Does The BMS Really Oppose Anti-Labour Policies?

Ardhendu Dakshi

TILL early last year, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) had been an integral part of the joint trade union resistance to the policy of economic ‘reforms’ the NDA government is vigourously pursuing. Even when the BMS leadership decided to pull out of the National Assembly of Workers held in July last year, they reiterated that the BMS was “against the anti-poor, anti-labour policies of globalisation and against the menace of WTO.” They also reaffirmed that the “BMS commitment to continue the joint struggles on the industrial level depending upon the need of the situation shall continue as was in the past” (letter dated June 27, 2002, addressed to the central trade union organisations by BMS president Hasmukh Bhai Dave).

BMS STAND UNEXPLAINED

In fact, the eight-point demands, around which the campaign and struggle have been built up in the recent past, were exactly the same as were endorsed by the BMS, as also by the INTUC. Strangely, however, the BMS refused to join the all-India general strike on May 21, which had been called by the AICCTU, AITUC, CITU, HMS, TUCC, UTUC, UTUC(LS) and independent unions and federations on those very demands. Though the BMS did not express any reservation or difference over the issues involved in the strike, it did not come out with any coherent explanation for not supporting the strike.

One will recall that the BMS had joined the countrywide strike by public sector workers on April 16 last year against the disinvestment or privatisation of public sector undertakings (PSUs) and against the entry of giant multinational corporations (MNCs) to capture our national assets almost free of cost. The May 21 general strike was only a carry forward of that resistance to the government policies. The government of India has failed to pay heed to the demands put forward by all sections of the working people for total reversal of its anti-people policies. Nay, it persists in pursuing these very policies with a vengeance, as is evident from its move to go ahead with the programme to privatise and disinvest the BPCL, HPCL and many other PSUs. Though the workers of BPCL and HPCL went on a strike for 3 days, under the leadership of 26 unions functioning in these PSUs, the government of India remains adamant. In such a situation, it is but natural that all the central trade unions are determined to carry the struggle further ahead. But while the situation has thus further worsened, the BMS has backed away from the path of struggle --- for mysterious reasons.

In this backdrop, the resolutions adopted by the meeting of the BMS central working committee, held at Satara on April 6-8 this year, make an interesting reading. In one of the resolutions adopted at the meeting, the BMS demanded that the government “reject (the) theory and practice of FDI” (foreign direct investment) and “scrap the present disinvestments ministry of the government and debundle (!) the group of secretaries and group of ministers.” It was all very well indeed. But how did the BMS leadership propose to pursue these demands? Of this, the very first resolutions adopted by the BMS central working committee gave the clue. No doubt it noted that various social organisations and different trade unions have been opposing the foreign “economic aggression.” But the BMS exhorted all its workers to dedicate their lives to “complete bharathiyatva” (Indianness) and to join the Swadeshi Jagran Manch yatras from April to June 2003. The BMS has evidently been mandated by its gurus in the RSS to disassociate from the joint trade union action programmes and take to the saffron agenda in toto!

SOFTNESS ON LABOUR COMMISSION REPORT

The BMS has also chosen to soft pedal the issue of the report presented by the Second National Commission on Labour. For the record sake, the resolution on this subject iterated that “the report contained certain contentious issues and also recalled that “the BMS had submitted (a) dissenting note.” But, the resolution heaped lavish praises on union labour minister Sahib Singh Varma in the following words: “At the instance of the present labour minister (a) lot of discussions on the report took place and some bills were drafted.” The resolution commended that the report “needs serious consideration by the social partners.” For the record sake, the BMS demanded that the labour-management relations bill --- and not the entire report --- be placed before the next Indian Labour Conference (ILC) for discussing the said “contentious issues.” Then the resolution elucidated the BMS stand further, as under:

a) Implement the non-controversial recommendations at the earliest; and

b) The unorganised sector workers bill, social security bill and the bill on workers’ participation in management drafted by the labour ministry, with modification made in various discussions held with the partners in the labour field, be placed before the parliament immediately and get passed.

Thus, to the BMS, these bills are “not controversial,” they have been “welcomed by all the social partners” and their enactment “will create history.”

What this is if not a blatant exercise in partisanship? First, it is patently wrong to term these bills as “not controversial.” The labour ministry has, to date, not made any modification to the unorganised sector workers bill, a draft of which was circulated among the central trade unions. To our knowledge, the labour ministry has not drafted any new bill on the workers’ participation in management, nor has the NDA government clarified its stand on the earlier bill that was introduced in 1990. The social security bill, which the BMS resolution lauds, has not been forwarded to the central trade unions either.

UNORGANISED WORKERS BILL

As for the unorganised sector workers bill, five major central trade unions including the BMS had, in a joint letter dated January 21, 2003, communicated the following major shortcomings to the ministry of labour:

(1) The draft bill reflects none of the basic features of the recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour or the conclusions of the National Seminar on Unorganised Workers held in November 2002.

(2) There is no provision for regulation of employment and minimum employment earnings.

(3) The bill enables the government to assume absolute authority to decide about the application, modification and alteration of the existing structures in force, which is most objectionable.

(4) The emphasis is on contributory social security and welfare.

(5) There is no provision that the state has to bear the burden of contribution for the workers, and also for the employers if the employers are not identifiable.

(6) Even to cover the welfare part, a lot more modifications are required, in which trade unions have to be an indispensable partner.

Later, the BMS was also a signatory to a joint letter dated March 5, 2003, suggesting the following as agenda items for the next sessions of the Standing Labour Committee and the Indian Labour Conference:

(1) The draft bill 2003 for unorganised sector workers and improvements thereon.

(2) The report of the Second National Commission on Labour. (The letter meant the entire report and not the labour-management relations bill, as the BMS resolution later suggested.)

INFERENCE FROM THE VOLTE FACE

The subsequent volte face on part of the BMS leads one to only one inference --- that the BMS leadership is desperate to oblige the present minister of labour in his design to push ahead with the implementation of the Labour Commission report, even if in part.

The BMS meeting’s resolution on the government’s move to reduce the interest rate on Employees Provident Fund (EPF) also reflects the same urge to bail the present labour minister out of his predicament. It only demands that there should be no reduction in the present rate of interest, i e 9.5 per cent. This is giving a go-by to the unanimous demand of the entire trade union movement for restoration of the interest rate to 12 per cent.

Moreover, the BMS is also echoing the present labour minister’s contention that the EPF Organisation (IPFO) must have the freedom to decide the rate of interest on the basis of the return on investment. The fact is that when the government, which has over 80 per cent of the EPF investments, has reduced the rate of interest payable thereon to just 8 per cent, such ‘freedom’ has no substance.

Here, one must also keep in mind that the nominees of both the BMS and the INTUC in the finance and investment committee of the EPF Board had acquiesced with the EPFO decision to stop crediting any interest to the accounts of EPF subscribers from April 2003 onwards. This is nothing but a dilatory tactics indulged in by the present labour minister, and the BMS is only too eager to oblige him with a face saving formula.

Thus, the BMS is playing the proverbial game of hunting with the hound and running with the hare. It opposes the government’s policies, sometimes in a voice shriller than others, but keeps aloof when the question comes of a movement against these very policies. This in effect means supporting the government of India “by not disturbing them.” There are thus reasons to believe that the noises the BMS makes are aimed only at keeping its constituency intact.

The situation today demands an all-out struggle by workers to force the government of India to reverse its anti-labour and anti-people policies. The all-India May 21 strike was a decisive step in that direction. Nobody wishes to paint the BMS and the BJP-led NDA government with the same brush. But if the BMS leadership consciously opts to quit the path of united struggle under one pretext or another, how else are the workers to judge it?

One can only suggest to the BMS leadership that it is never too late to mend their way. They must better rethink and join the united movement, for the sake of our country and our people. One also hopes that they have freedom to listen at least, and have not plugged their ears at the bidding of the RSS high command.