Lessons Of The February 24 Strike

Sukomal Sen

NOBODY can doubt the magnificent success of the February 24 nationwide strike in defence of the right to strike. This was the ninth nationwide general strike organised at the behest of the sponsoring committee of trade unions and national federations since the beginning of the vigorous implementation of the IMF-World Bank dictated neo-liberal globalisation policies in 1991 in an effort to thwart implementation of these policies.

Unlike previous occasions, the nationwide strike this time was of a different kind. True, the issue of the right to strike arose out of neo-liberal economic onslaught on the employees and teachers of Tamil Nadu and the resistance they put up by their united strike in July 2003. But the issue ultimately assumed a different character with the savage victimisation of the striking employees and teachers by the Jayalalitha government and the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court declaring strike by government employees as “illegal, immoral, and unethical” while simultaneously castigating the strikes by other sections of the workers. This aroused the anger and protest not only from the government employees and other sections of the working class, but from a cross section of democratic minded people and intelligentsia of the country, particularly the legal luminaries beginning from Soli Sorabjee, the attorney general  of the government of India to a number of   former chief justices of the High Court, former judges of the Supreme Court and eminent legal practitioners with different political inclinations.

At the very beginning, as the government employees were the direct victims of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the All India State Government Employees Federation (AISGEF) in consultation with the Confederation of Central Government Employees, in August, 2003, vowed to counter and challenge this most unacceptable infringement of the trade union rights by organising a massive strike of the employees at the national level. The imperative of fighting this autocratic assault by the entire bourgeoisie state on the democratic right of the working class through united resistance was stressed through national level, state level conventions and innumerable seminars and writings.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY

For about last three years, Indian judiciary has been opening up its fangs against the rising struggle of the working classes to resist  neo-liberal economic offensives.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling against bandh and the Supreme Court’s approval subsequently, the Kolkata High Court’s sudden ruling banning processions during the day time, the Supreme Court’s reversal of its earlier judgment on Contract Labour – all  these constitute  a systematic attempt by one very important organ of the bourgeoisie state to bind the working class hand and foot in order to incapacitate their power of resistance.

In fact, globally, when the intensity of economic offensive of imperialist globalisation is fast sharpening, world capitalism is also bent upon rendering the working-class resistance powerless by banning or severely curbing their trade union activities. Spain, South Korea, Mexico, some Latin American countries (not to speak of Pakistan  or some Middle East countries where traditional democratic rights and workers’ right to strike are severely curtailed by the nature of their state structure) are witnessing this dictatorial offensive on the trade union rights. Of late, in Galicia, Spain, a court sentenced a number of workers to 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with a huge amount of fine for the “crime” of picketing during a strike in June 2002. Spanish workers led by CIG are waging struggles to undo this judicial autocracy. It is in this global context, the onslaught of the judiciary on the working class resistance in India is, in all likelihood, set to intensify if not checkmated in time by the combined might of the working class with the support of the democratic minded intelligentsia and other sections of the people.

CRISIS OF CAPITALISM & DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLE

Imperialist globalisation itself is a veritably undemocratic phenomenon. The entire process of globalisation is dictated by the needs of the imperialist-capitalist interests in the current phase of world capitalism, which is undergoing prolonged and deep-rooted structural crisis. The globalisation process is a bid to tide over this unprecedented crisis at the cost of common people in general, the working class in particular.

Obviously, the mechanism for implementation of this globalisation cannot be evolved democratically. When offensive is directed against the common people, the question of democratically deciding the devices of that offensive is unreal and ridiculous too.

IMF-World Bank-WTO are unelected bodies, run by select bureaucrats who are committed to faithfully serve the vested interests of world capitalism - particularly of the imperialist countries. So imperialist globalisation is not only undemocratic, but highly oppressive and dictatorial too. In the process, the sovereign nation-states while faithfully implementing these dictates in the national and international corporate interests, substantially lose their economic and ultimately political sovereignty.

In India, the spree of privatisation, closures, downsizing, disinvestment, retrograde change of labour laws and deterioration in workers’ service conditions - all these are being arbitrarily decided and implemented by the executive in the interests of the big bourgeoisie and the multinational capital. Even the elected parliament is totally bypassed, or bulldozed to ditto these anti-worker, anti-people policies with the help of a subservient parliamentary majority. 

It is a very peculiar situation developing in the present phase of world capitalism i.e. imperialist-globalisation. Today’s working class movement is faced with the autocracy of the bourgeoisie state in all aspects of life of the toiling people and the democratic minded people as such. The present phase of capitalism is fast losing all bourgeoisie democratic norms which it espoused in its earlier phase. The BJP-led NDA government by its very class nature and BJP’s religious fundamentalist and outmoded outlook has turned out to be totally autocratic in forcing its anti-people, anti-democratic and reactionary economic and social policies on the people. The trade union movement is hard hit, not only by its economic offensive and anti-working class attitude, but by its divisive casteist and communal policies also. As a result, the trade union movement of the country cannot remain just confined to economic demands of wages and other economic issues relating to the workers’ economic interest only.

TAKING UP DEMOCRATIC ISSUES 

Long back in 1902 in his celebrated work What is to be Done? Lenin sharply criticised the trade union movement in Russia at that time, particularly the trade union policy of the Mensheviks. Later in 1905, in his Two Tactics of Social Democracy, Lenin argued that the working class should move beyond the confines of its economic interests of wages and fight against the Tsarist autocracy and act as the leading force in the democratic struggle against Tsarism.

Lenin taught the working class the need for acquiring political consciousness (which has to be brought from outside by the Communist Party) and the need to rise above sheer economism. All these teachings of Lenin are well-known. But even then it needs reiteration considering the growingly autocratic attitude of the bourgeoisie state (including judiciary) and growing attacks on the working class, its trade union movement and democratic aspirations of the people.

In the backdrop of the traumatic events of July-August 2003, when the entire state and its organs came down heavily upon the working class struggle, Lenin’s teachings assume more relevance to the trade union movement. That is why the mighty unity leading to the nationwide strike of February 24 in defence of right to strike, signifies its historical importance. This latest episode of trade union resistance unleashed by the government employees’ and the major part of country’s trade union movement has marked a much needed and much desired change in the quality of the Indian trade union movement.

It is true that barring AISGEF, CITU and some Left trade unions, a few trade unions added a number of economic demands also according to the needs of their own sectors for the strike. But during the campaign of the strike and its final implementation, overshadowing everything else, the democratic issue of right to strike has come into national focus, and the bourgeoisie media was also constrained to focus the February 24  strike as a nationwide working class action in defence of right to strike.

TRADE UNION UNITY

The nationwide strike on February 24 was a united working class action - but not an action of all-in-unity. In the trade union movement ‘all-in-unity’ is a strategic slogan with the purpose of uniting the entire working class. But in practice, the slogan can be materialised through different phases of struggle not only in the trade union front, but in the Left-radical political front also.

It is true that capitalist offensive of any form is directed against the entire working class without discrimination. It is more so in the current phase of imperialist globalisation. Moreover, the question of ‘all-in-unity’, if looked only from the angle of top-level unity of different trade unions as the primary condition to ensure the grass-root level unity of the entire working class, then one’s attempt is most likely to flounder, especially in the concrete situation of the Indian trade union movement and political scenario.

In India the division of the trade union movement took place on ideological plane even before independence, and more particularly after attainment of independence. It was not just an organisational decision by one or a group of persons when INTUC was formed on the eve of independence, separating itself from the AITUC. Or when BMS was formed in 1956 as a trade union wing of the Hindu communal political party Jan Sangh - now metamorphosed into the BJP. The first one was born with the design of transmitting the ideology of capitalist class and the second one, in addition, carried the Hindu religious fundamentalist ideology into the ranks of the working class movement. Thus the ideological standing of these two organisations was designed for penetration of the capitalist ideology among the working class - not to fight it out resolutely. In the present phase of imperialist globalisation, when the offensive of the capitalist exploitation is being virulently intensified, practical experiences show that true to their birth marks, these trade unions occasionally murmur their protests against governments’ anti-working class measures, but do not come forward for any resolute resistance. Of course, in some cases in industry-wise struggles, where the national economic policy of the state is not challenged, they do participate, but they take care to see that the over all interests or policies of the ruling classes are not targeted. 

In India’s trade union movement, therefore, historically a strong right-wing current of reformism persists and continues to do so even in this phase of sharpening capitalist offensive on the working class. The reformists remain aloof from any trade union struggle that is designed to challenge the basic economic policy of the ruling classes.

Moreover, this reformist ideology is so strong that it tends to affect the centrist trade unions and on occasions any Left trade union also. In fact, in the struggle against imperialist globalisation, world wide there are two trends visible in the trade union struggles - one reformist and compromising and the other of resolute opposition and resistance. In India, the reformist ideology has been instrumental in making the trade union movement sharply divided, preventing the unified and determined resistance by the working class as a whole. These reformists, by their very class and ideological nature, subordinate the working class interests to capitalist interests.

It is in this concrete situation, attempts should be made to penetrate into the ranks of the reformists and draw them into the struggle. And this is possible because despite the anti-struggle role of the reformist leadership, the ordinary workers affiliated to them are as much affected by the globalisation offensive as the other sections of the working class.

Immediately after the Jayalalitha government’s savage attack on the striking employees and teachers, the AISGEF in cooperation with the Confederation of Central Government Employees took initiative for organising resistance in the form of a nationwide strike. But the Sponsoring Committee of Trade Unions took an unduly long period to take a decision in this regard. It ultimately announced on November 20, 2003, the date of strike as February 11, 2004.

This unilateral announcement created a new situation. The CITU and other Left trade unions, which were from the very beginning pressing for a nationwide strike, also faced a frustrating situation in their attempt to unite the other central trade unions, including an important partner of the Sponsoring Committee, to join the strike. Finally, in its all India conference held at Chennai in December, 2003, the CITU announced formally its decision for joining the strike and appealed to others also to join. And it is in this compelling situation only, the INTUC and the remaining partner sat together with the CITU and other Left trade unions in a joint meeting on January 5, 2004 and decided to join the strike, but the agreed date was announced to be February 24, 2004.

But, INTUC kept away from the strike at the last moment. The HMS, another traditional partner of the Sponsoring Committee, also remained aloof. Despite this, a big section of their ranks - a section of the ranks of even the BMS - participated in the strike and the unprecedented success of the strike is there for all to see. Thus the unity of the working class was ultimately built from the below and it succeeded to a great extent.

This is a big lesson in the desired task of building trade union unity in the country. Trade Union unity is achievable by struggle only, not simply by top-level parleys.

SOME EXPERIENCES IN STATE EMPLOYEES FRONT

These tactics of trade union unity were quite successful when applied in the front of state employees. That the slogan of defending the right to strike in defiance of the most harmful judicial prohibition and the building of unity from below was correct is confirmed by the fact of unexpected success of the strike in Jammu & Kashmir (Kashmir valley in particular), Gujarat, UP, AP and to some extent in Karnataka. Given the situation of dangerous communal polarisation in Gujarat, or the historically persisting division of the state employees movement in AP, the huge success of the strike in these states was beyond expectation. It is clear that the slogan of defending the right to strike in the context of Supreme Court’s ruling clicked and caught the imagination of the employees and workers.

So, this time the tactics of trade union unity and the correctness of the slogan worked in achieving success. More so, the importance of the success is notable because it was achieved overcoming all sorts of confusion and doubts raised in the aftermath of dissolution of parliament and the impending Lok Sabha elections.

OTHER VITAL TU LESSONS

Apart from the lessons of tactics of trade union unity and the correctness of the slogan and the appropriate timing of raising the slogan and  unleashing the struggle, there are other vital lessons also to be taken from the strike.

Firstly, the barbaric victimisation in Tamil Nadu followed by the atrocious Supreme Court ruling initially created a highly demoralising situation and fear psychosis, particularly among the government employees. But the decision of the strike and its massive campaign and ultimately successful observance of the strike - turned the negative situation into a positive one.

Secondly, a massive and successful strike is possible on a purely democratic issue, without depending on economic issues like wages if the slogan is given at an appropriate moment, and the campaign is properly conducted, propagated and unity built.

Thirdly, the reliance on the masses is another important lesson - that fighting trade unions, if they can deeply penetrate into the ranks and the issues are properly explained, then the masses of the workers can be moved for a big action on simply a democratic issue also as was February 24, 2004.

Finally, working class movement while fighting against economic offensive, should also try to come out of sheer economism, deal with the popular issues of the democratic masses, unite with them, in the process get themselves politically educated, unleash united democratic struggles to defend democracy, trade union and political rights and get involved in the struggles for other national and international issues. This is of paramount importance in this phase of imperialist globalisation, imperialist aggression and all the aggressive and autocratic measures accompanying it.

The February 24, 2004 nationwide strike contains valuable lessons for the progressive and radical trade union movement of the country which aims at politically conscious working-class activities of the class as a whole.