People's Democracy

  WEST BENGAL CM’s MUMBAI MEET

Investments, Media Slander And The CITU

Shyamal Chakraborty

THE ABP Ltd, which owns the Ananda Bazar Patrika and the Telegraph dailies, organised an interactive session of top-ranking industrialists with the West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya in Mumbai on August 21 in order to promote the possibilities of investments in West Bengal. The chief minister had a frank discussion with the captains of industry from various parts of the country regarding the prospects for investment in the state. He urged upon them to come forward and invest more and more in the state. There can be no doubt that the objective of this meet was laudable because industrialisation will boost the economic growth of West Bengal, which in turn will benefit the people.

LET US AGREE TO DISAGREE?

It was entirely a Q & A session, so to say. The media people were not invited. Only three leading representatives from Ananda Bazar Patrika and/or Telegraph were present. The chief minister was accompanied by Avik Dutta, assistant editor Ganashakti. They brought out reports of the meet in their respective dailies. However, there appears to be a marked difference between the version of Ananda Bazar Patrika and/or Telegraph and that of Ganashakti.

Interestingly, when someone is selling half-truths or downright lies he always runs the risk of getting caught on the wrong foot which gives the keen observer a clear idea of what really happened. That is just the case here. The Ananda Bazar reporter writes: “The final question to the CM was, ‘Can you convince your party men on the question of FDI so that they do not cause trouble?’ The CM’s reply was, ‘Talks are going on about this in the Party and there shall be more. But I shall have to finally tell the opposition – okay, let us agree to disagree’’.

Now, let us turn to the report in the Telegraph. The chief minister is reported to have said, ‘I tell you that they (the vocal members of the Left) will speak their mind to the finance minister (P Chidambaram), but finally agree to disagree’.

Two entirely different stories, one may wonder. The Ananda Bazar Patrika is talking about opposition within the Party. But the Telegraph’s view is completely different. Which one is speaking the truth? Interestingly, both of the comments have been put within quotes.

Even in the very recent past, there were many people who felt that newspapers always told the truth. They relied on the power of the printed word. There are still many people who believe that something printed in quotes in a newspaper must be true. Without getting into a controversy, we leave it to the reader to surmise which of the two versions is true. But I can not restrain myself from adding a tiny, little remark – it would have been infinitely better and wiser if the two reporters put their heads together and compared their notes before preparing their final draft. Faux pas of this proportion could then have been easily avoided. Or is it on purpose that they ‘agreed to disagree’?

ON PRODUCTIVITY

Ananda Bazar reporter also writes:  “The trade unions should now be attentive to the need for increasing production. They should also take care of the quality of the products”. I request the concerned reader to take note of the adverb “now”. Is this issue, one wonders, a new one? Something that has been made known only recently?  Has the CITU never spoken about the need for increasing production before? Has it ever opposed rise in production?

The point is being raised in a manner that seems to suggest that the CITU has always been a staunch opponent of improved production. “Now” it is much more enlightened in its views on the matter.

The fact remains that barring some isolated cases of aberrations at the grass root level, the CITU has upheld a clear, consistent stand on industrial production. The political-organisational report of the 5th state conference of CITU West Bengal committee held in 1990 clearly enunciates our stand:

CITU in principle supports rise in production. There are workers who feel that rise in production is a component of exploitation and try to resist it. On the other hand there are employers who, in the name of rise of production try to reap as much profit as possible with the minimum work force, taking no heed of market demands or limits of productivity of the workers. Consequently the unit falls prey to the crisis of overproduction in a squeezed market and slides towards closure. If the workers start viewing the need to raise production only as a tool for enhanced exploitation, the existing industries will turn sick and shut down. So the workers must take care of increase in industrial production.

This decision was taken, dear reader, by the CITU 14 years ago when Jyoti Basu was the chief minister of West Bengal.

ON FDI

According to the Ananda Bazar Patrika, the chief minister has allegedly said, ‘I have told my Party men I cannot oppose FDI. I want foreign investment in West Bengal’. The Telegraph has gone one step further. It quotes the chief minister as saying that his views are not fashioned by the dogmas of the past.

Avik Dutta, however, presents an altogether different version in Ganashakti. According to him the CM has said, ‘The Party and the government are in harmony. We need foreign investment but we should take a cautious attitude towards it in the interest of the country. In some spheres, where we are deficient in suitable or developed technology, we do need foreign investment. But in areas where we have them, have them on our own in plenty, do we really need investment from outside? That will only cause harm to the country’.

Nothing more needs to be said.

The Ananda Bazar Patrika has talked about ‘now’. Ten years from now, to be precise in September 1994, Jyoti Basu on behalf of the LF government made a policy statement on industrial development on the floor of the assembly in the background of the major policy shift of the then central government headed by P V Narasimha Rao. One may remember the two major aspects of the changed policy viz. delicensing and discontinuance of freight equalization scheme – policy change for which the Left had been clamouring since the Sixties. These two factors have been for decades the stumbling blocks in the way of our industrial advance.

Jyoti Basu took the opportunity of the policy changes to create an advantageous situation for the industrial advance in West Bengal by welcoming Indian and foreign investors on mutually advantageous terms. Somnath Chatterjee was then the chairman of the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC). During his tenure numerous MoUs were signed with prospective investors. 

The response was overwhelming. New industrial units began to come up in different parts of the state. Particular mention needs to be made of Haldia Petrochemicals and the Electronics Complex in Salt Lake, two major modern industries.

It should be also borne in mind that the strides in the field of agriculture, by the LF government under the leadership of Jyoti Basu, particularly the policy of emphasis on land reforms and strengthening of Panchayati Raj, have created the necessary base for industrial development. Jyoti Basu successfully overcame all hindrances and obstacles and led West Bengal towards industrial development. His dedicated initiative prepared the ground and Buddhadeb Bhattarcharjee is carrying on effectively from where he had ended.

Buddhadeb has reportedly said, that his Party men (i.e. you and me) have opposed FDI. When? Where? The Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation PTA plant has come up in West Bengal. Many other projects are going on. From August 1991 to March 1995, 79 foreign investment proposals were finalised with a total investment of Rs 3,483 crore. Foreign technology was involved in 55 projects. (Source: A Review of Industrial Scene in W B - Annual Report pages 274-275)

Just after the declaration of the industrial policy statement by the state government in September 1994, the CITU organised a state-level special convention and adopted a document congratulating the government on its initiative to promote industrial advance. It was categorically stated in that document:

Opportunity has been created to set up new industries in the state. However the Congress government at the centre has refused to play the role of the key investor. So the state government is left with no other option than to invite private investments from the country and abroad.

In this context the state government has welcomed Indian and foreign entrepreneurs to invest in the state to extend employment opportunities. We have every right to oppose this move of the government. But we have to ponder whether it would be proper to oppose this initiative. If we obstruct the process and hinder the entry of Indian/Foreign private investment neither we nor the state government have the capability to inject new investment into the industrial sector. Naturally there will be no investment in the state. So no new industry shall come up. The existing units shall turn sick or shut down due to drying up of investment. For this reason, CITU can not oppose the government’s endeavour towards industrial progress. For the same reason we are cooperating with the state government to bring about industrial advance in the state while opposing the reform policy of the Congress government at the centre

After that in the year 2000, the CITU unanimously adopted the policy declaration in its 7th state conference where it was said that:

The state government has taken an initiative to set up new industries to arrest the situation. This endeavour will help in stalling to some extent the gradual contraction of employment opportunity which is a direct offshoot of the liberalisation policies. The Bakreshwar Thermal Power Project has started production, Haldia Petrochemicals has overcome all hindrance and is about to begin production. All these steps have created a favourable environment for industrial growth. We support the initiative of the Left Front government and appeal to the working class to co-operate with the government in its endeavour.

How did the captains of the industry develop such panicky attitude towards the trade unions in general and the CPI(M) in particular?  This question came up during the meet. Buddhadev Bhattacherjee gave a straight reply. According to him (to quote Ganashakti), this misconception stems from a systematic campaign of slander by a section of the media. In reality, there is absolutely no difference between the position of the Party and the point of view of the government. Ananda Bazar Patrika has chosen to omit these words of the CM. Why? It is perhaps because it is not convenient for them to bring this out.

TWO IMPORTANT POINTS

The alert reader may note that the CM has spelt out certain principled views. Firstly, he has made it clear every decision is taken at a political level in the Party. Secondly, we are taking concrete decisions based on the objective analysis of the situation. Some people are mistakenly describing it as pragmatism. There is a wide difference between pragmatism and realism. ‘Pragmatism’ conveys a sense of opportunism.

ON IISCO

The Ananda Bazar Patrika states that the CM has reportedly told Jindal (a leading industrialist), that the central government might take over IISCO and run it for one or two years. But if there is no privatisation, its future will be doomed. Then the paper reports within quotes the CM telling Jindal, ‘You take over IISCO, otherwise it will not survive.’ Then the reporter has remarked:  ‘This appeal from the Leftist chief minister of Bengal must have surprised Jindal.’ I venture to add in this connection that if some one goes through the two reports in the two dailies he will be less surprised.

Now let us see what Avik Dutta has to say in Ganashakti, He writes: “In reply to a query from the Jindal group, the CM said, ‘you have discussed this issue once. Our point is to save IISCO. If someone gives me a good proposal I will have a talk with the centre. But we do not support privatisation of profit making PSUs. This should not be done.’

ON MILITANT TU MOVEMENT

The chief minister has supposedly said (as stated by Ananda Bazar Patrika ‘The trade unions are still carrying on along the wrong path of the 60’s and the 70’s. In the name of movement they are breaking the law. This cannot be allowed. Gherao, militant movement has to be stopped; otherwise I’ll have to send the police. Bandhs do not help in getting anything. They only tarnish the image of the state.’

But the Ganashakti has an entirely different story to say. It reads: “(The CM said), ‘LF government is of course in favour of trade union movement but that movement has got to be responsible. We are in favour of movements for the protection of the democratic rights of the workers and for putting forward their reasonable demands. We also tell the employers and management that they must also look after the grievances and demands of the workers. It must also be remembered that while labour is an indispensable component of the industry, the workers must also study the industry they are working in. If they do not do so, their own future will be at stake.’

According to the Ganashakti, the CM had also said that a movement for just demands and breakdown of law and order are not one and the same thing. The chief minister informed the gathering that except for one or two isolated cases, the labour situation in West Bengal is positive.

This part has also been left out by the Ananda Bazar Patrika. This is only to be expected from them.

“Gherao” is now a thing of the past. Long before the Left Front assumed power in West Bengal, the CITU had decisively stated that “Gherao” could not be regarded as a valid form of workers’ struggle. We do not think that “Gherao” (pressurising an employer or management staff to concede a demand by detaining him) helps the cause of the working class. The trade union movement, or for that matter the democratic movement cannot rely on such short cuts. We have annulled such “quick” methods way back in 1969. So where does the difference lie between the CM and the CITU regarding “Gherao”?

And talking about militant movement, one may do well to remember that carrying a gun or wielding a stick does not make a person militant. Militant is a word having a positive sense but it is being misused. If someone uses force he is called a “militant”. If he carries a gun or hurls a bomb he becomes militant. The terrorists of Kashmir, ULFA, KLO, the Bajrangis with their tridents are all being labelled “militant” by the media. But the CITU does not consider these to be militant movements. These are simply terrorist activities – a handful of people using violence or threat of violence to achieve their means. This does a lot of damage to the organised movement, deters people’s participation and initiative giving a clear advantage to the forces of reaction and the opportunistic employers and management.

CITU is always against such mindless extremism. Neither is this a common feature of today’s trade union movement in West Bengal. One or two isolated cases of violence have indeed happened some times but these were exceptional and the CITU has taken a firm stand regarding those incidents. These were not trade union movements but violation of law and order.

I am also confident that the CM has never used the phrase ‘militant movement.’ The media has put it in his mouth. I was recently interviewed by Sangbad Pratidin but when I read the piece in the news paper I found that the interviewer has put his own word in my mouth. I have supposedly said ‘The CITU is having a rethink about harsh forms of movement like ‘gherao’, ‘blockade’, ‘boycott’ etc’. This phrase ‘having a rethink’ is a figment of the reporter’s imagination.

This is media for you.

In fact, whether a movement is militant or not is determined by the circumstances in which it happens. In a terribly hostile environment, even a rally or a march may be considered a militant movement. To brave the extremist violence (or threat of violence) and organise a rally of 100 people in the Kashmir valley is a militant act. Even if the whole rally is unarmed. The brave employees in Tamil Nadu who went on strike even after Jayalalitha declared it illegal and clamped the draconian TESMA on it, had taken a militant position. And of course, a workers strike anywhere is a militant step.

Our friends in the media may do well to remember that it was through strikes and bandhs, rallies and marches that the Common Minimum Programme and the UPA government, dependent on the “untouchable” Left, came into being.

Our stand is crystal clear: the industrial development in Bengal shall continue and the CITU shall go on supporting the endeavour. In some spheres we do need foreign investment. We shall open the doors to it. But in other areas, say for example, the banking sector, the insurance sector, the telecom industry and the civil aviation sector we do not need any thing from outside. If these are handed over to foreigners, there will be firm resistance from our end. If need be, there will be strikes, state-wide bandhs, Bharat bandhs and other ‘militant’ movements.

And about slanders against the CITU? Well if they are not there, it will seem that we are going the wrong way. Just like Karna’s armour (in the Mahabharata), the hate campaign has been a part of our existence since the inception.

The ABP Ltd has come forward with an initiative to promote industrial activity in the state. This is indeed commendable. But the company must also realise that creating a concocted divide in the press between the CM and the TUs will not help in any way to stimulate industrial growth. In fact, the mad cry that trade union activity will spell threat for future investors is not only misleading and absurd, but also will adversely affect the industrial climate of the state.

We all know that despite all the false and malicious campaign of the detractors West Bengal today is the preferred destination of investors. This industrial upsurge owes its origin to the economically favourable environment, the political stability of the Left Front government, the keenness of the chief minister and his cabinet colleagues and last but not the least, organised trade unions who are responsible and committed to the working class and the people.