Thank You My Lords!
Late ex-PM of Pakistan Mr. Julfiker Ali Bhutto once said that India and Pakistan have many things in common, but he gave only one example, only one: - both of them have Section 144 CrPC. People chose to forget this. But Bhutto displayed a deep insight in this statement; and the honourable Supreme Court of India took the burden to remind us that valuable lesson, though only indirectly, through its verdict on Aug 6th, 2003, regarding 'rights' of govt. employees, or rightly speaking, a particular 'rightlessness' of them (and the T.U.s).
The Attorney General commented that this verdict was "uncalled for", and that the govt. employees (and the T.U.s) should not be denied of their right to strike. [His action was praised in the pages of The Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/08/13/stroies/2003081300361000.htm) and opposed directly in the editorial column of the arch-liberal Ananda Bazaar Patrika, on the very next day, and indirectly in the CAVEAT column in The Statesman, 24/08/2003, by C.R.Irani sahib.] But the Attorney General is thus again trying to sugar-coat the bitter pill; why not call a spade a spade as Bhutto did! Or can it be that our learned Attorney General does not know the truth about these twin republics (or the triplets, if one takes Bangladesh also into account) which Bhutto told the press decades ago? For almost each right that the publicus enjoy in these republics there exist(s) one or more ways in the hands of the state to curtail, limit, jeopardise that right. [And not only that, you'll find many other contradictory things here, vig; - there exist "My Lord", "Your Exellency", etc, feudal/regal/pre-republican addresses in these republics; police or administrative officers are to be addressed as "sir" or "sahib" by the ordinary folk, while the formers often use (derogatory) "tu" instead of (polite) "aap" when talking with the later poor creatures, etc, etc. This twin republics, even after getting independence, preferred to stay very much like a colony in terms of many aspects of cultures, values, (as much, or more, they retained feudal cultures, values also); and are very close to, what Marx ridiculously termed the pseudo-republics of Europe of the 1870s, "monarchy without a monarch". It needs only a little jolt to swing them towards the fate of the "Roman Republic", a corrupted and talking-shop senate leading/yielding to a despotic absolutism, be it of a Nazi type or a religious orthodoxy. Anyway, let us go back to Mr.Sorabji where we left him—] Well, Mr.Sorabji, don't we have the ESMA, POTA, etc.? The Jayalalitha Govt. of Tamilnadu only had to invoke the good old Congress-made ESMA into action, and ESMA did all it can do effectively, it did beat the strikers enough to break the strike of the govt. employees; leave aside for a moment the legal aftermath that ended with the S.C. judgement. But neither you, Mr.Sorabji, nor, so many persons of the learned gentry blamed that ESMA (at least in their first round criticism, as per the newspaper reports that we could collect). Jayalalitha's cruelty and the Supreme Court's asympathy shocked them; but they were not at all shocked by the fact that for every freedom (of assembly, of publication, of striking, etc) we have there are counter-acts in the hands of the governments (section 144, pota, esma, etc, etc)[or, if that govt. is as clever as W.B. state govt. it can easily do a little bit of police firing on striking workers on the plea of polices being attacked, or can arrest any number of persons, put them in custody for a long time, even without invoking any black-acts!]. Though these gentlemen will all be very much shocked and horrified by any revolutionary attempt of the working class and all the toilers to make these republics truly liberated democratic republics, without which (attempts) this will never be possible to achieve that (latter) result.
We thank their lordships also for providing the meaning of the word "equity"(a more market-friendly word, with a strong inclination of proportionality, than the old fashioned "just" or "proper" or "reasoned", "fair", etc) (a bourgeois meaning, though, we'll see): - the govt. employees have no equitable right to go on strike either (besides having no legal/constitutional right also) because there are many unemployed youth in this country, many of whom have the qualification necessary for govt. jobs and are waiting eagerly for the latter. By this criterion almost all workers/employees/other staff can't go on to strikes, isn't it? And don't be fool enough to put that criterion elsewhere at random; so as to ask, 'why the top brasses of the state enjoy big pay packets and extra perks and privileges when there are so many unemployed youth in hapless conditions, or when there are millions in semi-starvation, destitute, abject poverty, etc, etc'. Don't you have a sense of proportion, yaar?
And also for inculcating in us some sense of history, though only obliquely, we must thank their lordships; so as foolishly no one will ask why the S.C. now is taking such 'anti-labour stance when this very S.C. gave out many benevolent judgements for the workers in the past; so that one can clearly differentiate 'now' with the 'past'. Why, isn't it a fact that in the 'past' the workers fought ? therefore movements, struggles very intense and spreading; remember the late sixies, the railway workers strike......and 'now', how much things have changed, the workers had to retreat back. So, isn't it obvious that 'rights' and whatever things they have earned in the 'past' are slipping out of their grip; the hard facts of life are being translated into legal languages; what have become almost customary now being codified, enacted; and these will in turn make things harder for the workers, to start refresh when the 'limited' democracy has become more and more 'narrowed'.
We must also extend our gratitude to their lordships of the Supreme Court for divulging the real nature of the Supreme Court and all such instruments of the STATE, the real nature which is always kept hidden by the democrat, republican, Tory, labour, etc, etc, and also by the social democrat demagogues; the truth that, as Engels said: - the state and its organs, the bureaucracy, armed forces, judiciary— all belongs to particular class (es), the riling class (es). The ruling classes of India, the dependent (on imperialists) big bourgeoisie allied with feudalism, is not ready to permit "workers' unrest", "militant trade unionism", etc anything that may negatively affect their super-profit making drive. And this is already displayed in their effort to rewrite labour laws, in their dealings in the past few strikes in both private and public sector,etc. Men like Mr. Prakash Karat are themselves deceived (!) and they are deceiving the working class and all the toiling people by citing some old enactments and judgements of their good old days of "welfare state", lamenting for its demise giving rise to "liberalism", forgetting (so that others also forget) the essentially same class character of both welfarism and liberalism, and the historical rise(and fall) of welfarism. So we find in the weekly journal of the CPI(M), People' Democracy (http://pd.cpim.org/2003/0810/08102003_prakash_sc.htm) "Supreme Court In Liberalised Times" an article by Prakashji, in which he writes that he finds in the SC judgement, " It reflects the new ethos of liberalism, the market principle and the sanctity of contract influencing the out look of the judiciary. The dominant outlook of the ruling classes can not but affect the various instruments of the state including the judiciary." Thus after almost touching the Marxist position he swung back quickly, "For the ordinary working people of the country, the changed outlook and values displayed by the judiciary is a matter of serious concern. In the seventies and up to the mid-eighties, the higher judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular has set out a jurisprudence and given out a series of landmark judgements which had to a certain extent strengthened the rights of the working people........" He writes, in the same vein, in the concluding paragraph, "The Supreme Court has played an important role at critical junctures, especially in upholding the secular principle of the Indian State. It has a justified reputation of being the guardian of the Constitution and the rights of citizens. Unfortunately, more and more, the court is seen as hostile to collective interests of different sections of the working people........."
"Unfortunately" Laments the CPI(M) at the Fall of its Guardian Angel. These people will never try to understand that the Welfarism of the bourgeousie of the world was a historical phenomenon when the bourgeoisie was facing ascending waves of 'socialism' ; that the 'lamdmark' enactments and judgements of the Seventies were just following the GREAT WAVES of the Sixties ; and now gone are those days— now we are experiencing the defeat of the international working class movement, our army is totally disarrayed, the bourgeoisie have tasted blood, proudly they proclaim 'the end of history'; gone are those days when they had to behave politely, had to accede us those ILO charters, accept 'rights' etc, etc. ? and the retardation of the working class movement in India was also evident from, say, the eighties, so that, even Jyotibabu (CPI (M) Polit bureau member and ex CM of WB) could thrash out against the 'gherao' movement, so that petty gains earned in the previous period could slowly be cut back ( to the extent of regular DA cuts or 'katoti' of lakhs of workers of the jute industry of WB in the nineties) etc.,etc. And it will take some serious battles from the working class and all toilers to regain lost positions and start counter offensive. Either start to prepare the class to move forward or sit back (and dream and devise for some more parliamentary seats), lament, appeal to the goodwill of the bourgeoisie; i.e., either take a revolutionary Marxist position or a pseudo- Marxist social democratic position( like, without preparing the class for the ensuing battles just protesting through a token and meaningless one day bandh, like so many bandhs celebrated by the reformist lot)— The conscious, advanced workers will decide. And we thank their lordships of the SC for throwing this question forcefully towards the working class of India.
Comments:
No Comments for View