Maharashtra Bandh On The Discussion In "RED STAR" And Other
Prologue
On 25th April 2001 , a "successful" bandh was observed in Maharashtra . Along with some other demands, the bandh was against the abominable proposal of the Central and previously of the State Governments to change the labour laws and against the surrender of the government to the MNC— Enron. The success of the bandh and the participation of a good number of workers in Mumbai and other industrial belts of Maharashtra created quite a stir in the communist revolutionary circle over there. The articles published in the journals like Red Star (June, 2001), Comrade (April-August, 2001), New Democracy (May-June, 2001), on this issue bear testimony to this. These journals used phrases like "unprecedented", stir in the trade union level...after a gap of many years" etc. to describe this event. The events of these few months in the workers' movement of Maharashtra have even brought to the forefront the differences in the viewpoint and the debates around those existing within the communist revolutionary groups, which are reflected in the journals. The analysis of the events in the light of direct experience of different communist revolutionary groups and the debates on this basis have brought to light some of the problems of the workers' movement in a living way before the communist revolutionary camp.
As we, the communist revolutionaries, speak of developing and establishing working class leadership on real movements and variously evaluate the present workers' movements accordingly, the experiences of Maharashtra's workers' movement has offered us an opportunity to learn from life. For that very reason we have felt the urge to participate in this living debate with some of our questions, observations and opinions as an integral part of the endeavour to take the correct stand in the course of the revolutionary class struggle through the process of criticism and self-criticism centring around the workers' movements and their problems. If the present debate within a section of the communist revolutionaries does not stop here and push the entire communist revolutionary camp towards the path of search of the right orientation, then the experiences and debates of Red Star or Comrade will move out of the trap of words and play a positive role in the field of practice. We have undertaken the present endeavour with that hope.
Introduction Of The Events
Before entering into the topic, a broad introduction of the then events of Maharashtra is necessary. For the last thirty years a joint forum of the central trade unions of the parliamentary lefts [i.e. CPI (M), CPI] and of the so-called "socialist" parties has been functioning in Maharashtra . The name of the forum is Trade Union Joint Action Committee or in short T.U.J.A.C. Some other trade union centres led by different communist revolutionary groups have also joined this forum e.g. Trade Union Centre of India (T.U.C.I.), I.F.T.U. etc. Similarly a separate platform for contract labourers have been formed there mainly by the initiatives of the CITU and TUCI and its name is Thikedar Paddhati Birodhi Manch or in short, T.V.B.M. Apart from these, some of the "independent" unions in the important industrial organisations like Hindustan Lever, Blue Star etc, which are organised outside the sphere of influence of the established unions, have recently formed a platform called Trade Union Solidarity Committee. The communist revolutionaries have substantial influence on this platform, which is again a part of T.U.J.A.C, BKS, the trade union wing of the Shiv Sena and the rightist central trade unions, INTUC and BMS, are out the purview of these platforms.
From what have been written in the journals of the aforesaid communist revolutionary groups about the Maharashtra situation in the few months prior to the bandh, it is quite clear that as a result of globalisation or the new economic policy, both of which means the same thing, the anger and resentment among the workers of Mumbai-Maharashtra have been increasing continually...These journals have reported that in the industrial belts of Mumbai-Thane and in the other industrial belts of the state the sell out of the lands and sheds of the factories which were closed one by one during the last few years and construction of multi-storied buildings on those spaces, the closing down of textile mills of Mumbai, retrenchment of workers through the VRS in different factories, etc. have created an extreme difficult situation for the workers. The shameless surrender of the state and the central governments to the MNC, Enron, concerning the construction of the electricity generating centre at Davol, against which even the vote-based opposition parties were seen to raise a hue and cry, created
a special impact on the workers and the mass. Over and above all these on November, 2000, the state government brought forward a proposal for changing the labour laws to give unrestricted right for retrenchment and employment of contract labour. On February, 2001, the central government announced its decision to effect a change in the laws of a greater dimension (the Maharashtra government's proposal was for giving this right to factories employing 300 workers and less while the central government's decision extended the upper limit to factories employing 1000 workers). Just about this time, on 27th February, in a case concerning a company by the name of Cipla, the Supreme Court passed a judgement which declared that the contract workers would not be able to enjoy similar rights as those of permanent workers. This judgement made the Maharashtra Trade Union Recognition Act and the Unfair Labour Practice Act invalid for contract workers. This judgement came as a great shock to the large numbers of contract workers and their organisations.
In such a situation, TUJAC, which, according to information, was inactive and was almost an unknown entity till a year back, embarked on a propaganda campaign and started to receive unexpected response. In the words of Red Star, "Under the pressure of those unions which are engaged in direct struggle against the policies of the government. a decision for joint action was taken on September, 2000". From then the successive increase in the number of workers participating in the meetings following one after another exceeded all the calculations of the organisations and this clearly revealed in the various writings of these organisations. The participation of the workers in the first meeting held on 15th November 2000 , at Maharashtra High School Maidan exceeded the expectations and a stir was created. The meetings at Shivaji Park on 15th February 2001 and at Azad Maidan on 15th March 2001 saw further swelling of the workers' assembly. According to these journals, more than 50,000 workers assembled in the lastly mentioned meeting. From this assembly TUJAC, for the first time, gave the call for a Maharashtra Bandh on 25th April. Just after this, the Shiv Sena, in the name of its workers' wing,
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (BKS), dramatically gave a call to all other Trade Unions to keep aside all the political differences and the differences in the colour of the flags and unite against the steps taken by the state and central governments to change the existing Labour Laws and the other anti-worker steps of these governments All these resulted in the Maharashtra Bandh of 25th April under the joint initiative of TUJAC. BMS, BKS,and INTUC, which became an important news all over the country.
The Views Of Red Star And Comrade
Our discussion is centred on the fundamental aspects of the evaluations and the views of the communist revolutionary groups about Maharashtra Bandh and the events of 7-8 months prior to the bandh, as expressed in their journals, Red Star and Comrade Those fundamental aspects are: —
(1) After a gap of many years a new stir and enthusiasm have been observed among the workers of Maharashtra, which in many aspects have been unprecedented. This indicates an awakening of the working class of Maharashtra .
(2) The continuous activities carried out under the leadership of TUJAC in the pre-bandh period had played a positive role in the process of development of the workers' movement of Maharashtra .
Up to this both the communist revolutionary groups are unanimous The differences and debates start after this i.e. from the period of joint movement and joint organisation of the bandh with Shiv Sena-led BKS. These issues of the debate are: —
(1) According to Red Star, a successful bandh organised jointly by all the trade unions, from the left to the extreme rightist ones, symbolises a victory, a positive achievement of the workers' movement. Comrade, on the other hand, is staunchly against formation of any joint platform with the Shiv Sena-led trade union. They are of the opinion that the formation of such a joint platform has pushed the workers' movement on the brink of a dangerous precipice.
(2) Comrade reminds us about the present defensive position of the workers' movement in general where the workers are not being able to put up any serious resistance and stresses on determining the tasks of the revolutionary workers' movement in that perspective. According to them, the advancement of the movement under the leadership of TUJAC had opened up the possibility to develop independent trade union activities as a part of the activities of the revolutionary workers' movement. They speak about the creation of a fertile condition for establishing the correct political orientation among the workers. The alliance with trade unions led by Shiv Sena has almost dashed these possibilities to the ground.
We shall try to enter into the topic under discussion, keeping in mind these discussions and debates around the events of the past few months. Red Star has most clearly and unambiguously placed its logic in support of all the activities right from the start to the bandh. Therefore our discussion will be centred on the logics of Red Star. But it is quite natural that some logics of Comrade will also enter into the discussion.
Politics Of Bandh
The successful bandh of 25th April stands at the head of the programme of that period in Maharashtra. Right in the beginning of the article of Red Star it has been stated that "The bandh of April was novel, unprecedented" etc.—If we look at any successful bandh in the present conditions, then will notice that any one of the established parliamentary parties or their alliance are often using the bandh as the ultimate weapon of their programme. Of course, a few meetings are organised and a few processions are taken out one or two months prior to the bandh and at the same time some sort of a propaganda campaign centring on a host of demands also does take place. Often the bandhs are called to protest against the police atrocities on some agitations or militant demonstrations undertaken on the basis of the strength of party cadres with the aim of drawing a little more sympathy and support from the masses which may extend to the ballot boxes and brighten their election prospects. Other than these, another type of bandhs depending on the support and help of the cadres of the ruling party and government administration and in line with the politics of the established parties is also seen to take place. In other words, in the present situation the bandhs have become a part and parcel of the routine
programme of the parliamentary parties. This action in the line of a stereotyped movement carried out on the basis of the participation of the cadres of the established parties is very much prevalent now. In the present condition of extreme stoicism of the broad masses where the participation of the masses in this programme is, at best, inactive, the success of such bandhs is mainly dependent on the organisational power of the party or the alliance calling the bandh. And precisely because these programmes are mainly fostered from above on the strength of authority, the leadership does not have to face any adverse reaction or pressure from the participating masses for their inability to provide any programme for a long period just after the bandh. In this way the bandh has now become a very convenient means to confine the anger and discontentment of the masses within the parameter of the election-oriented politics and the present structure. In that case the bandhs allay the discontentment of the masses and at the same time keep intact the authority and influence of the established parties. The question is, whether Red Star is trying to characterise the Maharashtra Bandh as something
separate from the prevailing bandhs. Enthused by the success of the bandh Red Star has characterised this as "novel" because, "the first initiative came from TUJAC, an organisation composed of the trade unions of fully 'communist' parties and of parties with 'socialist' leanings". According to them, "This bandh is significant also for the reason that, in Maharashtra this is the first bandh within at least the last twenty years which has been organised on the basis of the demands of the workers and under the leadership of the trade unions." A bandh may take shape under the leadership of the so- called 'communist' parties of TUJAC, a bandh may incorporate the demands of the workers and in that bandh various forces may have joined hands to make it a success. But just for these features can we characterise a bandh as something separate, something special and label it as 'novel','unprecedented'? Did this bandh play any part to unify the partial, unequal struggles of the workers at
the factory level against the onslaught of the policy of globalisation and the New Economic Policy, against which the bandh was called? Did it help the struggle of the working class to advance at least a step and pose this struggle as a challenge? The real identity of a bandh of a separate character lies here. Yet the events showed that TUJAC had given the call of the bandh standing on the basis of the conventional programme of some processions and a few big mass meetings. Just after this BKS, the trade union wing of Shiv Sena joined in the propaganda campaign by declaring its support to the bandh. From then onwards the rein of the movement more clearly went into the hands of the established parties. During the bandh the organised strength of Shiv Sena played the main role in the various localities of Mumbai, while the activities of the leadership of CPI(M), CPI-led TUJAC were limited to a few industrial centres of the city. Can Red Star deny this?
In fact, this was inevitable. For, the organised strength and platform of the working class has not yet reached the stage where they can organise a struggle like Maharashtra Bandh in the process of developing resistance against government and its administration through struggles and conflicts. If that had been the case then the revisionist leadership of TUJAC and the reactionary Shiv Sena would have undoubtedly torn open their masks of militancy and had directly opposed the struggle. At least that is the experience of the factory-level struggles of the workers of West Bengal . Anyway, that is a different subject. The important point of consideration is the degree of spontaneity and the organisational preparedness of the working class in the present general conditions, more specially in the present condition of Maharashtra . Can a call for a movement like Maharashtra Bandh, of a character quite distinctive from the usual bandhs, be justified on the basis of the present degree of spontaneity and organisational preparedness of the working class? Red Star does not seem to have to give this question a thought before using various appellations hailing the band.
If the working class was really in a position to organise a stir-creating bandh quite separate in character from the stereotyped ones on its own initiative and use it as a step for focussing their demands before the ruling classes, then it would not have been possible for the leadership to sit silently for two and half months after the bandh and then arbitrarily opt for a stereotyped convention as the next programme. We saw the repetition of another fruitless bandh—fruitless in the perspective of the development of the working class movement of both Maharashtra and the whole of the country— organised jointly by the'rightist' and the 'leftist' parliamentary parties with the help of their organised forces and with the working class, on the whole, remaining inactive.
Though the Red Star finds it impossible to deny this objective truth about the real character of the activities in the day of the bandh and of the post-bandh days, it has some more logic in its bag. It said,"The bandh of April is novel and unprecedented for the reason that within the period we can remember this is the first time when the central trade unions of both the left parties and the ultra-rightist parties including the fascists have participated unitedly". Naturally it has become necessary to analyse the character of the novelty imparted in reality by the unity of such varied forces.
Unity—For What & Among Whom
Regarding unity, the question of the attitude is undoubtedly one of the most important questions. Now let us see what Red Star thinks about it. To justify the formation of an alliance with BKS and BMS the Red Star has forcefully put forward certain logic, which, in turn, has raised some vital questions before us.
Firstly, they have written in one place that, "A number of questions have been raised against the justification of forming such a broad-based unity. .....Anyway, it can not be a question whether we should unite or not.. How we should unite, that can be the only question in the united front." This statement of Red Star is really surprising. Why they have to drag in the theory of the united front to prove the justification of forming a trade union alliance is best known to them. The united front that the working class or a Communist Party supports or builds in a particular historical condition can not be anything but a revolutionary united front with other possible revolutionary class or classes. Is the Red Star contemplating about building a revolutionary alliance with the trade unions led by the reactionary or counter-revolutionary Shiv Sena and BJP? There is no reason to believe that a communist
revolutionary group can think or are thinking of such a proposition. Then why is this confusion? Moreover, they very well know that in the case of the movement of Maharashtra the context under discussion is not of forming an alliance or unity with another class or classes and naturally the alliance can not have the character of an united front. Anyway, let us, for the time being, keep aside the discussion about the theory of the united front. But the cause of alarm is that in the name of the united front the Red Star is trying to establish their idea about unity as an axiomatic truth. And the discussion will have to proceed along this line. On the subject of unity the communists can never neglect the important questions about the goal to be achieved through the unity, the direction to be taken and the possible partners of the unity who can play a part in the achievement of this goal. It goes without
saying, to the communists the goal does not only mean the immediate one, to them the future is the most important question which means that the communists never view or can view the question of achieving the immediate goal by detaching it from the question of the development or future of the class struggle or by neglecting this question. The Red Star must be aware of the fact that the tendency to lay stress on the immediate goal is inherent in opportunism and that the communists have to carry on ceaseless struggle against this opportunism. As a Marxist organ the Red Star must also be aware that in a country like ours where there is a long history of parliamentary democracy (however half-baked it may be) and in a situation where we are witnessing the dominance of the reformist influence on the mass struggles, the struggle against opportunism assumes a paramount importance. Yet, unfortunately we find that in order to justify the formation of the "broad unity" with BKS and BMS, the Red Star has completely overlooked this aspect and has, instead, brought forward a confusing theory about the united front.
While arguing to establish that the broad-based unity or the formation of a grand-alliance was not unprincipled or opportunist, the Red Star had written just after the above argument, "Is this unity unprincipled? Is it opportunist? Is it a compromise with the interests of the working class? In the present case no demands have been compromised in any way". Their argument runs in the line that since the grand alliance has accepted the demands (except one) on the basis of which TUJAC has been carrying on their programme of propaganda and agitation, so the question of compromising the interests of the working class does not arise at all and this unity is neither unprincipled nor opportunist. At least, one thing is clear from this argument : through this argument they have themselves discarded their previous argument that "...it can not be a question whether we should unite or not". Of course, this is a pertinent question and unity can only be achieved on the basis of the agreement on their demands. On the other hand, we are made to understand that in the question of unity with other organisations, however reactionary they may be, there is no necessity of considering any other point except the point of the
unity of the demands. This standpoint of theirs becomes more clear when they say, "Should we look for conspiracy in every nook and corner?... If a section of the rightists moves along with us towards the achievement of this goal (emphasis ours), then there is no question of considering them as untouchables..." Let us consider this argument of the Red Star. It seems that this discussion has become extremely urgent with regard to the ongoing debates centring on Maharashtra Bandh. If we notice carefully then we shall find that while the Red Star has spoken about 'demands' in one place, they have spoken about 'goal' in another. But one must admit that 'demand' and 'goal' are not synonyms. Then which is the point they are stressing around which the unity will be achieved—around demands or around goal? Anyway, it is a fact that TUJAC has been carrying on its separate campaign and demonstration with the Maharashtra Bandh in view. It is also not very difficult to understand that
what have caused the conditions of unity to be created is the unanimity of both BKS and BMS in the programme of one day bandh. Because, there is no cause to believe that they have been unaware of the fact that it is impossible for TUJAC, led by CPI (M) and CPI along with Red Star to organise a successful bandh in the whole of Maharashtra on its own strength. Hence, if the goal just have been to organise a successful bandh and the main urge have been to achieve this goal, then it can be concluded with certainty that the unanimity with BKS and BMS have been the foundation stone of the grand alliance, because that is natural. On the other hand, was there really an unanimity among TUJAC, BKS and BMS about the demands? The Red Star has developed its main argument in support of the formation of the grand alliance on this basis. The Red Star writes," Perhaps they (BKS & BMS) will not go to the extent of taking a stand on the question of withdrawing from the WTO. .... If they are ready to struggle for resisting the proposal of their governments to change the existing labour laws, then that will be a great victory" We can understand from this statement that the Red Star itself is conscious that except for the demand concerning changes in the existing labour laws, it can not be expected from BKS and BMS to have neither the resolve nor the sincerity to struggle for other demands. In fact, what becomes the meaning of placing such demands when it is certain that there will be no struggle for the realisation of the demands, even the desire for organising the struggle is absent? Doesn't this amount to mere lip service? In that case, can it be demanded that just because of the achievement of unanimity with regard to the demands of the bandh, the formation of an alliance with the trade unions controlled by the reactionary BJP and Shiv Sena have not been an unprincipled and opportunist step? At this point if they keep on avoiding to answer this question and demanding that
there has been unanimity with regard to the demands, then we are left with no other alternative but to conclude that goaded by the urge to make the bandh a success through the united effort the Red Star has actually clipped off its own demands and reduced the demands of the bandh to the single demand of resisting the proposed change in the existing labour laws. Hence in the context of the bandh all other demands become merely decorative and meaningless. If this the case, then can this behaviour or line of thinking be called anything but opportunism? What the Red Star has to say in answer to this allegation, we do not know. Anyway, the fact remains that inspite of the Red Star's insistence to establish the unanimity on demands as the foundation of the broad-based unity, we are led to understand that it is the unanimity on the programme of the bandh that really united TUJAC, BKS and BMS in a single platform.
From the point of view of the prevailing yardstick Maharashtra Bandh was undoubtedly successful. It could not be denied that if Shiv Sena and BJP would not have participated, then the bandh movement could not have attained such success in a state like Maharashtra . Hence, if the goal of anyone is to organise an one-day's bandh only, then the programme of building up a broad unity with the trade unions controlled by BJP and Shiv Sena will naturally appear correct and appropriate to that person. We have already raised the discussion about the parliament-oriented politics of the bandh of the so- called left parties who are leading the TUJAC. It is quite natural that these parties will be very much keen to form such a unity for organising a stereotyped bandh. But what about 'Red Star'? Should they degrade themselves to the level of CPI (M) and CPI? Should they also view the struggles on some immediate demands in isolation, isolating those from the perspective of class struggle? Should they also, like revisionists, see only the present and forget about the future?
In this context the standpoint of the journal Comrade and of the group behind it also contains a number of self-contradictions. They are opposed to any alliance with the organisations of Shiv Sena with the sole aim of organising a successful bandh. They have rightly criticised this programme for remaining blind to the stage of inactivity of the workers, to the dominating influence of Shiv Sena and to its tendency to use muscle-power. But their criticism is limited to the formation of this alliance. Yet in their discussion is included the fact that the leadership of the TUJAC have been delighted at the prospect of the success of the bandh, almost guaranteed by the unity. The Comrade, in their article criticising the Red Star, had also admitted the possibility that even if the organisations committed to safeguard the workers' interest (must have meant the communist revolutionary organisations) had opposed, the Red Star would have opted for the broader unity. Even after such a realisation has it not been clear to the Comrade that the fundamental aim of the TUJAC leadership has been to accomplish a "successful" bandh depending on the established strength of Shiv Sena with the workers remaining as mute spectators? And for the dominance of this opportunist outlook of the leadership of depending on a force outside the working class, apart from a few minor oppositions the success of the bandh have been achieved smoothly. If the Comrade had dispassionately looked into the matter, then they would have been able to detect the influence of revisionist politics on this movement due to TUJAC being led by CPI(M) and CPI and the source of the inevitable tendency to tie up with Shiv Sena for the sake of achieving success in the band. And they would have been able to draw the line of separation from the revisionist politics of CPI (M) and CPI and establish before the Red Star the correct of opposition to Shiv Sena from the standpoint of the class struggle. But the Comrade could not solve their self-contradiction. Shiv Sena is a powerful ally of BJP and a partner of the BJP-led coalition government at the centre From this citadel of power the Shiv Sena, along with other partners of the NDA-government is driving the bulldozer of globalisation and liberalisation over the mass of the workers and the people of India and bartering the country to the imperialists. A series of Bharat Bandhs of the left parties have failed to move them an inch from their resolve and murder campaign. More particularly, these are the very people who are making preparation for changing the labour laws. But then what change of heart has taken place among these people for which they have joined hands with the left parties to oppose the new labour laws, proposed by the Maharashtra state government? Are you to believe that they have given this call of Maharashtra Bandh with the 'noble' aim of giving voice to the anger and discontentment of the workers and develop their organised resistance against draconian labour laws and principles? We can not fully reject the assertion of the Red Star that the Shiv Sena have been forced to join in the programme of bandh by the pressure of the propaganda campaign against the policy of globalisation and the imperialist onslaught which the TUJAC have been carrying among the workers for quite some time and the big central rallies that the TUJAC have been able to organise. But it can be said with assertion that the new labour laws of the Maharashtra Government have generally angered the workers and the members of Shiv Sena-BJP-led trade unions are also equally affected.
Perhaps we shall not also deny that although the organisational influence of TUJAC is very limited in the industrial belts of Maharashtra , still its propaganda campaign added to the agitation of the workers. Perhaps the singular important factor has been the issue itself. We are also ready to assume that it has been difficult, rather impossible for the leadership of Shiv Sena and BJP to directly oppose the anger and discontentment of the members of their unions i.e. vast number of workers. Undoubtedly, they have been able to convert this disadvantage into an advantage through participating in the bandh and keep the workers under their influence within their folds.
We shall find in the past history of 150 years of the international communist movement numerous examples of misappropriation by the bourgeoisie of the demands and slogans of the working class and the masses, of corrupting the inner content of these demands by them in the garb of supporting the demands and of deceiving and misleading the masses. The Red Star is not unaware of this history. And as communist revolutionaries the Red Star must also know, how much the extreme reactionary, fascist cunning and crooked BJP-Shiv Sena are skilled in this job. It must be kept in mind that the BJP-Shiv Sena have been ousted from the governmental power in the last elections and at this moment they are in the opposition bench. We must not also forget that due to the almost non-existence of the stream of class struggle for a prolonged period, the parliament-centred politics is now powerfully reigning in our country, the vast majority of the Indian masses have been kept tied to the parliamentary illusions; taking advantage mainly of the despondency and passivity of the workers the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois parties are behaving in a particular way when they are in the governmental power and in a different when they are out of it and they are carrying on these pranks openly and at their will. These phenomena have now become natural and socially accepted. Hence, if the Shiv Sena and BJP, who are now in the opposition in Maharashtra , extend their support to the one-day bandh with a view to strengthen their electoral mass base by using the anger and discontentment of the workers against the Desmukh government for their move to change the labour laws, then it will be quite natural. A one-day bandh does not affect their class politics in any way. Rather what actually happens is that the "workers' movement" is skilfully used against the stream of the class struggle of the working class, against the present and future of this class struggle. We must not let ourselves be confused and duped in ascribing a positive and fighting role to the skill and cunning of the BJP and Shiv Sena who both are of fascist character. The BJP-Shiv Sena have been able to project a fighting image of them by participating in a bandh in which they have no risk. This is bound to hamper the efforts of independently organising the working class under the class banner which the communist revolutionaries like the Red Star are carrying on while combating terrible adverse conditions. The 'broad unity' with the trade unions controlled by BJP and Shiv Sena may have brought success to the programme of one-day bandh. But in a condition where the vast majority of the workers have not yet been able to assimilate the impact of the defeat of the international working class and turn back, when they are without a party of their own and are scattered and when engulfed by parliamentary illusions they have remained mainly under the influence of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, has not this step pushed the workers in a position where they will continue to remain under the influence of these parties and dependent on their organised strength? We shall urge upon the Red Star to ponder over the question. If the success of the bandh earned through the co-operation of BJP and Shiv Sena does not overwhelm them, then they must notice that BJP-Shiv Sena i.e. the enemies of the class struggle have benefited more from the 'broad unity' than they have. In fact, if we look at the 'the achievement of this unity' as 'a great victory for all those who have carried on propaganda against... imperialism, IMF, World Bank, WTO and the New Economic Policy', then this outlook will be confusing. Not only that, if we do not question this evaluation and thinking, then we will inevitably be pushed towards the parliamentary politics which is very powerful at the present moment and whose danger is constantly hanging as the sword of Democles over our head.
Looking from another side it becomes apparent that the unity and the successful bandh on its basis have appeared to be important to the Red Star for another reason. The presence and participation of ever-increasing number of workers in the programmes has led the Red Star towards a new evaluation of the objective situation. It is the awakening of the working class of Maharashtra and Mumbai. To the Red Star the unity and the bandh are the rational sequels to this awakening. Now let us see whether wee can notice the appearance of a number of signs of the awakening of the working class in the objective condition of Maharashtra .
Awakening Of The Workers Of Mumbai
We have already seen that the Red Star has failed to take conscious stand against the prevalent bandh following the line of the of the revisionist politics and the opportunist unity of the established'right' and 'left' parties who are the skilled players in the field of parliamentary politics. Rather, complete contrarily, in order to justify their participation in the programme, they have ascribed significance to the bandh by characterising the bandh being organised on the demands of the workers and by the initiatives of the workers' organisations etc. It seems that the evaluation about the awakening of the workers of Maharashtra has influenced this confusion. According to the Red Star itself, "The bandh was not a coincidence. Since about a year more and more workers of Mumbai have been coming out in the streets under the leadership of TUJAC... About a year back its name was unknown to the workers. In fact, for a long time working class movement had not appeared in the whole of Maharashtra including Mumbai.... There were a number of causes behind the awakening of the working class of Mumbai"
Any mention about the awakening of the working class flashes various images of different periods of the long and glorious history of the international proletarian movement before the eyes of the communists. Russia of 1899-1900... the mass upsurge of the proletariat in the industrial areas, waves of economic movement; another high tide of the revolutionary mass movement in 1905-1907 which witnessed the interweaving of the economic and political strikes, the workers were on the streets in the role of active soldiers in the skirmishes.... Then after the end of the period of extreme reaction and repression there was the police firing on the workers of Lena gold mines and the resurgence of the struggle of the Russian proletariat through the May Day demonstrations, the emergence of the revolutionary movement. In the history of the working class movement of our country also there were moments in the movements of the 60's decade of the previous century which clearly revealed various indications of the awakening, which again, instead of developing surrendered to the parliamentary path in the end because of the betrayal of the then communist parties. Among the various diversities in the awakening of the proletariat some common features deserve notice. Among those one of the most important features is the outburst of spontaneous movements of the working class in the mass scale, which gradually spreads from one factory to another, from one area to another, from one section of the working class to another section. The force of the spontaneous movements of that time, the multifarious activities of the working class, its own strength, the awakening of its consciousness—all these draw the workers out from the confines of their respective factories and mobilise them in the resistance struggle, unite them with struggles of the workers of other localities and imbibe a sense of solidarity in their consciousness. In a word, a process of churning is observed in the real activities and the consciousness of the working class.
Did the Red Star find any indication in the then objective condition of Maharashtra that could be termed as awakening? Let us take, for example, the meetings at Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park , where huge numbers of workers have been present and which have enthused the Red Star and other communist revolutionaries. It is said that round about 50 thousand workers have been present in those meetings. Can we call it an awakening?
The Red Star have expressed that "Since about a year more and more workers of Mumbai have been coming out in the streets under the leadership of TUJAC Does that mean that spontaneous resistance of workers have been building up in the factories and spreading in other industries and factories? Did the Red Star want to point that the wave of this growing movement overflowed in the streets? In fact, by the way the Red Star have defined awakening through a few examples of militant action, it has belittled and narrowed the inner significance of awakening. These examples do not, in any way, signify the workers' 'taking to the streets' at the time of their awakening. Among the examples cited by the Red Star are included the programmes of 'Rasta Roko' organised by TUJAC on June, 2000, the burning of the effigy of the Justice of the Supreme Court in protest against the verdict by the workers of CIPLA and the protest demonstration in front of the house of the Judge of the High Court. If we look at the incidents dispassionately, then we shall find that the incidents that have been labelled as 'militant action' have been organised programmes of the TUCI and not the spontaneous militant actions of the workers. The effort of TUCI is very much a part of the ceaseless efforts that the communist revolutionaries are carrying on to keep alive the struggles at the factory level in the present condition when the workers are generally apathetic to struggles. The picture of the reality in which we find, in one side, the unilateral attacks on the workers at the factory level as a result of globalisation, liberalisation and, in the other side, the unequal struggles of isolated sections of workers of different factories, has been fragmentally spread out in the article published in the Red Star. The Red Star has written that "Among the different unions including the struggling ones this feeling has been generally created that it is impossible to solve, at the factory level or through a single union, the problems that we are facing at the present moment (as a result of the attacks of the employers)". This means that the above quotation from the article of the Red Star does not project the picture that the workers are carrying on a tooth and nail struggle in the factories and along with this an urge is growing among the advanced section in the struggle to overstep the level of the factory and unite in the struggle against the overall policy of the ruling classes and the planning of the struggles is bearing an impression of the preparation for an unified class struggle. The comment of the Red Star is nothing but a negative expression of the struggle, basing on which a programme of agitation has been decided. From the above quotation from the Red Star do we get any impression that "since the last few years the different trade unions are more and more coming out in the streets?" Do we have to remind the Red Star, which is a journal of the communist camp, the detailed history of what has happened when the working class has come out in the streets? That struggle is the manifestation of simultaneous development of the factory level struggles and the struggle of the class. That struggle bears the indication of the total turn about of the working class in a positive way against the onslaughts of the employer class. We do not find such indication in the movement of Maharashtra .
We had learn from both the journals, Comrade and Red Star, that agitation had been developing among the workers of Maharashtra against the ceaseless onslaughts of the employers, specially against the proposed change of the labour laws, but there was no struggle at the factory level. It was quite natural for the leaders of the established trade unions. Consequently there was no reason for the development of the trend within the struggles to unite at a higher level, or in other words, for the creation of the urge among the general workers at the grass root level to develop a higher unity of the struggles. And actually it did not take place. For that reason the Red Star had to remind us that "It must be remembered that the organisation and realisation of these programmes had not been an easy and smooth task. The main obstacle was the lack of self-confidence in the leaders. Many of them were sceptics about their ability to mobilise the workers in this programme. They were of the opinion that the workers had lost confidence on the lefts... It was only through determined struggles against these trends it had been possible to carry on with this programme." This question and doubt would not have arisen if their had been intensity of the struggles at lower level and its reflection in the reality. Just for the same reason the task of mobilising the workers in the movement had to be mentioned a number of times in the article.
Consequently, although the Red Star had written about the awakening of the workers of Maharashtra, they had themselves proved their evaluation to be wrong through the facts about reality supplied by them. Hence, it is well understood that the reason behind so much mobilisation of the workers in the meetings have not been their 'awakening'. Yet, that the degree of participation of the workers in the meetings has increased considerably is mentioned not only by Red Star, but also by Comrade. So it cannot be denied that the degree of the anger and agitation among the workers has certainly intensified and this truth has been reflected in the programmes. The TUJAC has reflected this through the adoption of the programme and through the realisation, at the last stage, of a compulsion by an extreme reactionary party like Shiv Sena to participate in the programme.
If the evaluation of the Red Star had been correct, or, in other words, if there had been an awakening of the workers after a long period of passivity, then the workers would have demonstrated such a degree of spontaneity, would have given birth to such varied forms of militant action that the movement would have inevitably broken out of the limits of the programme of stereotyped meetings, demonstrations and bandhs which the leadership of TUJAC had chalked out Such volatility and strength would have been inherently present in the movement. In such a case it would have been impossible for the revisionists to maintain the controlled and organised programme. And then the question of mobilising the workers would have been there, the movement itself would have mobilised the workers. How did the comrades of the Red Star manage to discover an awakening of the working class in the dirty parliamentary political game of the established parties who are bent on making capital out of the discontentment of the workers? The comrades of the Red Star have to answer this question.
While bringing into the forefront the role of TUJAC in this organised activities in Maharashtra and putting special emphasis on the initiative of the workers' organisations to lead us to the theory of the awakening of the working class, the article surprisingly omitted one very important point. At the same time and with the same content another platform consisting of nine so-called left and secular parties had been carrying on propaganda and had been successfully organising similar big meetings of the workers. In this platform named 'Action Committee Against Globalisation' were assembled nine parties like CPI (M), CPI, Kishan Mazdoor Party (PWP), Lal Nishan and others. These parties and their mass organisations had carried on campaigns through the state to the district level on issues like change in the labour laws, Enron affairs and had organised conventions and street marches in support of the band. Hence, it is clear that not only TUJAC and BKS, but these parties also have equally taken the field to attract and lead the discontented workers to the path of parliamentary politics through campaign and propaganda.
Hence, when the Comrade, while trying to highlight the role of the initiative of the communist revolutionary dominated organisation, TUSC, in the case of the initiation of the united movement, comments that "The initiative of the TUSC have been able to give a push to the sleeping TUJAC", the question naturally arises, whether TUSC is capable of pushing TUJAC into action under any circumstances. Actually the time is an important factor. At a time when the established revisionist- reformist parties and their various mass organisations are active in making capital of the parliamentary path out of the discontentment among the workers, a section of the communist revolutionaries are trying to advance depending on them. As a result, in the name of 'awakening' these parties have been allowed the opportunity to bind the discontentment of the workers to their organised programme. Through the unity and bandh an opportunity has been created for the influence of reformism and revisionism to spread.
At the same time all the communist revolutionary organisations along with the Red Star should be conscious of another danger. That danger lies in the content of the Maharashtra movement. The Red Star has, in one stroke, characterised this content as anti-globalisation, anti-New Economic Policy. CPI (M) has also expressed the same thing in their journal. A close look at the events also reveals that the agitation among the workers against the closure of the factories in the industrial belt of Mumbai-Thane, retrenchment, the surrender of the governments to Enron, etc. have been discernible for quite a few years. So it is difficult to point these factors as immediate causes of the birth of the 'stir after many years' or 'the new initiative' among the workers.
Rather it seems that some other aspect of the onslaught of the New Economic Policy have specially hit the workers' movement of Maharashtra . In the words of the Comrade—"The entire judiciary system, right from the top to the bottom, have shed even the pretence of protecting the rights of the workers and openly and in a offensive mode implementing the policies of globalisation. In comparison to the past the government and the administration have adopted an extreme attitude and at present it has been comparably very hard for the workers to put pressure for governmental intervention." While looking for the causes of 'awakening' of the working class of Mumbai, the Red Star also, in the beginning, has pointed, in a sort of abstract way, to the unbridled exploitation of the New Economic Policy as the main cause, but has drawn our special attention to the second one. Here also the loss of confidence of the workers on the courts has been pointed out; according to them, "The outlook of the courts have been changing rapidly from a liberal democratic position to much harder anti-people one." In this respect, their views on the role of the government is that, " For the first time in the history of India the lawmakers have openly declared that the laws should changed to curb the rights of the workers." That the change of the labour laws and the role of the judiciary and the government have been the main cause behind the recent movements in Maharashtra can be gauged not only from the above viewpoints, but also from some of the real events of those months. Those have been the proposal of the government to change the laws concerning labour in November 2000, the verdict of the Supreme Court against the contract workers in the case of CIPLA in February 2001, etc. While discussing about the character of the unity we have noticed that the issue of the change in the labour laws have been given a special position in the whole of the propaganda campaign. Even the initiative of the joint movement and its continuity started to gain momentum with the state government's proposal to change the labour laws coming to the forefront. If we keep in mind the decision adopted in the post-bandh convention of 14th July, then also we shall note that the title have been "The decision of the Convention against Globalisation and Change of the Labour Laws." Among other things, it has been stated in the adopted decision with regard to the next programme that if the demand for the legal protection of the casual workers of Maharashtra is not met then there will be 2 hours state?wide strike. Or, in other words, of the entire onslaught of the globalisation, the labour laws and the laws concerning the contract workers had acquired a special importance before the movement.
In this respect a special feature of the workers movement of Maharastrsa has, most probably, come to the fore. At the time when some of the legal rights of the workers were given recognition in the post- independence India of the 50's decade of the last century, the workers of Maharashtra were granted some special legal rights. For that reason the trade union movements of Maharashtra have remained dependent on laws and courts in a big way. The present step of the government for changing the labour laws, the open advocacy of the Court for curbing the rights of the contract workers—all these have raised questions about the effectiveness of existence of these unions. As a result, this has come as a great shock to the workers of Maharashtra , especially to the trade union leaders. In West Bengal, in the other hand, the big workers' movements from the end of the 50's to the 60's decade of the last century were seen to take militant forms rather than depending on the laws and courts. So the legal fights, the protection of laws did not occupy such an important position. Rather in recent times, some struggles to get entangled in the labyrinth of the court due to the absence of enough spontaneity.
The spurt of activities of these reformist parties for opposing globalisation is a reaction to this shock. This resulted in the large mobilisation of the discontented workers in the organised programmes... whose pressure even a extreme reactionary, anti-working class party like Shiv Sena could not resist. And this is a dangerous trend. It will obscure the overall attack of globalisation and create illusions about legal rights and legal protection, will lead the workers towards putting pressure on the government for the attainment of these goals or towards changing the government through elections; this is a futile attempt to live by catching at a straw of legal rights within a society which is based on exploitation and without any rights. In the convention a party like Shiv Sena can call for a change of the government, revisionist parties like CPI (M) and CPI can join in a march to the Legislative Assembly and organise a bandh with Shiv Sena and can extol the promise of the Labour Minister. But what about the communist revolutionaries? What about Red Star? Can they be partners to this conspiracy to blunt and degenerate the consciousness of the working class? How could they be signatories to the decisions of the convention in which it had been stated, "The anti-globalisation Delhi-rally of BMS on 16th April, 2001 , was an important step towards the development of the people's consciousness"? Can this be the opinion of a communist revolutionary organisation about the machinations of the present degenerated election-oriented parties and their organisations? Does the communist revolutionary groups like the Red Star exist only for finally handing over the unions that have taken an anti-globalisation stand and are in the process of radicalisation and the 'awakened' workers to the noose of the dirty reformist conspiracy of these parties?
In this context it is the Red Star who has most emphatically stressed about the necessity of correct orientation and leadership. They have said that the ability to provide correct orientation and leadership, in the last analysis, will determine the future of the movement in spite of various limitations. Hence let us see how they have solved this very important question that they have raised.
Correct Orientation and Leadership
While establishing that the unity lastly achieved was a 'great victory" Red Star had written that "Perhaps they will not go to the extent of taking a stand on the question of withdrawing from the WTO. But if they are ready for the struggle to resist the implementation of the proposal for changing the existing labour laws then that will also be fine.... The fundamental question is, how we can become worthy of providing correct orientation and leadership".
If this statement is viewed from the perspective of unity, then it will not be out of place to form the idea that any advance (in the sense of resisting the change of the labour laws) through unity will prove the justification of the unity. Consequently it is useless to criticise the formation of this united platform. Rather, for the communist revolutionaries the most important question from the perspective of movement was of becoming worthy of providing correct orientation and leadership to the struggle.
If the problem or the question is placed in this way then it can carry a double meaning. One, it may be that the workers' movements have started to manifest, but the communist revolutionaries are in such an unfortunate and weak condition that the revisionist and the reactionary parties are able to lead these movements towards the parliamentary path. In that condition the communist revolutionaries lack the capacity to provide correct leadership to these movements, but at the same time it is incumbent upon them to be with the fighting workers. The position is undoubtedly painful, difficult and self-contradictory for the communist revolutionaries. But even in that condition to be with the fighting workers does not demand that the communist revolutionaries should take their stand in favour of the multi-coloured unity, in favour of the mobilisation of the parties of the ruling classes. Rather it becomes essential in that condition to keep alive the conscious struggle against the machinations of the established parties to divert the movement in the wrong path. This should have been the task in that condition.
The second possible cause, which may have prompted the Red Star to make that statement, is the urge to impart a bigger dimension to the unequal struggles and the growing discontentment of the workers. From that angle Red Star has rationalised the unity and at the same time discovered the limitations of the parties of the unified platform. Consequently, the Red Star or the communist revolutionaries are faced with the task of finding ways to correctly lead the movement forward from the point where these parties will halt or in other words, the path has to be found out to prepare for converting this possibility into reality. In this context Red Star has also stated that "In the struggle for providing correct orientation and leadership we, the communist revolutionaries, are ahead of the reactionaries or revisionists, because history is our guide...." From the way Red Star has argued in favour of unity of the whole movement, of the effectiveness of unity with the parliamentary parties, in spite of recognising the limited strength of these parties, it is apparent that the second cause, not the first, has appeared important to Red Star in the context of the question of 'orientation and leadership'.
Firstly, it is to be understood that they are referring to the 'struggle' of Maharashtra whenever they speak of "correct orientation of the struggle..." We have already seen from the analysis of the objective situation that there is enough scope for questions in this regard. 'Struggle' or 'awakening' always means that the workers are spontaneously mobilised in the field of struggle. Neither Red Star nor Comrade has been able to establish this fact from the real events. Rather, in spite of the presence, in the reality, of hints of the increase of the workers' discontent, the workers were seen to participate only in the organised programmes. As a result, the endeavour to remain with this struggle and provide correct orientation is bound to be meaningless, because, a reformist, organised programme does not carry the possibility of accepting orientation that a spontaneous struggle carries.
Secondly, Red Star has spoken about "...becoming worthy of providing correct orientation and leadership". This statement implies that at the present moment they or the communist revolutionaries are not in a position to play this role. This statement is made with eyes to the future. Then where are we standing now? What generally is the task of the communist revolutionaries at this moment? How had the Red Star planned to make a start from such a 'struggle' for this task? The Red Star is absolutely silent about these questions. We have already seen in the previous sections that they have been engrossed in making the unity effective, in their endeavour to perform a role beyond their capability in organising big rallies, successful bandh. We have never noticed any endeavour on their part to 'become worthy'. It seems that this task was buried deep in their minds by the pressure of the whole programme. Of course they have tried to assure us by reminding that "As because history is our guide so we are in an advantageous position". But there also instead of specific tasks we get some abstract, general statements like "Our work and our line can decide that..." What is our work, what is our line have remained unsaid.
History can become our real guide only when we are conscious of the features of our movement and our strength in the present historical time. Otherwise it becomes a mere jargon. Did the thought of 'awakening' create illusion in the minds of the Red Star about the present condition of the communist revolutionaries? Otherwise how can they speak of the advantageous position of the proletarian revolutionary movement in the present condition and that too in the perspective of the immediate tasks of a limited movement? The communist revolutionaries are now divided amongst numerous groups and are confined within the bounds of small group existence. They have not yet acquired the strength to organise even the advanced workers. An independent stream of communist movement outside the influence of the opportunist and reactionary parties is absent and so is absent the force which can mobilise the vast army of the proletariat and draw them in an united struggle. In such a circumstance does the Red Star really believe that the communist revolutionaries will be able to provide correct leadership to a struggle if it starts anywhere? We must face the uncomfortable reality that the communist revolutionaries are not in such a position at the present moment.
Red Star states, "It may be true that these unions (unions led by BJP and Shiv Sena) represent the backward sections and the reactionary forces of the society. However, this can never be a reason for not uniting with them, if substantial portions of the people are with them. This means that the fact that the vast majority of the people of our country are still backward can not certainly be a reason to abandon them. We can not 'skip over' them." In another place they have said, "Will the rightists be able to swallow our section or shall we be able to win over new friends to our line? Of course, our work and our line will decide this, but since history is our guide, so we are in an advantageous position". Those like Red Star who, in the present condition, can think of organising 'substantial section of the mass' and 'winning over new friends to our line' from the influence of the rightists do not correctly understand where they are standing at this juncture of history.
Red Star has unhesitatingly spoken about winning over 'substantial section of the mass', 'new friends' to 'the side of the line'. Now in the real social scene the advanced army of the proletariat bears this line. How can Red Star think of moving forward without developing this army, without developing this force? We do not know whether history has ever indicated any such path. Does the Red Star posses any such fact and theory in its kitty?
Undoubtedly Red Star must be sincerely searching for ways and means to organise the advanced section of the proletariat through independent activities and outside the path of immediate success and to uphold real communist ideology. But there is no scope to deny the fact that in order to attain the ability of grasping the path from history it is essential to understand the demand of the history and to weigh the inherent strength and weakness of the objective movement The tendency of avoiding this strenuous work of fulfilling the pre-condition of history and running for quick success does not and can not bring any 'novelty'. If the dream of swift 'victory' and 'awakening' overpowers us, then it will not be possible to carry forward the movement beyond the grip of the machinations of the established parties.
In this context the Comrade has emphatically brought to the fore the real problems of the present workers' movement, the absence of resistance from the side of the workers and the task of developing the resistance fight of the workers in the direction of the class struggle in the context of the movement of Maharashtra. They have discussed about independent activities of the revolutionary trade unions and the creation of the possibility of the spread of revolutionary consciousness among the advanced section. Most importantly, they have quite correctly pointed out the task of organising the forces upholding the interests of the working class i.e. the communist revolutionary forces as the main task of the present condition. They have expressed anxiety and concern about the various impediments in the path of developing the initiative of the workers through the course of the real movement. They have criticised and even went to the extent of self-introspection in the interest of the working class. Yet, surprisingly they seem to never been able to free themselves from the grip of a particular line of thinking and take a higher stand.. Although their main criticism in respect of the movement of Maharashtra is directed against the formation of an alliance with the Shiv Sena, still they can never reach to a dispassionate evaluation of the platform TUJAC that has been formed in continuation of the revisionist politics. As a result, in spite of seriously stressing on deciding the task of dissociating from the revisionist leadership of TUJAC, an inheritance from the past, and developing in the direction of the revolutionary stream, a total standpoint was missing. The question of taking specific steps for carrying on independent revolutionary activities of the communist revolutionaries without being dissociating from the unspoken demands of the growing discontentment of the working class of Maharashtra and for organising the advanced section although being raised, remained unresolved.
Comments:
No Comments for View