Introduction

Industrial labour in India has never had a voice and choice of its own. It has had voices speaking on its behalf. It has rarely articulated but has been articulated upon. It has rarely organised itself; it has been organised. Indian labour has been a constituency for the social do-gooder, the revolutionary, the callow politician looking for a springboard and the intellectual/academic obsessed with being ‘political’ (though this trend is on the decline. Labour is no longer fashionable!). Judges, by means of judicial activism, can also be considered as part of this list, though the contemporary scenario may be different. Virtually none of the professionals mentioned hails from the ranks of the working class. Labour has been organised and led mainly by the middle class(es).

There have been essentially two causes for the above phenomenon, one grounded in modern Indian history and the other largely a matter of perception. These two reasons or causes have been responsible for the mainstay of political or party unionism in India. The historical reason lies in the Indian national movement. The diehard communists still hold that the socialist–communist transformation of society is a prerequisite for other transformations and, therefore, other identities should subjugate themselves currently to class. Similarly, the national movement subjugated the labour question. The other cause is the perception of labour as being weak and incapable of standing up to the might of the employer on its own. Therefore, external intervention is necessary. Lenin maintained that the working class in a capitalist society was incapable of developing socialist consciousness on its own but could only develop a trade union consciousness. Therefore, the socialist consciousness had to be brought in from without. In India, however, the working class was considered incapable even of developing a trade union consciousness on its own!

The early glimmerings of the workers’ struggles in Indian industry date back to the closing decades of the nineteenth century. These, in fact, did not give indications of what was to follow. The early struggles were marked by spontaneity, being responses to oppression in the factory. Thus, in 1877, the workers of Empress Mills, Nagpur, went on strike following a wage reduction, and in 1884, more than 5,000 workers in Bombay textile industry demanded regular payment of wages, a weekly holiday, and a mid-day recess of 30 minutes. In this way, around 25 strikes occurred between 1882 and 1890. The latter year witnessed the formation of the Bombay Mill Hands’ Association. This outfit did not have the formal character of a trade union, possessing no formal membership, rules, regulations or funds. More ‘welfarist’ in character, the aim was to only advance workers’ interest. Other organisations of this type included the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of India and Burma, Union of Printers in Kolkata and the Postal Union in Bombay.

By the early decades of the twentieth century, two major trade unions had been established; unions in the regular sense of the term. The Madras Labour Union was set up in 1918 and though essentially comprising workers of Binny Mills, it had workers belonging to other trades as members as well. In 1920, the Textile Labour Union was set up in Ahmedabad. A few other unions were also formed at this time. The Indian national movement was at the time switching gears and gaining momentum. The leaders of the movement were scanning the horizons of labour. Quite soon, labour found itself being organised by nationalists, socialists and communists, all of whom were essentially committed to the Indian freedom struggle, the common enemy being the British colonial power. The subjugation of worker interest to the ‘larger’ national interest began. For instance, in 1908, Bombay mill workers went on a week-long strike against the conviction of Bal Gangadhar Tilak on charges of sedition. Persons who had no working class background or industrial experience became labour leaders, Gandhi and Nehru being prime examples.

Ramaswamy (Managing Human Resources: A Contemporary Text, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000) observes that the socially and economically deprived workers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could scarcely have hoped to match the power of capital, especially British capital, were it not for the politicians and the intelligentsia, who took the first steps to organise them. He, however, adds that along with politics came issues which workers barely understood, let alone identify with. Thus, the nationalists and communists who constituted two distinct groups were always at loggerheads over ‘distant ideological issue’ such as, affiliation with international organisations fighting imperialism, etc., which strictly did not concern a workforce struggling for basic rights and privileges at the workplace. This was only the beginning.

Ramaswamy observes that ideological battles became a regular feature after the formation of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). There were three distinct political groups within the union. The communists were led by M.N. Roy and Dange, nationalists by Nehru and Gandhi, and moderates by N.M. Joshi and V.V. Giri. These three groups had basic differences as regards international affiliation, their attitude towards British rule, and the relationship with the broader political movement. “Trade unionism was, for the communists, a mere instrument for furthering Marxist ideology. For the nationalists, independence from British rule was the overriding objective of the trade unions, as it was of the nationalist movement. The moderates who were trade unionists at heart wanted to pursue trade unionism as a goal in its own right, without subjugating it to larger political aims and interests.” The nationalists were to move away eventually from the AITUC and were to set up the INTUC. The socialists formed the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat and later the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). AITUC, which became a communist bastion, was itself to undergo a further split with the break-up of the CPI. By the seventies, the fragmentation and development of unions on political lines became an established fact. This meant the fragmentation of the labour movement itself.

State intervention in capital-labour relations is another important reason for an enduring union–party relationship. The tripartite system of industrial relations in India envisages a preponderant role for the three organs of the government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each organ has left its imprint on Indian industrial relations. In practice, the executive arm, both political and bureaucratic, plays the most crucial role in the process of dispute resolution. Here, the union–party nexus comes into play. If the union happens to be an affiliate of a party that is in power in the state concerned if not at the centre, such a union leadership can use their proximity to the state to their advantage. Most often, the top union leadership would also be politicians belonging to the concerned party. Thus, an individual politician ranging from a member of the state assembly to the chief minister and onwards to the centre can be an interested party in the industrial dispute. It pays for the union to be under the canopy of political power. Such a union can also, therefore, claim to have a majority membership. In such a set-up, how the state plays its role in industrial relations has been painstakingly documented and commented upon by Ramaswamy (Power and Justice: The State in Industrial Relations, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984).

Trade union affiliation to political parties has had several undesirable consequences for labour. It lost its autonomous power to decide policies and actions. Its politics got subjugated to the so-called larger (electoral) politics with all its corresponding ills. It fragmented on party lines. Its leaders could neither understand the aspirations of labour nor understand the dynamics of industry, for example, technological change.

The shortcomings of political unions have been the strengths of non-party internal unions, also known as independent unions. A general rejection of political leadership, reliance on collective bargaining, varying degrees of militancy, including shop floor struggles, intelligent and strategic leadership emanating from the rank and file itself and having knowledge of the concerned industry have been some of its features. It was largely responsible for the growth of bilateral collective bargaining in the country albeit under the banyan tree of the trilateral system. It raised new issues concerning work, employment and technology as well as issues usually considered beyond the scope or interest of labour, for instance, bad corporate management practices. It, thus, came to be known as the whistle blower.

Internal unions, quintessentially, made their mark in Mumbai (See Jairus Banaji and Rohini Hensman, Beyond Multinationalism, Management Policy and Bargaining Relationship in International Companies, Sage, 1990). These unions evolved, among other features, plant-level bargaining structures. But this level became ineffective once managements reorganised production by going out of Mumbai to other locations, including ‘green fields’ aided by a pro-industry state policy. Today, internal unions are still needed, but they must be supra-plant. Industry-wide federations comprising internal/independent unions are what are needed. 

De-politicising unions?

The union–party nexus has come in for criticism from several quarters. There was a plea for ‘purgation of trade unions from political contamination’. V.V.Giri, himself a politician of no mean order, argued thus: “It is time the workers realise that party politics are completely out of place in trade unions, that they should not play the role of pawns in the game of party politics, and that their organisations are concerned first and last with their interest and welfare. Trade union leaders and party leaders should also take active steps to ensure that workers are weaned away from disruptive political leanings, so that genuine trade unionism can grow in the country.” (Ramaswamy: 2000: 53).

According to Ramaswamy, the reason behind such exhortations is the inexorable splintering of the labour movement for political reasons. He observes that there would probably have been no labour movement in those early years if it had not been for politics and politicians. But once they stepped in, he feels, the labour movement marched towards fragmentation with the certainty of a Greek tragedy. He adds that so pervasive has been this phenomenon that every affliction of the Indian labour movement is ascribed to politics (ibid).

What then is the way out? There is a distinction to be made between de-partying and de-politicising trade unions. There has to be a trade union organisation that steers clear of political parties but which is itself intensely political, and articulates a working class politics. 

Trade unionism itself is politics. Politics is the contest for and the distribution of power. In our context, this is the power relation that exists between employers and employees, a relationship that is non-equalitarian economically, politically and socially. Specifically, workplace relations are characterised by inequality of wealth/income, power (authority) and prestige. The bedrock of the contract of employment is the master-servant relationship, a relationship in which the employer has the power of supervision and control over the employee. Trade unions arose as organisations that mediated this power relationship, that were indispensable for giving a collective nature and character as far as possible to the individual relationship of employment. Trade unions became organisations of protest, defending as well as advancing the interests of its members. Thus, militant unionism made the workplace a ‘contested terrain’.

Unions historically have thrown a challenge to management control (N.W. Chamberlain, The Union Challenge to Management Control, New York, Harper & Bros, 1948). They have fiercely contested the notion of managerial prerogatives. Every collective agreement signed has usually been the outcome of a trial of strength between management and labour. The balance of power has historically swung back and forth between the two parties. Industrial relations in every society that has seen the institutionalisation of a system of collective bargaining bear testimony to this process. Such a system, operating on sound principles of bilateralism, permitted trials of strength between managements and unions, reflected in intense negotiations as well as in industrial action. This process found intellectual justification and articulation in the pluralist theory of industrial relations, the post-World War II years particularly being the heyday of pluralism in Europe and America in varying degrees.

The pluralist ideologues considered trade unions to be the permanent opposition resisting unilateral control by managements. Unions were indispensable for the creation of a social order in industry embodied in a code of industrial rights. The purpose of unions was in the creation of rules through collective bargaining, thereby limiting the power and authority of the employers and decreasing the dependence of employees on market fluctuations and the arbitrary will of the management. These rules, which aimed at establishing rights for the workers, included the right to a certain rate of wages, the right to prescribed number of working hours, the right not to be dismissed without following prior procedure and so on (Alan Flanders, Management and Unions, Faber & Faber, 1970). Trade unions are by nature political and there cannot be any union which is non-political, says Flanders.

Everywhere trade unions have been compelled to engage in political action to obtain enough freedom from legal restraint to exercise their main industrial functions. Freedom of association, the right to strike and to picket, the prevention of undue interference in their internal affairs — all these are familiar objectives at some stage in their development and their achievement has demanded the use of the political method….Unions have also fought for legislations that would help them in collective bargaining and the like….All these indications suffice to show that, as a minimum, trade unions must be involved in politics in order to establish and maintain the legal and economic conditions in which they can flourish….. It makes the term ‘non-political’ union, taken literally, a nonsensical description; there is no such animal (Ramaswamy: 2000: op cit:30).  

Conclusion

The need of the hour is a resurgent trade unionism which practices working class politics and nothing else. It has to evolve strategies and measures that respond effectively and pro-actively to the changing labour process under globalisation, a labour process that is being organised on a global scale. Global unions are the ultimate answer and trade unionism in India has to move towards that destination. A globally restructured steel industry, for instance, needs a global steel union signing one international collective agreement with the giant global steel managements. Such an idea may seem laughable today but this is no laughing matter for labour. For it is only labour that directly experiences capital, and trade unions are labour’s only organised expressions.