 "Left unions stand for labour politics, not labour issues: Pawan Kumar")
The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), a trade union affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), broke ranks with other trade unions when it did not join the September 2 countrywide strike to oppose the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government's labour reforms and non-fulfilment of their demands. BMS Organising Secretary Pawan Kumar tells Somesh Jha why the BMS did this.
Why did the BMS decide to back out of the countrywide strike called by all unions on September 2 at the last moment?
There have been four strikes since 2009 since trade unions arrived at a joint platform. The last government had formed a group of ministers and held talks with the unions and sought time to understand our issues. However, we went ahead with the February 2013 strike. It was shocking to know that they were unaware of our demands. In May 2013, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh acknowledged that our issues were genuine and promised his government would do what was necessary. Instead, they ignored the trade union movement and held no talks. We decided to give the present government a year (to understand our demands). Only then did we declare a strike on May 26 this year. This government held several rounds of meetings after forming a group of ministers under Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. This was the first time the government took a positive step by holding a dialogue and coming forward with concrete proposals. For instance, the government made it mandatory for minimum wages to be implemented across the country instead of an advisory, which is issued by states at present. The government addressed many of our demands relating to social security, bonus and contract workers. We felt the unions should give the government some time to implement these promises.
One of the trade unions affiliated to the Left parties issued a letter on August 27 (the day talks between the group of ministers and the unions ended) on social media with strong comments against our organisation. When we confronted them we learnt that the letter had been prepared even before the meeting with the government was held.
How can you issue a letter even before talks are held with the government and without even knowing our stand? When we questioned them they said it was an internal document. But why was the letter floating on social media websites?
Are these signs of cracks in the trade union unity?
Of course, they are. But when you talk of unity, there are certain principles and boundaries on the basis of which we work. Then we decide the issues that need to be raised together. But when you are working as a force, how can you bad-mouth the other unions drifting away from these core issues? Then, one trade union, again affiliated to a Left party, said, "We will go on strike no matter what steps the government takes." This means they do not stand for labour issues but for labour politics. BMS doesn't want to do politics. We want to tackle the issues of the poor.
But the other trade unions clearly say the demands had not been met. You have been demanding minimum wage of Rs 15,000 per month from the government but their new proposal is silent on it.
The government said it was a proposal, which was negotiable. This means there is room for discussion and then putting pressure (if need be). We are in favour of putting pressure and negotiating with the government. However, if a trade union says it wants to go on strike no matter what, this indicates it does not want Rs 15,000 per month as minimum wage for workers, but wants to indulge in politics in the guise of flagging labour issues.
Does this mean the government was successful in breaking the unity of the unions?
The government cannot do it. Unity was broken by our friends from the Left bloc. Since 1980, there has been a national campaign committee (a joint forum of all trade unions). The Indian National Trade Union Congress (Intuc) didn't participate in the movement till 2009. We didn't participate in the 2011 strike. In 1993, the CPI(M) decided to break ranks because of the Babri Masjid incident. It has a very negative attitude.
What is the current position?
Now everyone is worried when the government will hold talks. They keep asking us about it. The government called us to discuss the industrial relations bill on Thursday. Neither the Intuc nor the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) came for the meeting. We presented our views and objections at the meeting. This is shocking as the trade unions had demanded a tripartite consultation before labour law proposals were framed. The government will talk to those who participate in the discussions. All the employer organisations and state government representatives were present (at the meeting).
Are you toeing the government line?
When we were protesting Rajasthan's labour law amendments, these unions didn't even extend moral support to us, forget about ground-level or financial support. When we were struggling on the roads of Rajasthan, they didn't have the courtesy to join us even once. The Rajasthan government is a BJP government. Who is toeing the government line? We?
But the nationwide strike was a success even without the BMS's participation…
None of the sectors was affected on that day, barring transport. For instance, we were fighting against foreign direct investment in defence or railways. None of the workers from the defence sector and railways participated. There was low participation from the public sector companies and also the banking sector.
Other unions claim BMS workers fully participated in the strike in the coal and a few other few sectors.
Let them make false claims. Our reports suggest none of the BMS workers participated in the strike. I will tell you one interesting fact. Employers in the Delhi-NCR region directed the workers that "you join work on Sunday and take leave on Wednesday to participate in the strike" and promised that no action would be taken against them. So, it was a win-win for both workers and employers.
When did you know about this?
We knew about this from the beginning and flagged this issue at our meeting on August 28. Other unions were also fully aware of this, but had no issues. They just wanted people out there on the roads. This strike was a complete failure. Only 15-20 per cent of workers across various sectors participated, barring the transport sector. This is a cause of worry for everyone. We never talked about calling off the strike; we just asked them to defer the strike so that we could create fear about the strike on the government and later negotiate with it.
Have talks with other union leaders broken down?
We had talks at individual levels.
So there is a clear gap…
The gap is quite visible. If there was no gap, we wouldn't have broken ranks at the time of the strike. But we are still open to discussions with them.
But did you hold discussions with others after the strike? Is there a lack of trust?
There have been no talks after the strike. There is definitely a lack of trust - but if you keep criticising my leadership, how will the trust be restored?
Was the BMS the only one against the strike?
Only two groups were strongly in favour of the strike: AITUC and Citu (Centre of Indian Trade Unions). Both of them are guided by their political bosses. Some Intuc leaders told us they didn't want to participate in the strike; but because of their political leadership, they had no option but to join the other unions.
Are you not diverting from the core issue of opposing the government's labour law reforms?
We are still opposing the laws as we do not want jungle raj in industry. We are not against codification of labour laws. That is not our issue, but we do not want workers to suffer either.
Why did the BMS decide to back out of the countrywide strike called by all unions on September 2 at the last moment?
There have been four strikes since 2009 since trade unions arrived at a joint platform. The last government had formed a group of ministers and held talks with the unions and sought time to understand our issues. However, we went ahead with the February 2013 strike. It was shocking to know that they were unaware of our demands. In May 2013, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh acknowledged that our issues were genuine and promised his government would do what was necessary. Instead, they ignored the trade union movement and held no talks. We decided to give the present government a year (to understand our demands). Only then did we declare a strike on May 26 this year. This government held several rounds of meetings after forming a group of ministers under Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. This was the first time the government took a positive step by holding a dialogue and coming forward with concrete proposals. For instance, the government made it mandatory for minimum wages to be implemented across the country instead of an advisory, which is issued by states at present. The government addressed many of our demands relating to social security, bonus and contract workers. We felt the unions should give the government some time to implement these promises.
More From This Section
Why was everyone not on the same page?
One of the trade unions affiliated to the Left parties issued a letter on August 27 (the day talks between the group of ministers and the unions ended) on social media with strong comments against our organisation. When we confronted them we learnt that the letter had been prepared even before the meeting with the government was held.
How can you issue a letter even before talks are held with the government and without even knowing our stand? When we questioned them they said it was an internal document. But why was the letter floating on social media websites?
Are these signs of cracks in the trade union unity?
Of course, they are. But when you talk of unity, there are certain principles and boundaries on the basis of which we work. Then we decide the issues that need to be raised together. But when you are working as a force, how can you bad-mouth the other unions drifting away from these core issues? Then, one trade union, again affiliated to a Left party, said, "We will go on strike no matter what steps the government takes." This means they do not stand for labour issues but for labour politics. BMS doesn't want to do politics. We want to tackle the issues of the poor.
But the other trade unions clearly say the demands had not been met. You have been demanding minimum wage of Rs 15,000 per month from the government but their new proposal is silent on it.
The government said it was a proposal, which was negotiable. This means there is room for discussion and then putting pressure (if need be). We are in favour of putting pressure and negotiating with the government. However, if a trade union says it wants to go on strike no matter what, this indicates it does not want Rs 15,000 per month as minimum wage for workers, but wants to indulge in politics in the guise of flagging labour issues.
Does this mean the government was successful in breaking the unity of the unions?
The government cannot do it. Unity was broken by our friends from the Left bloc. Since 1980, there has been a national campaign committee (a joint forum of all trade unions). The Indian National Trade Union Congress (Intuc) didn't participate in the movement till 2009. We didn't participate in the 2011 strike. In 1993, the CPI(M) decided to break ranks because of the Babri Masjid incident. It has a very negative attitude.
What is the current position?
Now everyone is worried when the government will hold talks. They keep asking us about it. The government called us to discuss the industrial relations bill on Thursday. Neither the Intuc nor the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) came for the meeting. We presented our views and objections at the meeting. This is shocking as the trade unions had demanded a tripartite consultation before labour law proposals were framed. The government will talk to those who participate in the discussions. All the employer organisations and state government representatives were present (at the meeting).
Are you toeing the government line?
When we were protesting Rajasthan's labour law amendments, these unions didn't even extend moral support to us, forget about ground-level or financial support. When we were struggling on the roads of Rajasthan, they didn't have the courtesy to join us even once. The Rajasthan government is a BJP government. Who is toeing the government line? We?
But the nationwide strike was a success even without the BMS's participation…
None of the sectors was affected on that day, barring transport. For instance, we were fighting against foreign direct investment in defence or railways. None of the workers from the defence sector and railways participated. There was low participation from the public sector companies and also the banking sector.
Other unions claim BMS workers fully participated in the strike in the coal and a few other few sectors.
Let them make false claims. Our reports suggest none of the BMS workers participated in the strike. I will tell you one interesting fact. Employers in the Delhi-NCR region directed the workers that "you join work on Sunday and take leave on Wednesday to participate in the strike" and promised that no action would be taken against them. So, it was a win-win for both workers and employers.
When did you know about this?
We knew about this from the beginning and flagged this issue at our meeting on August 28. Other unions were also fully aware of this, but had no issues. They just wanted people out there on the roads. This strike was a complete failure. Only 15-20 per cent of workers across various sectors participated, barring the transport sector. This is a cause of worry for everyone. We never talked about calling off the strike; we just asked them to defer the strike so that we could create fear about the strike on the government and later negotiate with it.
Have talks with other union leaders broken down?
We had talks at individual levels.
So there is a clear gap…
The gap is quite visible. If there was no gap, we wouldn't have broken ranks at the time of the strike. But we are still open to discussions with them.
But did you hold discussions with others after the strike? Is there a lack of trust?
There have been no talks after the strike. There is definitely a lack of trust - but if you keep criticising my leadership, how will the trust be restored?
Was the BMS the only one against the strike?
Only two groups were strongly in favour of the strike: AITUC and Citu (Centre of Indian Trade Unions). Both of them are guided by their political bosses. Some Intuc leaders told us they didn't want to participate in the strike; but because of their political leadership, they had no option but to join the other unions.
Are you not diverting from the core issue of opposing the government's labour law reforms?
We are still opposing the laws as we do not want jungle raj in industry. We are not against codification of labour laws. That is not our issue, but we do not want workers to suffer either.