As soon as I was ushered into the room I noticed the two large king size beds, the sofa chairs into which one could sink, the writing table, the bar and all that goes with a five star hotel room. From the window the sight of the beautiful Doon valley, the mountains, the winding roads were visible. From where I had come, this was paradise. Back home it would have been 44 degrees centigrade, with planned two hour power cuts besides unforeseen contingencies, water shortage due to various reasons including the erratic power supply. I thought of my family and the comparison between their situation and mine was distressing. And then the gripping reality hit me with a deep sense of guilt. What was I doing here ?
After four days - of toasting and feasting; basking in the late afternoon sun when the discussions got boring beyond endurance; sleeping late and regretting, more than once, why I did not, as some of the others had, bring my daughter (if it was not possible for my wife to come along), nothing came out of the entire exercise. But, what results did any one expect ?
When there is a budget and there are employees to spend it, should the funds not be spent ? For the record, of course there was a result. The National Tripartite Workshop on the Freedom of Association did resolve that the time was not ripe for a decision and that there should be more consideration (more of these paid holidays) to arrive at a decision. After all what was the rush ? Fifty or a hundred years was nothing when dealing with humanity. The time scale was a millennium. And then India has a civilisation that dates back to thousand of years Before Christ, how could it be compared to the Western concept of time ?
In 1917, the working class rose in revolt over the feudal and oppressive regime of the Russian Czar. This was different from the earlier French revolution or the War of Roses that enabled the bourgeois triumph over the feudal lords. Ruthless exploitation, resulting in the evolution of the theories of socialism, the formation, growth and dissolution of the First International of Workers between 1864 -71; the Second International 1872-89; the short lived Third international 1919; Formation of International Trade Unions between 1901 and 1948. The bourgeois realising that it is better to sit and discuss than to ignore the revolutionary movement sweeping the world of the oppressed people gave birth to the International Labour Organisation and set up Conventions that gave expression to the belief “Universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice.” Forty of us had gathered to resolve the issue of the non ratification, by the Government of India, of the Conventions on Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining.
The rent of room 219 was double the salary of my assistant in the Trade Union office. He had just got married and would be bringing up a whole family on that wage. Considering that there were 40 of us, simple arithmetic suggests that a small slum in India could be financed for a month. And so we were in cool climes, in a Manor hotel, to give specific expression to social justice as a means of ensuring lasting peace.
“The conditions in India are different from that in the developed countries, we cannot impose on India what is valid in the developed countries. We need time to catch up and then and then alone can we consider ratification” argued Mr. C.M.Krishna, Executive Committee Member of the All India Organisation of Employers. He was strongly supported by Mr. M.K.Garg Adviser, All India Organisation of Employers and Mr. M.A.Hakim Secretary General, Standing Conference of Public Enterprises. Then Mr. I.P. Anand Employer Member of the ILO Governing Body, came up with arguments that negated them, though his purpose was to achieve the same end. Mr. Anand said, “Our predecessors in Geneva representing a pre-industrial society had no clue of the twenty first century. Differential ideology obliterated, post industrial, leisure, oriented information based and speed guided part time and home working competitive society, introducing new forms of work force, creating multifaceted problems of a complex nature.....All freedom must be directed to a positive cost-benefit evaluated social progress and economic growth...let us not have a dogmatic approach to the subject of ratification but continue to work assiduously for the end purpose viz a coherent responsible and responsive structure of employer-employee organisations who believe not in their individual or sectoral solidarities alone but in the overall unity of purpose and social progress...Emphasis, therefore, must shift to new values and objectives ...”
What was their argument ? Was it that the Conventions were out of date and needed to be modified in order to make them compatible with the modern contemporary reality or was it that India could not ratify conventions that were fifty years old because India was too backward even by the standards of then contemporary Europe ? I did not have to tax my mind for very long. In the next breath, Mr. Anand, who for almost four decades had been battling on behalf of the Indian employers said, “Mere freedom, in the technical sense of association or expression by way of lung power, rhetoric etc. at gate or street meetings or bandhs (closure/strike) or gheroas (coercive confinement) are no true index of a “responsible freedom”. We must, therefore, discriminate between “freedom” and “licence” which often hold public to discomfort, denial and ransom. There must be a code of guiding principles. To me, therefore, it is obvious these conventions, how so ever merit worthy in concept and aim when adopted in 1948, do need a new reflection and review so as to ensure achievement of a coherent constructive and socially beneficial end purpose and not be content itself with an acceptance of an abstract right and notional ratification”. Now all the flanks were covered. How could workers have rights ? In a class divided society, any freedom to the oppressed could only mean licence to be misused in the worst form resulting in society being held to ransom; Conventions designed for a developed country should not be imposed on to a poor, backward developing country; and if it is pointed out that five decade ago today’s developed countries were backward, the argument would shift to how the brave new world needs a new code. Do not such complete, all encompassing, obstructionist arguments hold contemporary Indian society to ransom ? Are these responsible expressions of freedom ? Economic and social backwardness are mitigated not merely by the levels of investments or credit ratings, but by the ability of the State and the forces that rule the society to learn from History.
Modern Industrial nations like Japan (Meji Restoration), France (French Revolution), Germany and Italy (the raise and fall of fascism), Russia (the October Revolution), China (the Maoist Revolution) had to rid themselves of the fetters of feudalism in order to build modern industrial nations. The ahistoric and backward Indian bourgeoisie believes that unlike these nations, India is an eternal continuum and that it is possible for India to develop, like an onion, layer upon layer. It does not bother these short sighted leaders of Indian industry that if Company law (law regulating the conduct of a company and rights of the shareholders) needs to be replaced in its entirety (and not just amended) in order to enable it to deal with the problems of globalisation and liberalisation, labour legislation cannot remain rooted in the previous century or in the structure of a colonial administration. Like the Bourbons, these people refuse to learn even from contemporary events, taking place in their immediate neighbourhood, like the collapse of crony capitalism in Indonesia, Malasiya, Thailand, Philippines.
Caught between the power of the employers and the relative powerlessness of the employees, the Government (irrespective of which political formation constitutes the Government) opts to sound progressive while remaining static. After years of training and grooming, an army of bureaucrats ensure that the Government, unlike the employers, does not appear either crude or contradictory. Mr. Satyanarayan Jatiya, the latest Labour Minister, in the Government of India states, “The provisions of the ILO conventions are by and large in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Constitution and Indian Laws and practices. The organised industrialised workers in India are by and large enjoying the benefits of all provisions of the two conventions. Despite these constitutional provisions, legal provisions and practices, India has not been able to ratify these two conventions so far. This is mainly due to a technical problem …. We have an open mind on these issues as we respect the principles enshrined in these two conventions.” Ministerial pronouncements, backed as they are by the power and pelf of office, always deserve an applause; in any case there are faithful bureaucrats who remain to defend the indefensible.
What was left ? The representatives of the employees argued as best as they could, with as many citations, illustrations and examples as they could muster. They wanted immediate ratification, but finally reconciled themselves to yet another five star hotel conference. For the International civil servants it was yet another mission. They pack up to rush to the nearest airport in order to catch the first available flight !
For the last time, I return to room 219 with my unresolved paradox.
I had been fighting for over two decades, on behalf of those sections of
salaried employees who had no labour rights commensurate with the Conventions.
I had been relentlessly demanding that the Govt. of India ratify the
Conventions. I did express myself candidly, but the record has it that
I was a member of the official delegation on behalf of the employers. This
too was due to a technical problem. My paradox was the same as that of
the Minister-a technical reason ! Was it entirely due to a
technical reason, or did we get co-opted ? Both the Indian Government and
I would have to answer this question sooner rather than later.