Political Diary
New Delhi, 3 September 2016
Nation On Strike
BANDH KARO
YEH NATAK!
By Poonam I Kaushish
In this season of flood fury, civic
apathy and economic disgruntlement, striking is the flavour of the season.
Whereby, life came to a grinding halt Friday last when 10 Central unions with
over 15 crores workers in banks, telecom, factories etc called a one-day nation-wide
strike to demand higher minimum wage, social security while opposing changes in
the labor laws. Underscoring a truism: Your freedom ends where my nose begins!
Curse all you want, it’s for a
cause, remember. Undoubtedly, India
thrives on protests. Which has perfected the old saying “jiski laathi uski bhains” and translated it into the modern Oxford dictionary
lexicon: Bandh. A coinage which transgresses all barriers --
linguistic, regional and social.
Turn North, South, East or West the
story is the same. In fact, no day passes without a strike somewhere. Be it a mohalla, district or State. Wherein Bandhs aka hartal have not only
become everyday occurrences but also an integral part of our psyche that most
people consider it as a holiday! Despite innumerable court rulings banning
them.
Recall, in 1997 the Kerala High
Court held that bandhs were illegal
and people could not be forced to be a part of these. In 2003 the Supreme Court
endorsed this and added, “Government employees had no fundamental, legal, moral
or equitable right” to go on strikes whatever the cause, “just or unjust”.
Pointing out that aggrieved employees had other options available to them, the
Bench opined: Strikes as a weapon is mostly misused, which results in chaos and
total maladministration.
The Apex Court’s judgment also upheld the Kerala Court’s fine
distinction between hartal and a bandh.
It held that hartal was a form
of passive resistance and a call for it did not involve force. While a bandh was an enforced muscle flexing act
which interfered with the freedom and fundamental right of citizens.
But the Court orders were like water
off a duck’s back for our trade unionists. Simply, because it meant they would
have to shut shop which was not possible as they thrive on protests to serve
their cause of the day. So what if it
led to disruption of rail and air traffic, closure of Central establishments or
totalled a huge loss for the nation.
Raising, a moot point: Are strikes
actually expression of freedom or are they means of suppressing fundamental
rights in a democracy? What drives unions to strike? Is it to keep its flock
together? Ignominy of becoming irrelevant?
Guided by workers interest, commitment for a better wages and quality of
life? Or political considerations?
Arguably, not a few would simply
shrug it off with “sab chalta hai
attitude, this is Mera Bharat Mahan
at its rudest and crassest best.” Many
would assert ki pharak painda hai. Indeed,
India
has travelled a long way from Lokmanya Tilak’s “Swaraj is my birth right” to
“strikes is my birth right.” Today, every other section of the society plans
strikes as a matter of routine to stall anything that spells
change from the set routine.
The
cause is immaterial. It is all about registering ones protest, the louder the
better. Success is measured in terms of causing maximum dislocation and
discomfiture to people. Bringing work to a standstill.
The
labour unions are the worst. They are allergic to Government policies which
follow the cut-the-flab, close-shop philosophy without realising the
significance of socio-economic factors. So, whenever there is a talk about
labour reforms, the working class gets its back up. For them, the word
privatisation is anathema. Primarily, because privatization spells
accountability.
Look
at the irony. Drive down the teeming metropolises and one sees the inherent
contradictions of India’s
liberalization. The imposing glass-and-concrete high rises, neon signs flashing
some of the world's biggest global names, and malls are all symbols of the
thrusting ambitions of Indian business and society.
On
the flip side the potholed roads, unreliable power supply and lack of urban infrastructure
exposes the rank failure of the Government. This in turn encourages cynical
trade unionism at the cost of generating employment and economic growth.
Besides, part of the problem is that most trade unions are headed by netas who have their own axe to grind
with the Government
On one hand we talk of India as the next super power with a strong
economy on par with countries like Japan,
Korea and China. On the
other we fail to realize that strikes are a hindrance to achieving this goal.
In no civilised nations do unions dare to justify distress of citizens as
necessary to voice protest.
Certainly, the Constitution
guarantees one the right to protest, but it does not guarantee one the right to
infringe upon others rights. Unfortunately, our strikers fail to realize that
strikes negate the basic concept of democracy. These are just a camouflage for
non-performance, self-glorification, to flex their might and muscle, to gain
sympathy or wriggle out of working hard.
Remember, democracy is neither
mobocracy nor a license to create bedlam. It is a fine balance between rights
and duties, liberties and responsibilities. One’s freedom pre-supposes
another’s responsibilities and liberty. Importantly, bandhs cannot set things right and at the same time it cannot
create any psychological impact or pressure on the minds of those people who
are sitting at the helm of affairs.
Paralysing the State,
black-mailing corporates, industries to get attention and policy reversals only
exasperates the public and inconveniences them, cuts off the money flow, shoos
off investors, and endangers their own jobs.
Clearly,
the time has come to take a leaf out the US law, wherein there is no
constitutional right to make a speech on a highway or near about, so as to
cause a crowd to gather and obstruct the highway. The right to assembly is to be so exercised
as not to conflict with other lawful rights, interests and comfort of the
individual or the public and public order.
In
the UK,
the Public Order Act, 1935 makes it an offence for any person in uniform to
attend any public meeting, signifying his association with any political
organization. The Prevention of Crime
Act, 1953, makes it an offence to carry any weapon in any ‘public place’ without
lawful authority. The Seditious Meetings
Act, 1817 prohibits meetings of more than 50 persons within a mile of
Westminster Hall during the sittings of Parliament.
The writing on the wall is clear.
The need of the hour is to stop giving into strong-arm tactics and change the
dynamics of a bandh and replace it
with a new social contract. There is need to hold a referendum where people
decide what is right or wrong. That
gives higher bargaining power to the aam
aadmi as opposed to Parties or unions who call for strikes, hold the State
hostage only to achieve their own selfish interests.
The
country needs good governance and economic growth. The right of the citizen is
paramount. The question we all need to ask is: Can we
afford strikes at all, leave aside for what purpose it may have been called? At some point we have to stand up
and bellow, "Bandh karo ye
natak!"--- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|