Lets strike

The country is gearing up for a two day general strike on 20^th and 21^st February. The strike is supported by 11 trade unions across the country including Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS). Interestingly the three unions, CITU, INTUC and BMS are affiliated to Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Congress (main party in the ruling coalition) and the Bhartiya Janta Party (the main opposition party in the federal parliament) respectively. These are fairly large organizations and have close to 22 million members between them. Such large numbers give their patron parties a large pool of people who can be mobilized in an organized manner to send a message to the opponents. In this case the opponent seems to be the establishment, the ruling parties in general. All 11 trade unions have more or less agreed on a common agenda for the two day strike action.

Their main demands are, containing price rise, creation of more jobs, enforcement of labour laws, social security for everyone, minimum wage of INR 10,000, stop divestment of Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) and transfer of all contract workers into permanent positions. What the unions are demanding is job guarantee and increase in salary. They are not the only ones who want that. Given a chance we all would like to have a permanent job from which no one can fire us. This seems to be a fair demand by the unions. The unions are implying that companies should not be able to hire and fire workers at will and that all employees should be on permanent rolls of the companies so that they can get the benefits like health insurance and pension. This too is a fair demand. Why should some people be deprived of employee benefits? But the unions are silent on what the workers are willing to do in return of the benefits they are seeking.

The present labour laws of India make it extremely difficult for companies to lay off workers during difficult times like an economic recession or due to financial problems of an individual organisation. That is one of the main reasons why companies put so much emphasis on hiring contract labour. This makes it easy for the company to downsize during tough times. However such an arrangement is bad for both the companies hiring contract labour and the people who are on contract rolls. The company does not see them as reliable resource and hence does not invest in skill enhancing training for them. Some companies have started using automation as a means to avoid labour issues, after all machines never go on strike. Such developments lead to growth without increase in employment levels (this is true for lot of Indian states). Worldwide it is established that labour laws, which discriminates against either the employee or the employer lead to decline of industrial output in the long run. Greece and Italy are prime examples of how protecting the labour force can be a major reason for financial crisis.

Kolkata, the strike capital of India

The unions are also demanding more job creation and a stop to divestment of PSUs. But there is a basic flaw in this demand which the unions are conveniently ignoring. Post independence India adopted a Soviet style economy with heavy industries under state control. All natural resources too were controlled by the government. A small section of business was left for the private sector, which too was taken away during the nationalization spree by Indira Gandhi and the socialist government following the 1977 movement. However, no significant growth occurred post ’77 and India slipped towards the Hindu rate of growth, eventually facing bankruptcy in early 90s. Kolkata was once the most industrialized city of India, drawing entrepreneurs from all across India. It was what Istanbul was to Europe, a trade hub and gateway. Thirty years of socialist rule successfully pulled it down to being the least attractive metros in India.

It is not just in India, worldwide experiences show that nationalization and state monopoly of business leads to poor service standards and death of innovation (Venezuela and Argentina). It stops the incentive to be creative and stifles the entrepreneurial spirit of people.

Instead of the impractical demands, the unions should take a pragmatic look at the problems faced by the labour force in India. If they want the share of the wealth, they should contribute equally towards creation of the wealth. What the unions should demand is equal opportunity employment, health insurance, training opportunities and family welfare (day care and schools). In return they should agree to flexibility in labour laws, productivity linked appraisals and acting in benefit of the labour force not to become an arm of political parties. The unions should demand a consultation process of labour law reforms before the government unilaterally decides the fate of millions of workers across the country. The unions should demand to bring the unorganized sector under the umbrella of organized industry so that the people engaged there can reap the benefits and contribute their share towards the growth. Hammer and sickle lost their importance in the twentieth century, it is time for the unions to talk to the government and businesses as partners in growth not as a victim and tormentor. 

India at the United Nations Security Council - You propose, I oppose

India has been a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seven times since 1950. Its current membership will end in December 2012. This membership period is perhaps the most interesting period in India’s history of UN membership of the Security Council. January 2011, started off with a wave of unprecedented string of uprisings in North Africa and Middle East. What started in Tunisia as a rebellion against the corrupt regime soon spread to the entire region and came to be known as the Arab Spring. Sadly as the Arab Spring gave way to Arab summer and winter, India watched the events from the sidelines or sat on the wrong side of the voting table.

The very first opportunity came up in shape of the Libyan crisis. As the Arab spring entered Libya hundreds of civilians became target of organised massacre by Mr Gaddafi. In middle of March 2011, Gaddafi forces announced a massive crack down on rebel forces in Bengazhi (second city of Libya), which immediately deteriorated the situation. The UNSC proposed to adopt a resolution (resolution number 1973) to enforce a no fly zone. The Libyans wanted UN intervention, the members of neighbouring Arab countries supported UN action, India however chose to abstain. The argument used to justify abstention on voting was more of a lame excuse. India said that the report prepared by the special envoy to Libya was not made available and the secretariat has not made an assessment of the report. In such a situation it will be unfair to take military action. India suggested political efforts to handle the situation, while a city of 650,000 people was under imminent danger from forward marching Gaddafi forces.

The second opportunity came when the case of Mr Gbagbo came up for discussion. Mr Gbagbo disputed the victory of Mr Ouattara, his political rival who won a presidential runoff election in November 2010. Mr Gbagbo’s refusal to hand over power to the legitimate winner (the election was monitored by international observers) started a spate of political violence. Thousands of people were killed by supporters Mr Gbagbo and hundreds of thousands fled their homes. The scale of violence was grave enough to be termed as the second civil war of Côte d’Ivoire. The UNSC adopted a resolution sanctioning military intervention to save civilians from the ongoing killings. The situation in Côte d’Ivoire was clearly an anathema to India’s democratic values. India was not a member of UNSC at the time the resolution (sanctioning military intervention) was adopted. However, India voted against another resolution (on 31^st March 2011) referring the case of Mr Gbagbo to the International Criminal Court. In its speech on the voting floor India came across as a country which preferred restrain even as thousands of civilians were killed or displaced.

Let there be no vote

Yet another opportunity presented itself with intensifying of conflict in Syria. The Human Rights arm of UN, The Human Rights Council on 23^rd August proposed to adopt a resolution to send an independent international commission of inquiry to Syria to investigate alleged violation of human rights. Syrians have been experiencing government crackdown ever since the protests first started on 26^th January 2011. Thousands were killed, tortured and arrested by August 2011. In its response to the resolution India said, “India’s traditional position on country specific resolutions is well known. We do not regard spotlighting and finger -pointing at a country for human right violations as helpful. We believe that engaging the country concerned in collaborative and constructive dialogue and partnership is a more pragmatic and productive way forward...” India abstained from voting.

Beware of the foreign hand

Three crucial votes and India played the spoilsport in all three. India however was not the only country sitting on the wrong side of the table. Russia and China consistently opposed most of the resolutions (it took a lot of effort to make them support the no fly zone over Libya). On careful analysis all the three resolutions were also an instrument of regime change. The UN on behalf of its member states and with support of NATO forces successfully changed regimes in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. For countries like Russia and China this is their worst fears coming true.

Both Russia and China are accused of large scale human rights abuses, restricting free press, restriction on free movement of people and above all murdering democracy. While the Arab world was blossoming in its Arab Spring, China put extra policemen on the streets to stop a Jasmine revolution. Election results in Russia were predefined and Mr Putin decided to grab power for two more terms. Elections in China happen every decade without a single vote being cast. With political opponents and dissidents being sent to prison on frivolous charges both Russia and China are the hotspots of absolute power. They would be the last ones to support any such resolutions, which are aimed at altering the political framework of a country.

On the contrary India is a shining example of democracy. Human right records put India much ahead of Russia and China, India enjoys a free press and people are free to move within the country. With all the good players on its side India still lost the game. What went wrong with India? There can be many reasons as to why India behaved the way it did. The reasons can be traced back to the cold war and beyond.

As a young democracy India preferred to not align with any of the military blocs during the cold war. Acting on the principle of non interference India together with Egypt and what was then Yugoslavia started a Non Align Movement. This was a bloc of recently independent colonies in Asia and Africa (mostly poor). This bloc came to be known as the third world (the West and Soviet being first and second). India wanted to shed its colonial baggage and march ahead. However, later on India did suffer from some setbacks where the Western bloc meted out a raw deal to India. The non cooperation of the West in the Kashmir issue at the UN and later a war with China demonised it. India opposed whatever the West proposed. This also led to India’s proximity with the Soviet Union during later years of the Cold War.

Though India has emerged out of the “Hindu rate of growth” in economic terms it still is stuck in the cold war days when it comes to diplomacy. It still finds the concept of “sovereignty” extremely touchy and sometimes misunderstands it. Political veterans still refer to the “foreign hand” when situations go out of control (be it inflation or FDI in retail). India still feels threatened by the West and its ideas. However, India aspires to be the member of UNSC. But the question is, is India ready for that position?