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. 

The unending battle

At the stroke of the midnight hour when the world was sleeping, India was divided into two countries based on religion. What followed was an orgy of hate, riots, arson, rape and murder. Communal tensions started brewing much before the actual date of partition. The days following 15^th August were the most dreadful. An estimated 10 million people migrated between India and Pakistan (many locked their homes believing they will return once the matter cools down) making it the largest mass migration in human history. The violence that engulfed large part of northern and eastern India during those few months lead to many deaths. Official records were scarce but estimates put the number to around a million. India and Pakistan never managed to reconcile.

Who can kick harder?

Four wars have been fought between India and Pakistan and border skirmishes are common. Though there is an agreed ceasefire between the two countries the troops regularly exchange fire. People to people contact on both sides of the border is scarce and there is a deep trust deficit. Regular export of terrorism by Pakistan since the early 90s has not helped the matter at all. The army of Pakistan which also acts as capitalist force (Pakistani armed force controls a USD 10 billion business empire manufacturing everything from fertilizers to breakfast cereals) has successfully managed to keep the fear psychosis alive in Pakistan. The defense budget of Pakistan for fiscal year 2012-13 is PKR 800 billion (USD 8.21 billion) 28% of the total budget spending.

The line between politics and armed forces in Pakistan is so blurred that the election commission wants the army to supervise the elections later this year. The election commission has also ordered verification of electoral rolls to be carried out under supervision of the army. No one knows for sure who between the army and the civilian government rules the state. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to negotiating peace with Pakistan. The Pakistani army is interested in keeping the fire burning. If in the coming decades the relationship between India and Pakistan normalize there will be a heavy reduction in defense spending and the army will be sent back to the barracks. Obviously they do not want to be sidelined.

The civilian governments of Pakistan tried in the past to patch up with India (once even a general after staging a coup got talking to India) but their military always betrayed them. The recent violation of cease fire in Kashmir is one such example. Two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated by the Pakistani troops in an ambush. Meanwhile Pakistan is claiming that Indian troops shot down one of their soldiers. Such news acts as fodder for the jingoists on both sides of the border. Many Indians want a “final” war on Pakistan, some want it to be nuked, some sane types prefer surgical strikes and almost every one firmly agrees that the government is spineless.

From similar experiences around the world we know that a “final” war does not exist, nukes are at best deterrents and military strikes have not wiped out Taliban in Afghanistan even after ten years. Is there a solution to this unending battle? No one knows. There will have to be many changes on both sides of the border. More on the Pakistani side than on the Indian. Political situation in Pakistan has to stabilize, its home grown and military financed terror networks have to be disbanded and honest textbooks should replace the present anti India ones. All this might never happen or at best take many decades. India cannot and should not wait for the right moment to arrive.

India is yet to harness its growing power on the international high table. Ministry of external affair finds it difficult to manage the various stakeholders at once. Severe staff shortage and misplaced foreign policies have made India a dwarf in the international arena. Till 9/11 the western world saw the India – Pakistan relationship from the Pakistani point of view. Aggressive diplomacy and friendly relationship with the US helped Pakistan a lot. India’s repeated allegation of state sponsored terrorism by Pakistan fell on deaf ears.

With no solution in sight, India should embark upon a two prong long term strategy. First is to engage into aggressive diplomacy and second to engage with Pakistan at multiple levels. The international community has finally recognized the issue of Pakistan and its terror networks. Post 2014 when the American forces move out the interest in Pakistan too will diminish. India should be worried about such a situation. This is the time when it should engage in a high level dialogue with not just America but also with other stakeholders like China and Turkey. India should also turn out as a matured democracy in the UN. As an aspirant of a permanent seat on the Security Council it should demonstrate its willingness to engage in world matters than abstaining on matters of world interest in a vote.

Engagement with Pakistan is a necessity. One cannot wish away its neighbours. The current level of engagement is a good step forward. But this can only happen if Pakistan plays ball.