The Hindu Business Line : On strikes as a weapon

IN RECENT months, the West Bengal Chief Minister, Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, has made it clear that he will brook no opposition in the implementation of his one-point programme — rapid economic development (or resurgence) of the State.

In normal conditions, this is an attribute of any political leader wielding power which cannot but be lauded in the strongest possible terms. In the case of West Bengal, the support for such a leader should be even stronger because of the leeway this once-economic-showcase State has to make up owing to the severe slip-up in economic performance over the past three decades.

As things are, the economic regression of West Bengal has been attributed to unbridled labour unrest on the one hand and a lack of imaginative economic policies pursued by State governments of the day since the early 1970s on the other. In the minds of potential investors, the perception of the labour problem has been the single most important hurdle to arriving at a decision whether to put money into West Bengal or not.

Not surprisingly, the Chief Minister has been harping with unnerving regularity on the theme that the State should no longer be considered as a "labour-problem" zone for intending investors.

In the process, he has issued stern warnings to labour unions against behaving irresponsibly, which has received widespread support not only among investors but also among those within the Left who feel that the cause of the poor will be served better by a judicious use of the right to strike instead of having indiscriminate recourse to the weapon.

In fact, the issue came up for discussion at the State conference of the CPI(M) where the State party secretary, Mr Anil Biswas, said clearly: "We don't have any inhibitions on FDI, barring a few sectors. After all, we are fighting for a better living standard and not for perpetuating poverty. But all these investments should be made on our terms."

The CITU state secretary, Mr Kali Ghosh, said: "The working classes consider strike as the last weapon to realise their demands," leaving it to an unnamed colleague to add: "The Chief Minister's repeated admissions of militant trade unionism in Bengal . . . has strengthened the hands of capitalists and industrialists, most of whom don't bother about the working classes."

The West Bengal Industries Minister, Mr Nirupam Sen, who is currently high up in the pecking order in the State Cabinet, had a more mellow and specific view to offer: "The market is playing a dominant role these days but it cannot ensure jobs. Instead, it is taking away jobs through massive retrenchments. Our alternative is to target the market dropouts and those who cannot afford to enter the market. We are trying to mobilise state resources for their welfare."

Importantly, he added: "We are aware that a State government cannot do away with the rising income inequality. But let the impoverished get a chance."

The conference resolution on the subject, of course, has the last word, and it said: "The aim of the workers' movement is not to close down industrial units but to help them work smoothly and protect the interest of the working class."

One is certain that this is precisely what the Chief Minister's stand is. Where then is the point of conflict between what some CITU leaders feel and the state government's declared policy on "militant trade unionism"?

Possibly, the question boils down to how much sacrifice should be made by each of the two sides in order to arrive at the "greater good" of society at large?

An unending debate this, which makes life worth living, after all.

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Administer it right

Is poverty the best policy?

Needed, a better ideal than Asean rates

Entry tax on earthmoving machinery

Interest at arm's length

Why the taxman didn't join the party at club mandap

On strikes as a weapon

Worth striving for more humane world