In June 1979, 25,000 textile mill workers in Delhi went on strike. This strike which lasted for 114 days-the longest strike in the history of Delhi’s textile industry-holds important lessons for the working class. Hence, it is necessary that each class-conscious worker studies it seriously.
Around 16,000 workers from the Delhi Cotton Mills (DCM), Swatantra Bharat Mills and DCM Silk Mills, united with 6,000 workers from the Birla Mills and 2,000 workers of Ayodhya Mills to carry on the struggle. The DCM group of mills is controlled by Bharat Ram-Charat Ram; Birla Mills (as the name shows) by Birla and Ayodhya Mills by the Central Government, through the National Textile Corporation (NTC). Thus, the strike drew the battle lines quite clearly-on the one hand, the big capitalists and their government; on the other hand, the working class.
The strike was led by an 18-member Action Committee (Sangharsha Samiti) of which 14 were workers and four were “trade union leaders of 40 years standing.”
The most important demand was neutralisation of dearness allowance (DA). After a strike in 1973, the capitalist-landlord government had been forced to concede a few of the workers ‘demands, as a result of which the Vaidialingam Award was announced. This Award recommended a neutralisation rate of 90 percent of the cost of living index, which the capitalists did not implement. They paid the workers only 78 per cent of the cost of living index, because of which many workers lost as much as Rs. 225 per month (Patriot, July 11). Also, the capitalists took into acco-unt only 26 days while calculating the DA, whereas the workers demanded that the entire month (30 days) should be covered. Thus, the capitalists were not pre-pared to implement even those demands that they had been forced to concede as a result of our comrades struggle. The other demands were, interim relief of Rs. 85 per month per worker and revision of the wage structure (Patriot, June 29).
At this stage, an important question arises. While it is perfectly true that the capitalists refused to imple-ment the Vaidialingam Award, did the Award itself do justice to the workers? Let us examine some of its provisions.
Firstly, the base year under the Award is 1939, when the value of the rupee was much higher than it is today. Therefore, at current prices, when the value of the rupee has drastically fallen, these calculations are biased in favour of the capitalists. Secondly, the manner in which the cost of living index is calcu-lated by the Labour Bureau is faulty. The Rath Committee had recommended ways in which these faults could be corrected but these recommendations have not been implemented by the Government. Thus, under the Award, DA continues to be calculated according to the incorrect methods. Finally, it must be remembered, that even if DA is calculated correctly, it only gives the worker the means to meet the price rise. In other words, DA (if calcu-lated correctly) allows the worker to maintain and not improve his standard of living. DA can thus only ensure that the working class continues to receive its subsistence wages and stays at the same level, in the interests of the exploiters! Because of these reasons, the Vaidialingam Award itself benefitted the capitalists, although it gave some concessions to the workers.
Once the strike began on June 27, it continued to grow in strength. The capitalists at first pleaded their “inability” to pay, but later said that they were willing to consider a “reasonable” wage increase, on the basis of “rationalisation”. What did this “rationalisation” mean? Basically, that the workers should agree to additional work load(four machines in place of two), according to “standards achieved in Bombay and Ahme-dabad” (Hindustan Times, July 6). In other words, if the capitalists earned more profits, through greater production, a part of the extra profits would be given to the workers as a “reasonable wage-increase”. At that time, the Action Committee quite correctly rejected the proposal. On July 7, the Delhi State Workers Co-ordination Committee declared its support to the strike. The Coordination Committee later grew into an All Union Solidarity Committee. On July 14, a rally of several hundred workers was held at Swa-tantra Bharat Mills. On July 19, nine trade unions jointly organized a morcha to the Boat Club. Four student and youth organizations also participated in the demonstrations. By August 11, the All Union Solidarity Committee was assured of sufficient su-pport to call for a one-day strike, in solidarity with the textile workers. As the struggle continued, the capitalists tried other methods to break the strike, On September 12, twelve workers were attacked by goondas near the DCM Mills. Soon the workers discovered that this attack was part of a plan to remove goods from the godowns, for which 22 trucks had been sent. However, the workers, their wives and children gheraoed the trucks and the plan was defeated.
On October 1, the workers celebrated Dussera by burning effigies of the real ‘Ravanas’ Birla, Bharat Ram and Charat Ram. On October 7, a dharna was organised outside Brahmananda Reddy’s residence, who was the Industries Minister at that time. The mo-st significant thing about this dharna was that not only the workers, but their wives and children also participated. The dharna lasted for four hours.
On October 11, the All Union Solidarity Committee organised a Delhi Bandh. The bandh was total, Indust-rial establishments, market areas, transport services, schools, Universities, offices and banks, all remained closed in solidarity with the textile workers. The Res-erve Bank of India, and the Life Insurance Corporation employees also joined the bandh.
The capitalists and their government reacted viol-ently to this growing strength of the textile workers. to which even the ruling class parties, now that elections were near, had by now declared their “support”.
All around the city, the Delhi Administration mobilised huge forces of the BSF, CRP and Delhi Armed Police. On the bandh day, they lathi-charged the workers and burst tear-gas shells. A capitalist newspaper (Financial Express, October 12), says more than 700 persons were arrested.
If the Janata-dominated Delhi Administration played the role of a capitalist goonda, the Lok Dal-Congress (U) Central Government, was no better.
Throughout the strike period the Central Government’s NTC-controlled Ayodhya Mills “stood alongside its counterparts in other mills, during joint negotiations between the representatives of the managements and the action committee conducting the strike”. (Main-stream, October 20). In fact, when Brahmananda Reddy was asked why the government could not intervene to settle the matter, his reply was that “he could not bring about any individual settlement in the NTC, because this would adversely affect the interests of the other private managements”. (Financial Express, October 13). When a delegation met him on October 7, he had declared that “the strike is unnecessary” (Patriot, October 9). The Union Labour Minister, Fazlur Rehman, also openly declared his support to the capitalists in a statement publi-shed by the Economic Times, on September 30.
Meanwhile, the strike continued. Violence and poverty failed to break the spirit of the Delhi textile workers. Recognising this, the capitalist – landlord government changed its tactics. It decided that if the fortress represented by the workers could not be made to surrender through a straight attack, it should be defeated from within. The trade union leaders were invited for negotiations. Soon the government and the capitalists signed an agreement with them, whereby the exploiters surrendered a part of their interests, in order to save the whole. It reached a settlement with the workers in Ayodhya Mills on October 13. Realising the true nature of the settlement, Birla and the DCM Group also reached almost exactly the same agreement by October 18.
What were the terms of the settlement? All the three agreements are similar in four respects:
1. The issue of neutralisation of DA is to be referred back to Vaidialingam for “interpretation”;
2. There will be a rise in basic wage by Rs. 45 with retrospective effect from January 1, 1979;
3. The workers will get an annual increment of Rs, 6 for five years, starting from January 1, 1980, and
4. An advance of Rs. 400 per head is to be paid by Diwali.
While it is true that the workers did get a little more money by a rise in basic pay and annual incre-ments and an advance, the fundamental issue of the strike, of maintaining their existencs at the same level by dearness allowance has not been settled. It has been referred back to Vaidialingam, for interpr-etation. In whose interest the question will be ”inter-preted” is evident from the very nature of the 1973 award, which was based on false figures!
The settlement, after having thus ‘pacified the workers by a wage increase, also helps the capitalists further in the matter of rationalisation. In the Ayo-dhya Mills’ and Birla Mills’ settlements, the question of rationalisation has been referred to an expert committee of the National Productivity Council a government-run body. In whose interests its “recommendations” will be is a point that does not need further explanation. The DCM agreement differs slightly from the other two. The expert committee’s recommendations will not be binding on the Union, instead, the matter will be further referred to a ‘tripartite conference, consisting of the Government, the capitalist and the workers. In other words, the capitalists and their Government will directly decide against the worker, instead of doing it through the National Productivty Council. One of the Unions in the Action Committee recognised this when it “refused to sign, because if the rationalisation is referred to a tripar-tite conference, the majority opinion could go against the workers’ interests” However, it ultimately decided that “in order to maintain unity among the workers, and to avoid any further hard-ships to them, (it) could not oppose the agreement. (Financial Express, October 19). Thus, the betrayal was complete.
What are the lessons of the Delhi Textile Strike? Apart from teaching us how the workers, in spite of their sacrifices and heroism, may still be betrayed, it reveals the limitations of the trade-union stuggle itself. A trade union struggle can at best help the worker to get a better price for his ability to work, it cannot prevent him from selling himself. And when the leadership of such a Union passes into the hands of those who help preserve the existing system of exploitation, even the most heroic of stru-ggles can be turned into something hollow. The only alternative is to link the trade union struggle for economic demands to the political struggle for workers’ rule. Only then can a trade union fulfil its role of being a “school of the working class in its struggle for liberation.
–October 30