Chapter 2: The Trade Union Context

 

It is not the intention here to provide an exhaustive account of the trade union movement in Delhi. But rather to touch upon some elements of the earlier phases of militant activity and struggles, that laid the foundations of experience upon which the 7-day strike of 1988 was planned and successfully executed. For the imagination, ideas, and objectives which drove the leadership of what was but a small contingent of the trade union organisation into such a movement, were fashioned in part out of the combined experience of earlier struggles and forms of organisation. A struggle not merely against the owners of capital, but also against trends that existed within the trade union movement, - trends towards containment of militancy on the one hand, and maintenance of a segmented division between workers in organised industry and their less fortunate brothers and sisters in the unorganised sector on the other.

 

Militant continuities in the trade union movement of Delhi

 

Sunrise and sunset  - the textile workers movement in Delhi

The largest contingent of the industrial workforce being initially the textile workers, trade union organisation had acquired strong roots in the textile industry by the fifties. With wages comparable to the lower echelons of government service and over 22,000 workers in five mills, textile workers represented the most concentrated section of the industrial workforce, and were a force to be reckoned with. For decades the movement in Delhi was led by these textile workers, who traversed various phases of militant struggle. 1954 saw a major strike struggle that led to the establishment of the supremacy of the Kapda Mazdoor Ekta Union, affiliated to the AITUC and led by the then united Communist Party of India, among textile workers. When in 1962 the government cracked down on the militant section of the party, some textile workers of Delhi were imprisoned for periods ranging from 2-4 years. 1964-65 saw a spontaneous action in DCM, over the issue of bonus. The numbers, militancy and strategic position of the workers in this action generated emotions that went far beyond the limited economic demand. “The police did not dare to do anything¼it looked like revolution¼ the workers had captured the factory ¼for 10-12 days they remained inside DCM, cooking their food in the mill canteen..”.[47] The fire of such militancy was enhanced when workers emerged victorious with a bonus of 16.4% in place of the earlier 8.33%.

 

This advancing militancy of the workers was sought to be restrained by the leadership of the AITUC, and by the seventies, the influence of the Ekta Union was on the wane. Influential militant workers in each mill gravitated towards leadership provided by the CPI(M), despite the fact that following the 1964 split in the party, all the major leaders of the united party in Delhi remained with the CPI. It was upon the militant trade union foundations of these workers that the first units of the CPM in Delhi came into existence. When in 1973 workers of all 5 mills went on strike demanding full neutralisation of price rise in their DA, this time it was called for by only  the CPI(M) led Kapda Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union affiliated to the CITU(which was founded in 1970), and one faction of the INTUC (led by Kishore Lal). The strike was opposed by the other unions including the AITUC.

 

The strike of 1973 lasted for 26 days during which there was a call for a Delhi Bandh on 30^th April against unemployment and price rise. Although the effect of their call could not reach all areas of the city, for the first time textile workers mobilised workers of other industries in this bandh action. They fired the imagination of workers in the small scale industries, when thousands of textile workers took out processions that went around closing both factories and markets. It was the first  major demonstration of working class power, making its political presence felt “in a city where it had been difficult to even take the name of a bandh”.[48] Once again, where the demand was rooted in the economic interests of the textile workers alone, the movement threw up the possibilities of a wider mobilisation of the working class. The ambition to expand working class power in the capital grew among the ground level textile leaders themselves.

 

Having won a victory for themselves in 1973, with the Vaidyalingam award of 90% neutralisation of price rise, militancy lost some support among the workers, when another 42 day strike failed to deliver strike wages to them. But the fighting stance of workers had already spread to other sections of workers in the expanding industrial estates located in Najafgarh Road and Kirti Nagar where the red flag could now be seen at many a factory gate. The emergency regime during which the decline of the textile industry began, brought in automation, while repression took further toll on the militancy of textile workers. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that Birla Mill witnessed two successful strikes even during the emergency. Some of the trade union leaders who were to play a crucial role in advancing militant movement into the ranks of the unorganised workers of small scale industry were textile workers whose class consciousness and militancy grew out of these movements of the early seventies. 

 

However, despite the ability of textile union leaders to push forward a militant line and execute major strike actions, a substantial section (60%) of workers remained outside the membership fold of all trade unions put together. It was this that created the conditions for the growing helplessness of the workers in the face of increasing attempts to automate and downsize the workforce. It also laid fertile grounds for the rise of individual populist leadership towards the end of the seventies.

 

After the loss of direct political power following the election of 1977, many a Congress leader was bidding for mass support to feed their taste for personal aggrandisement and brute power acquired during the emergency. The entry of Lalit Maken into the textile workers’ movement in Delhi was a part of this phenomena which took a variety of forms in Delhi, some of which have been touched upon in the previous chapter. He was brought in as a textile leader from the top, by being incorporated in the worker management negotiations, during the ebb tide of a joint strike movement launched in 1979 for the full implementation of the Vaidyalingan award. It seemed to many workers outside the fold of the existing organisations that he was able to use his connections with the then ruling party [49] in order to arrive at a settlement. On such patronage based foundations, he was able to later capture the militant edge of workers’ discontentment against large scale automation and retrenchment in the textile industry, lead a strike action in Birla Mill and DCM in 1980, and feed his personal support through a barrage of expensive poster propaganda. It was through such a process that he became the most prominent leader of textile workers at the time which facilitated his re-entry into the ruling Congress. Such a phenomena[50] was necessarily short lived, but served to direct the textile workers further away from the  broader class vision that had been in the making in the earlier era. Increasingly opportunist and insular politics began to dominate the textile workers’ movement. Lalit Maken’s influence spread to other sections of organised workers such as DTC, whose workers’ illusions that the leadership of a ruling party figure would protect them from repression were ultimately smashed in the face of police brutality and repression in the summer of 1988.[51]

 

In the eighties, in the face of a concerted attack on textile workers’ jobs through closure of departments (particularly weaving) in all the major mills, or as in the case of DCM, closure of the mill itself, workers fought many a bitter struggle culminating in their 114 day strike in 1986. This time, although the strike call was given by all the unions, the final agreement signed by all unions save the CITU led Kapda Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, accepted increased workload. The declining numbers of textile workers became further unable to resist reduction in their numbers and the onset of closures. An era of struggle of textile workers came to an end and their role in the working class movement of Delhi became marginalized. The centre of the movement shifted from this declining and retreative section to the expanding workforce in the small scale industries located in industrial estates that had by now become established. And minimum wages became the focal issue around which trade union struggles were to be centred.

 

 

Trade Unions in small scale industry  

 

In the manufacturing sector, second to textiles,  was the engineering industry, which in 1968 accounted for 38.2% of the employment in industry. Although large scale industry had some presence in engineering, only 10% of the workers were employed there, leaving 90% in the small scale sector.  This was in contrast to the textile industry where the large scale sector employed close to 64% of the workforce.[52] As such the course of development of the engineering unions followed a different trajectory from the textile unions.

 

 A wage board set up for the engineering industry never came into operation, and from the outset engineering workers’ bargaining for wages centred around statutory minimum wages. On one side were a few company based INTUC led unions in the few large scale units, which maintained a distance from the broader issues affecting other workers. On the other, stood the communist led engineering union, whose most prominent leader in the sixties was Sadhu Singh.[53] It was this union that constituted the initial bridge between the organised and unorganised workers. By the 1970s as industry diversified its products, broad based unions of workers regardless of trade, came up, foremost of which was the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, affiliated to the CITU. It was no accident that while its first and second President were textile leaders Pyarelal from SBM and then Nathu Prasad from DCM,  its Secretary Puran Chand came from the Engineering Union[54].

 

The centre of militant activity among these workers, was the Karampura Motinagar area, where the SBM colony was located and which was adjacent to the Najafgarh Road industrial complex. This complex included some of the important large scale factories such as Shri Ram Chemicals and Sylvania Laxman side by side with a whole range of small scale units of mainly engineering in the Rama Road area. Here, the densely populated bastis of workers provided an additional strong support base for industrial action. It was in Motinagar that in 1968, thousands of workers gheraoed the police station’ in anger against police intervention against workers involved in industrial disputes, which resulted in tear gassing and lathi charge and the arrest of 50 workers. 5 of them were convicted to 3 year imprisonment.[55]

 

However, despite these burgeoning struggles of workers, in 1973, the Delhi Gazetteer concluded “The problem of trade union organisation is not serious in the small scale sector”. There was some truth in this observation as the unions had a limited strength when compared to the growing size and spread of small scale industry. It was upon this fledgling movement that waves of repression were unleashed in the seventies. Union leaders such as Puran Chand and Pyarelal were singled out by the police and publicly thrashed on the streets of Motinagar. Then came the emergency, during which union activity was completely curtailed, while the base areas of jhuggi support in Karampura were bulldozed out of their strategic location. According to Sadhu Singh, the strength of the movement was forever weakened by the shifting of the jhuggies of Karampura during the emergency. Where earlier, a union call  would spread like wildfire through the basti by word of mouth alone, where thousands could thus be mobilised with ease to provide strength to the trade union movement, this became impossible after 1976.

 

The emergency marked a turning point in trade union organisation among the small scale industrial workers. On the one hand, it had succeeded in stifling the developing unions of the early seventies. On the other, with the establishment of industrial estates in as many as 20 official industrial areas, the manning of the multiple centres of industrial activity, required a wider cadre base for effective intervention. Karampura could no longer remain the focal point of trade union organisation as in the earlier period. At the same time, a new force began to emerge in the trade union organisations in these scattered industrial areas, a breed of individual and opportunistic operators, known as the 10% wallahs, whose greatest interventions for workers revolved around getting them to settle their accounts and leave their factories, rather than sustain disputes with the maliks in order to secure rights for the workers. In the process of settling of accounts or  hisab  the operator would pocket 10% of what the worker received, and often simultaneously take a percentage from the malik whose sole interest lay in getting rid of workers, who started disputes. Many were the maliks, who in order to get rid of the demand for minimum wages for all their workers, would be prepared to give some money in lieu of a settlement and get rid of the worker who was in the lead of such a demand. They would therefore be amenable to the intercession of an individual, who would in the name of a union lubricate the process and make the worker willing to back off from a protracted dispute. Already the conciliation machinery, and the labour administration was available for such settlements. But the eroding confidence of workers in the integrity of the labour department , as workers saw the inspectors generally consorting with the maliks, made them turn to these unions, who claimed to represent them, and then proceeded to sap them of all collective fighting energy and abandon positions of principle. The rise of 10% trade unionism was not confined to the petty unions alone. The traditions of legalism in many of the central trade unions, which increasingly involved workers in only conciliation and case based proceedings, also leaned in this direction.

 

United action and Minimum Wages

The decade following the emergency saw a major spurt in united action of trade unions initiated at the central level. The many joint conventions and struggles at the all India level created conditions for the state level organisations to come together on many issues[56].  It was in such a context that the first Delhi level joint convention on minimum wages was held in July ’79,  which gave the call for a one day strike of all sections of workers for a need based  minimum wage, variable dearness allowance and solidarity with the textile workers who were on strike at the time. It may be recalled that this was the time of tremendous spurt in the prices of essential commodities and the consequent alienation of the people from the first non-Congress government at the centre, one of the key factors leading to the return of the Congress the next year. It was a time when the battle for increase in the minimum wage constituted the key element of trade union action against the burden of price rise that was eating up the small earnings of workers.

 

In 1979, the minimum wage was Rs.185 and the demand was put forward for an increase to Rs.350 The convention was attended by the CITU, AITUC, HMS, BMS and UTUC. A platform of unity of the non-Congress trade unions was thus being formed reflecting the principal clash of political interests in the capital. For even after the defeat in the elections of 1977, the Congress continued to exercise its goonda domination over the city. A domination that was rooted in their corruption ridden nexus with the local bureaucracy and the police, muscle power acquired during the emergency, and their manifold direct associations with the profiteering classes in the capital.

 

From this convention onwards, joint meetings of trade unions on the question of minimum wages became a regular practice in Delhi. It helped the trade unions to put forward common demands on behalf of the workers of Delhi, in the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. But the combined strength of the trade unions in Delhi was like a drop in a sea of unorganised workers. The strategic industries in the organised sector, such as power and transport remained dominated by different factions of the Congress who successfully engaged in keeping their organisation  separate from the rest of the industrial workers. The unity forged on the issue of minimum wages from this convention led to a number of joint calls for one day strikes through the early eighties. By the late eighties, such calls had however, become increasingly ritualised. Although these strikes did succeed in maintaining a pressure on the administration, leading to revision of minimum wages five times in the course of  9 years, such revisions were far behind the rise in prices and real wages continued to fall. The administration remained adamant in not linking minimum wages to the consumer price index for industrial workers, while the boundaries of joint action became increasingly confined to token action before any revision, rather than a sustained movement towards achievement of the substantive goal of linking minimum wages to the realities of price rise.

 

Experience of these successive strike actions showed that often the call given by the state level leaders in joint meetings did not necessarily get carried through at the level of the industrial areas. This was a reflection of the narrow base of the trade unions, as well as the growing distance between many of the leaders and the mass of workers. Periodic attempts were made to deepen such state level unity by convening preparatory meetings at the zonal or area level. The success of such attempts, was however, uneven as was also the scope and strength behind strike calls. And so, despite joint and united calls, the call for struggle on the issue of a need based minimum wage could not reach all workers on whose behalf it was called, let alone mobilise them in action.

 

The demand for Rs. 1050 minimum wage which was to capture the imagination of the workers in 1987 and 1988 (based on the formula recommended by the Indian Labour Conference of 1956, for calculation of minimum wages), was a product of this joint action. It was first voiced at a joint convention on minimum wage, held in December 1986, when the official wage for Delhi was Rs. 414 for unskilled workers. The convention called for a one day strike on 16^th January ’87. Unlike the previous years, this time, at the insistence of the CITU, joint review meetings and follow up action after the strike took place in February ’87. However, after the announcement of revision of the wage to Rs 489 in May ’87, other unions felt that workers would not respond to a call for further action. At this point, the state leadership of the  CITU decided to push ahead on their own towards a 72 hour strike in November ’87.

 

There can be little doubt that the eight years of joint action from 1979 onwards had succeeded in bringing the issue of need based minimum wage into sharp focus among workers, and exercising pressure on the administration. But it was equally true that tokenist forms of struggle were leading to torpor in the middle level ranks of even the most militant trade union leadership. More importantly, such actions no longer reflected the seething discontent of the mass of workers that was crying for a higher stage of struggle.

 

The Independent Initiative

 

CITU and the 72 hour strike

Reports that came first in an activists meeting on 16^th February, ’86 (178 workers attended) and the review of the 16^th January strike within the Delhi Committee of the CITU (dated 27.2.87), revealed that in north Delhi (industrial areas of Wazirpur and G.T.Karnal Road), other unions had not participated at all and the CITU had conducted the strike on its own. The HMS was reported as having participated in Motinagar and Kirti Nagar in west Delhi, but in Nangloi again the CITU was on its own. The AITUC was reported to have participated half heartedly in Okhla (south Delhi), and the UTUC with a little more strength in both Shahdara (east Delhi) and Okhla. In textiles, apart from the CITU union, all others broke the strike. The IFTU, which was not a part of the front and which had independently called for a one day strike earlier (on 31^st December), came out in opposition on the 16^th. In many areas, the strike mobilisations of 16^th Jan, were largely of only the core strengths of organised workers alone, as winter rain discouraged wider participation.

 

At this same meeting, came the report that police had arrested 3 workers at Nangloi, where the CITU had been the lone organiser of the strike, but the strength of the workers’ mobilisation forced them to release them. This was the first recorded indication of spontaneous response of the unorganised workers since the union had no strength in that area.The secretary, in his review pointed out that even the CITU had been unable to pitch its full strength into the actions, although its mobilisation was good in the follow up demonstration. It was apparent that there was growing dissatisfaction among all the area level leaders of the CITU at the limited and in some places even restrictive role of the other unions.

 

The minutes of the Delhi Committee of the CITU from the last months of 1986 through 1987, provide a sketchy but eloquent  record of the initial process by which the spreading torpor in the trade union movement was broken by the CITU leadership which was pushing for a line of building a movement, and not just an organisation. It would seem that such central political vision is a requisite for building of a movement among unorganised workers in particular. The ordinary unit level struggles and protests of workers in the unorganised sector, carried the inherent weakness of being too scattered and easily overwhelmed to either make a big impact or to force their way through, even on minimalist demands. The local leaders that grew out of such struggles, having to reckon with overwhelming odds, either succumbed to the pressures of conciliation or came to realise that fighting power and sustained support is dependent on much wider militant  mobilisation of the class. For this alone could bring social and political pressure to bear on the individual masters, many of whom had the most direct associations with the ruling party and its goonda base in metropolitan Delhi.

 

The available written record in conference documents and minutes at various levels of the CITU and the CPI(M) makes it clear that there are many levels of experience that fed the development of the understanding of its leadership. Where leaps in imagination may be seen, they are grounded in a living engagement of the organisation with the complex matrix of political events and circumstances in Delhi. At the same time, the slogans and forms of action contemplated were a logical culmination of the experience of the concrete course of the development of trade unionism in the capital. And just as there are many stories in the lives of the ordinary worker that created the conditions of their consciousness and spheres of action, so also there are many stories in the evolution of the consciousness of the leadership that conceived, organised and led the strike of '88. It was the fusion between the two levels of consciousness that led to the success of the 7-day strike and the potentialities of a break in the stagnation that characterised the trade union movement  in Delhi at the time. The key to such a break had to lie in evolving an effective approach to the issues, methods of organisation and forms of struggle that could draw in the vastly expanding unorganised workers of Delhi.

 

In the first half of the 1980s, the movement led by the CITU and its habits of organisation was dominated by the struggles of the organised sector workers. Repeatedly in the internal documents of the organisation, stress was laid on the bigger industries as priority areas for expansion. The scale of domination of the small scale industries over the industrial skyline of Delhi was not as yet so visible. In Delhi, the CITU’s most important contingent remained the textile union. The Delhi State CITU organisation included Faridabad and Ghaziabad, where too the larger units were predominant. As the movement in these sections weakened in the face of closures and lockouts, sharp internal criticisms of the organisation’s inability to fight this with wider action were made. But the expansion of small scale industry and the numbers of workers drawn into it, was too rapid for the organisation to follow. Its full impact was perhaps difficult for the organisation to initially even comprehend.

 

Up to 1986, the focus had remained on the bigger industries and  a CITU state conference report of that year was thus  dominated by the experience of individual sectional struggles at either industry or unit level. As such the collection of 15,000 signatures on minimum wages, by the small scale industry based General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union was appreciated, but its potential was not highlighted. Nor was the changing profile of the workers of Delhi reflected in the report. The report stressed the fact that independent initiatives had been maintained on minimum wages, through signature campaigns, demonstrations, dharnas etc., but the united front of trade unions remained the principal tactic conceived for determining the course of the movement on the issue.

 

It was in the latter half of 1986, that the leadership of the CITU can be seen making it clear that minimum wages was the key issue around which the  movement of workers could grow in Delhi. Side by side with the issue, came the stress on the organisational strategy of maintaining committees of the trade union at the level of the jhuggi basti or resettlement colonies where the bulk of the workers lived. In meeting after meeting of the Delhi committee, secretary Bharadwaj is recorded exhorting the area level leaders to realise the significance of the struggle for minimum wage for the unorganised workers, and pushing for the formation of residential area based committees of CITU members.

 

Despite this, CITU’s mobilisation for the December, ’86 joint convention on minimum wage was inadequate. It may be remembered that in the month of December’86, a citywide mass campaign had culminated in one of the largest marches against communalism,[57] in which the biggest contingent was of workers, all mobilised by the CITU. For one and a half months the energies of the organisation had been concentrated on this campaign against communalism, reflecting the complex range of issues that the trade union movement in Delhi had to face. For, from the early eighties, divisive politics, had taken deep roots in the city, making quick inroads into the residential concentrations of the workers. In 1984, Delhi had already been witness to the frustrated aspirations of the metropolitan underbelly, organised and turned towards the carnage and slaughter of Sikhs, on a scale unmatched by any other part of the country. And then in 1986, following the opening of the locks at the supposed Ram janmabhoomi site at  Ayodhya, aggressive Hindu fundamentalist propaganda could be seen sweeping across the city. Its implications for workers’ unity upon which trade unions are founded, needs little elaboration. But even apart from that, the conditions of social and political instability, and the  periodic eruptions of communal violence in various parts of the city every few months, provided little space for the advance of wage struggles of workers in Delhi.

 

It was within such multiple demands on the trade union movement, that the tactics and organisation of a major movement had to be worked out and carried through. This process was initiated during the preparations for the 72-hour strike in 1987, when not only the CITU, but organisations of women, youth and middle class employees were also pitched into the struggle for minimum wages.

 

The 72-hour Strike of 1987

By August, ’87, CITU secretary Bharadwaj[58] was asserting that with the growing discontentment among workers, the situation stood in favour of a major movement, and that on the slogan of Rs. 1050/- minimum wage, workers could be brought out in struggle. He reported to the Delhi secretariat that the other trade unions were not prepared to accept CITU’s proposal for a 72 hour strike on the issue of minimum wages and sought support for a decision to take an independent initiative. He placed the proposal for a two month campaign followed by an independent call for a 72 hour strike in November. It received strong support from the area leaders, with some members asserting that with a proper campaign, they would be able to organise a much bigger strike than they were able to when tied to other unions. [59]

 

In September ‘87, with the finalisation of the dates of the strike (25, 26, 27 November), and the adoption of a comprehensive demand charter, a week by week plan was prepared, viz., central convention on the 28^th of September, taking the demands to each unit of the organisation during the first week of October, wall writing through the second week, followed by loudspeaker announcements through the third week, distribution of 60,000 leaflets in the last week of October, and, a demonstration on the 11^th of November. Throughout this period factory gate meetings were to be organised propagating the strike call, while in the last week before the strike, processions were to be taken out in all industrial areas. Along with minimum wages, the demands included, regularisation of jhuggies, abolition of contract labour and regularisation of contract workers, crèches for women workers, reopening of closed factories and, an end to police intervention in union matters and the corruption in the labour department.[60]

 

In October through 150 general body and gate meetings, the message of the strike had reached all CITU members. Through these meetings 22 hartal committees were constituted ranging from 30 to 100 members. In the course of the campaign, 600 street corner meetings and over 40 processions were taken out , 2 lakh,40 thousand leaflets were distributed and 45,000 posters put up. At the same time, over 60 meetings were organised in the jhuggi bastis adjacent to the industrial areas. [61]

 

The 72 hour strike was a success far beyond the expectations of its leaders. This was illustrated by a frantic call from Nangloi to the CITU office on the second day of the strike, saying that the juloos was too big to control and CITU activists could not be held responsible if anything untoward happened. When the central leadership went there on the third day, they found the police defensively hugging the walls alongside the huge procession which was packed from side to side.[62]  In Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, where again the CITU had no union, in the unprecedented mobilisation, one factory was set afire.[63] In the Najafgarh Road area, workers of even big factories such as Campa Cola were drawn into the strike. Initial pickets of 60-70 workers in many areas soon swelled to form processions of 3 to 4000.

 

One of the features that distinguished the strike from previous ones was the pitching in of organisations, other than the trade union. The involvement of committees of the CPI(M) at every level contributed in no small measure to rallying the workers in the strike. Militant women activists of the Janwadi Mahila Samiti whose membership was primarily drawn from the working class areas of the city joined the pickets, as did students and youth from the SFI and DYFI, contributing to the inspiration of the workers in many areas.

 

The success of the 72 hour strike was primarily determined by the fact that the campaign had been able to reach every industrial area. Wall writing, leafleting, street corner meetings, processions, etc. all served to take the call directly to the ordinary unorganised worker. It was their response that led the course of the strike. Remembering the 72 hour strike, one of the CITU activists of west Delhi, said that during the campaign, other union leaders were mocking them saying that where a one day strike was so difficult to organise, a 3-day strike could never succeed and was just a stupid idea in Bharadwaj’s head[64]. CITU leaders themselves were inconfident in many areas. But the bold call had touched the minds and hearts of the workers as no previous action had done. It was the 72 hour strike that gave the confidence to call for a 7-day strike the following year and was the training ground for its leadership.

Chapter 3 : Run up to the seven day strike

 

The Call

“Jeena Hai to Ladna Hoga” –To Live you have to fight. This was the caption of the CITU leaflet which called for a demonstration on 4^th February, 1988 at the Delhi Administration, Old Secretariat. Such was the momentum built by the success of the 72 hour strike, that the leaders of the CITU felt compelled (on the basis of impromptu consultation at the demonstration itself) to make the announcement that if the administration continued to ignore the demands of the workers, the next stage of the struggle would be in the form of a 7-day strike. Thus the very idea of the 7-day strike was born out of the surge of working class militancy that was demanding inspired leadership. There was some small criticism at the time of the impromptu nature of the decision without a discussion and formal decision in either the secretariat or any other committee, but it was swept aside by the wave of powerful support from the workers themselves.

 

When in March ’88,  the government announced a revision, raising  the minimum wage from Rs 489 to Rs 562, far from taking the edge off the militancy of the workers, the slogan that became most popular among them was “Joote maro 562” (kick this 562)[65]. That same month, workers of the Delhi Transport Corporation went on an indefinite strike on their own specific demands, during which police brutality against workers reached its peak in the famous lathi charge on DTC employees at AIIMS. This was despite the fact that their strike was led by the INTUC, with political links with the ruling party. Resentment and anger at the repressive stance of the administration acquired an even greater edge.

 

CITU begins its preparations

By 25^th of June, it was decided that the strike would be in November, and the main task was identified as forming campaign committees at the industrial and mohalla level[66]. In August fresh efforts were made to make the strike a joint movement. B.D.Joshi of the AITUC and Raj Kumar Gupta of the BMS were individually consulted by Bharadwaj, and a joint meeting was fixed with their consent for 24^th August. But on the 21^st of August, the other trade unions held a separate meeting and decided to boycott the meeting called by the CITU.[67] Clearly the other unions were bent upon isolating the CITU and not prepared to intensify the struggle.

 

It was only after this that the dates of the strike were finalised and the details of the public campaign preparations were worked out in the 8^th September meeting of the Delhi Committee secretariat. They were to begin with a central convention of activists on 16^th September. But the 8^th September secretariat minutes  reveal that there were doubts among one or two leaders about the ability of the CITU to take on such an ambitious strike alone. There was some talk about the difference between Ghaziabad where the trade union base was much stronger, and Delhi, where it was very weak and additionally burdened with debts. The actual position of CITU membership at the time would have to be considered infinitesimal for the mammoth task ahead. The Engineering Workers’ Lal Jhanda Union and the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union together had a total of just 5652 members in Delhi at the time[68]. However, the plans for the strike continued to be put into operation. Following the convention, a number of demonstrations were organised at the area level and 7000 posters calling for the strike were released by the CITU state centre. By mid October, the report came in that the workers were responding well to the call, and that campaign committees had been constituted in all 4 areas of Delhi, namely north, south, east and west.  A demonstration was planned for the 2^nd of November, at the headquarters of the Delhi Administration, Old Secretariat. [69]

 

From this point onwards, it becomes apparent that the centre of planning and decision making for the strike had shifted from the CITU committees to the state and local committees of the CPM. While in the 72 hour strike, the party had played a crucial but limited role, in the 7-day strike it became the moving force. This was perhaps inevitable due to three fundamental differences between the strike of 1987 and the strike of 1988. The first related to the fact that the success of the ’87 strike had not been anticipated by the administration or the major political groups including the other trade unions. As such their opposition had been muted. By 1988, opposition had acquired a more hardened stance and included the attempt to puncture the one week’s call by holding a pre-emptive one day strike on the 16^th of November. The position of isolation of the CITU was, therefore, much more acute than before. The second related to the higher level of repression by police in this period which had been illustrated by the police action against DTC workers. But the most important difference lay in the fact that it was a call for a much more protracted strike of 7 days which would require far greater resources than could be provided by the limited organisational strength of the CITU alone. It was thus clear that without the full involvement of other mass organisations from the start, the strike could not be successful. The leadership of such a broad front of workers’ and other organisations could only be provided by the party. As such, even the record of the organisation of the campaign and the preparations for the strike have to be sought in the minutes of the local committees of the CPM and the trade union subcommittee of the party at the state level.

 

The rallying of the party and its leading role

 

It was at the state conference of the CPM held on 8 – 10 October, that the push was given to the mobilisation of all ranks of the party in an all out drive to make the 7-day strike a success. Applauding the work of the CITU among unorganised workers, the secretary’s report contained a sharp criticism of the party committees and branches for failing to realise the importance of this work. Referring to the success of the 72 hour strike of ‘87, the report further exhorted the party ranks to recognise the changing objective conditions and adapt their organisational practice accordingly. But the written report provides only a fraction of the force exerted by the state leadership of the party towards rallying its cadre in preparation for the 7-day strike.

 

On 18^th October, a time bound plan of wall-writing, postering, distribution of the CITU leaflet and one round of street corner meetings was worked out to be completed by 31^st October. In the same period unit general body meetings of all the mass organisations in which the party had influence were to be organised in order to prepare and mobilise the mass organisation members. On the 30^th of October, the party secretariat met and planned out a two phase intensive mass campaign before and after Diwali (13^th Nov). It further decided that along with minimum wages, price rise, police repression and the animal like living conditions prevailing in both factories and jhuggies, must be stressed. This campaign emphasis on addressing the broader social experience of the unorganised workers in the city, played an important role in reaching deep into the cauldron of resentment of the workers and widening the base of support for the strike. On the 2^nd of November, a large central demonstration was held at the Old Secretariat where observers recall that the atmosphere was more charged than before[70]. By the 10^th of November, posters had been put up in every single area, wall writing done and that the different mass organisations had started moving for the strike.

 

The Campaign

 

The scale of the campaign may be estimated from the fact that after an initial 1,60, 000 leaflets and 7000 posters, the CITU brought out another 1 lakh leaflets, and 10,000 posters. The party brought out 1,50,000 leaflets and 8000 posters. The Ghaziabad, south Delhi and Municipal Corporation Union committees brought out 10,000 leaflets each, the DYFI[71], 24,000 and the JMS[72] another 15,000 in support of the strike. Bank employees and LIC employees brought out 3000 posters each. A group of independent intellectuals too brought out 1000 leaflets extending their support to the strike. All told 6,80,000 leaflets, 40,000 posters and 24,000 poster strips were used in the campaign.[73]

 

At the same time, street corner meetings served to both reach and rouse workers in every area. In north Delhi 300 such meetings reached about 30,000 workers, in west Delhi there were less with 37 meetings reaching 15,000, in south Delhi 133 reaching 10,000, in east  57 touching over 5000, in the old city 64 approaching 1000, while in Ghaziabad it was 251 reaching 23,000 workers. These were supplemented by 270 such meetings by the JMS as also an unspecified number by the DYFI.[74] Thus over a thousand street corner meetings spearheaded the campaign into the heart of industrial and working class residential areas. Apart from these area level organised meetings, a central hartal rath or a mobile platform on a tempo carrying central leaders, went to every area from the 11^th of November till the 21^st. The mammoth meetings addressed through this sweeping tempo campaign had a powerful charging effect on the workers and raised the pitch of the preparations to new heights.

 

One of the unique features of the 7-day strike campaign was the use of a play created specifically for the strike. The play “Chakka Jaam”, was written and performed in 28 shows in various industrial areas and working class bastis by the Jana Natya Manch. The political and class message of the play, which was unambiguous, and drew rapt audiences everywhere, reached over 18,000 workers in the course of the campaign. The popularity of this play even inspired many a hesitant local activist into moving into the mass with greater confidence. It was at a performance of a variant of this very play, just over a month after the strike, that Safdar Hashmi was murdered by Congress goondas in Sahibabad. Revolutionary songs sung directly or on tape by the song group called Parcham were also used. The most popular of their songs contained the lines, “Sar par kafan baandh kar nikli mazdooron ki toli, bam barse chaahe barse goli”.

 

It was this massive propaganda blitz and the supreme efforts of both leaders and cadre of the CPI(M)), the CITU, the JMS ,and the DYFI that reached into the very depths of the working class bases in the capital; that captured the imagination of the unorganised workers and drew support from them for the strike. But even middle class employees from banks, LIC and government offices  could be seen during  the run up to the strike, distributing leaflets in the industrial areas in the evenings and exhorting workers to participate in the strike. In a memorable demonstration of solidarity, on the 21^st of November, intellectuals, artists and students took out a procession in support of the strike. The involvement of these sections who were otherwise cut off from the lives and conditions of industrial workers gave confidence  to the workers who began to feel that they were not isolated and completely alone in their struggle.

 

Glimpses of the Internal Process

 

Behind this overall picture of the public campaign, there lie hundreds of small details of preparatory work, of tedious, and sometimes confusing, organisational processes that were finally welded together in a unified and common endeavour. There lies the engagement, of uneven strengths, capabilities and perceptions of different individuals and contingents of the organisation, with the task of galvanising and moving such a widespread and vast unorganised force into action. And, of course, there lies the story of the imprint of the response and support of the workers on the activists in the campaign, that inspired many a tired cadre into enthusiasm. There is some limited record of this process in the archival collection of minutes of some of the party committees[75]. It is to an examination of this record that we turn now.

 

Although it was the October state conference that kick-started the direct campaign of the party, it was preceded by an internal process whose beginnings may be located in the Trade Union sub committee report of April,’ 88. (This is a sub committee of the party state committee for party work in the trade union front). In the report, the review of the follow up of the 72 hour strike clearly stated that the public conventions of workers which had been planned to actually elicit the opinions of the workers had not been successful. It was in this meeting that the formal decision to prepare for a week long strike was taken. And further, that an attempt to bring the other unions into the strike should be made, but failing which, the CITU should go alone. [76]

 

This report of the TU sub committee was given to the local committees (LCs) of the party, and the LCs were entrusted with checking up on the implementation of particularly the formation of campaign committees at the area level[77]. Such campaign committees of locally based workers were constituted in all the major industrial areas and played a role in organising the campaign there. They also provided the initial stock of cadre in some of the industrial areas. However, their strength and mobility was highly uneven and from perusal of the local committee minutes, it would seem that through the months of June, July and August, the process of involvement of the key party committees in order to push forward these organisational preparations, still remained at a formal level. Although the minutes show a preoccupation with other matters, the fact was, that the position of the other unions in relation to the strike, was as yet unclear.

 

It was only after the breakdown of talks with the other unions and the finalisation of the dates, that the strike itself appears directly on the agenda of the LC meetings[78]. The minutes themselves provide a record of the manner in which the party committees were being motivated for the formidable task ahead. In the west, it appears that the report on the impending strike remained at the level of a perfunctory announcement and not much more. [79] Here, it was the intervention of the state leadership that made things start moving. It began with a meeting of the office bearers of all the mass organisations on 21.10.88 attended by the party state secretary[80], and again when he attended the LC meeting on 31.10.88. From the minutes of these meetings, the driving role of the state leadership can be clearly seen. The secretary’s words, “The working class of Delhi is unorganised. It has no power of intervention. As a class, it must be awoken. And learn to fight long struggles… this one week call has been made after the success of of the 3-day strike..”[81] Emphasising the broader issues in the campaign, he insisted on propaganda in jhuggies and resettlement colonies, and gave a clear direction that no other programmes that would interfere with the strike preparations were to be undertaken. It was in this meeting that the concrete working out of the details of the responsibilities of LC cadre for the held before the strike. Further details for the area can only be found in the state TU sub committee minutes.

 

In the east, whose LC had just come into existence, the record is far more explicatory through four LC meetings, (3.9.88., 12.9.88.,18.10.88., and19.11.88). Here the minutes provide a record of the establishment of a 33 member hartal committee in September itself[82]. What emerges as a significant feature is the small membership of the CITU in the area (209 in 9 units, out of which 6 had worker strengths of 10 and below, and only three units of more than 50 workers)[83]. Additionally, a persistent tension in balancing Municipal Corporation (MCD) Union responsibilities and industrial area work may be observed, expressed in a tussle over where the LC should concentrate its cadre. Once again, here, pressure was exerted by the state leader, Bharadwaj on giving priority to the industrial area work. In the south LC, on 3.9.88, the political context of the strike was discussed, but only broad guidelines were worked out. The next meeting was more than two months later, on 15.11.88, by when the campaign was in full swing.

 

 

Consolidation of forces, the central drive

 

It is in the minutes of the TU sub committee which met on the 10^th and again on the 18^th of November, that a clearer picture of the overall situation in different areas is available. In the 10^th November meeting of the state level Trade Union subcommittee of the CPI(M), 12 days before the strike, the picture was of an uneven campaign in the areas with the east and west Delhi local committees far behind the other areas in the level of preparations.

 

From North Delhi, came the report that JMS and DYFI activists had already started moving in the jhuggies and resettlement colonies in the area on a regular daily basis. The TU had planned four torchlight processions in the industrial areas, a daily mike campaign on 1 scooter and 2 cycle rickshaws from the 17^th and a district tempo campaign. Activists had been told not to take on any overtime work in their factories in the coming days. Summing up the position in the north, Nathu Prasad asserted that there was enthusiasm among the workers but until the CITU members became fully active, the atmosphere (mahaul) would not be created. The South Delhi report was on a lower key, but even there, youth, students and even a few teachers had started coming in the campaign. Pushpendra[84] placed the assessment that in the south, TU members were enthused, but the role of local party members including those in the trade union was weak. At the same time the campaign had been so extensive that they had run out of leaflets and needed more. In Ghaziabad which included Noida, the campaign was obviously more based on the trade union itself, with Tewary[85] reporting that more than 291 TU activists had been mobilised. In all the three above areas, the street corner meeting campaign had begun.

 

The report from the west and east was of a different order with elements of disarray apparent. In the west, where five of the eleven LC members were textile workers,  paucity of funds was dogging the campaign, and Inderpal[86] reported that neither the local party members, nor the activists of the trade union had been as yet able to move either extensively or intensively in any area. In east, according to the report of Chacha Shadiram[87], the absence of any takeoff in the campaign seemed to revolve around the fact that the Municipal Corporation union had not been able to depute its cadre for the campaign, although long overdue funds had been collected from them for the strike. It would be easy to attribute such weakness in both east and west to the substantial presence of organised sector workers in these two committees. But on the other hand, the west had seen some of the most successful moments of the 72 hour strike, and the east committee had actually been formed only a few weeks before (from a bifurcation of the earlier common local committee of the walled  city and east), and was still grappling with establishing itself. Both these committees had other organisational problems, among which were the  lack of funds and whole timers for trade union work in the industrial areas. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in these two committees, the organised sector workers had so far not displayed the necessary drive and initiative required to make a success of the campaign. The push in these two areas was thus given by the TU subcommittee, by giving an immediate loan of Rs 1000/- to west Delhi to step up the campaign, while in east, the MCD whole timer was instructed to concentrate on the work in the Shahdara-Jhilmil industrial area. At the same time, the details of the central tempo campaign were finalised which was to have an electrifying effect on the overall mass campaign in all areas. 

 

It was in the 10^th November TU sub committee, that the tactics for dealing with the 16^th November strike called by the other unions were worked out. It was decided to one, raise of the pitch of the propaganda for the seven day strike, and two, to openly take the line that the 16^th call was designed to sabotage the 7-day strike and instruct CITU workers to go to work on that day. At the same time north, west and Ghaziabad reported talks with local area branches of the other trade unions as well as small independent unions. In both north and west, the local unions were reported as saying that they would not support but would not come out in opposition. The efforts to neutralise the opposition of the other trade unions were thus maintained at the local level. 

 

Regarding textile workers who had been called upon to go on a one day solidarity strike on the 23rd , there was an initial division of opinion. Although the notice for the strike had been given, textile leader Inderpal, was of the view that if the strike was not successful in the surrounding industrial area, it would not be possible to have a successful strike in the textile mills. Clearly he was speaking on the basis of his experience in west Delhi of SBM and DCM Silk (He himself was a worker in DCM Silk). Nathu Prasad, from north Delhi held the view that in the mills where the strike could be implemented, it would help the industrial area workers since the police would be preoccupied at the mill gates. This was in reference to Birla Mill and ATM, both located in north Delhi, where the comrades were confident of being able to pull off the strike. Finally, it was decided that textile workers would be asked to take leave and deployed in the industrial areas during the strike. But as we shall see in the course of the strike, in the north, the industrial area mobilisation actually picketed at ATM and closed down one shift, while Birla Mill saw a complete hartal, on the second last day of the strike.

 

 

The final push

 

By the next meeting of the TU sub committee on 18.11.88, there was a qualitative change in the internal atmosphere. From south the report came that the crucial TU branches of Ranbaxy (Okhla) and NTPC (Badarpur), that had earlier been lagging were now in the thick of the campaign. Teams from the women, students, and even  teachers were coming on a daily basis. Some other small TU organisations in the area were in touch and wanting to take out posters and leaflets in support. Workers were keen to participate.

 

From the west, a more confident Inderpal reported that a turnaround in the situation had been achieved in the last three days. He asserted that in Naraina, Najafgarh Road, Rama Road and Kirti Nagar, a full strike had become possible’ although Mayapuri remained difficult. Here the owners’ association was very powerful, and workers were demanding that the juloos should start from the chairman’s office. In No. 4 (industrial area adjacent to Mangol Puri located in Nangloi), although propaganda was as yet inadequate, new militant factories would be able to implement the strike. Other unions were not willing to attend a meeting, but prepared to talk. Street corner meetings were being held daily by the JMS teams. He also reported some attempts by the police and owners’ associations to harass workers. In Motinagar, the police were going around threatening to send activists to jail. Some owners were asking workers to do daily overtime, anticipating closure during the strike.

 

From the east, Ranjana[88] reported regular mike campaigns, a central tempo campaign by the women, well received shows of the play in two areas, and an increased participation of corporation workers, some of whom were coming daily. She reported that the response of the workers was at two levels, at the first level, spontaneous support for the demands and anger, but at a second level they were not confident that 7 days would be successful.

 

In the north, the campaign was obviously the most organised and intense. Corner meetings had been held in all industrial areas and jhuggies. From the 17^th had begun a series of daily julooses in the industrial areas, followed by campaign committee meetings. Some students and lawyers were coming regularly in the campaign. This was not so true for teachers. Some workers were arrested while wall writing, but later released. Meetings in GT Karnal Road and Wazirpur were getting bigger, with participations up to 500. In Rajasthan Udyog Nagar and Nirankari Colony too LC members had been sent  and julooses were being organised. However, the campaign was driven by the LC and all party members were as yet not so involved. According to Nathu Prasad, the tempo for the strike had been made, and owners were terrorised. About 20 Congress unions had offices in the jhuggis. They had been contacted and had said that they would not oppose. But the LC anticipated that the local SHO (police) and some unions would try to make mischief. 2 other unions had come out in support. He summed up with the assessment that the strike would be there, and if attempts were made to break it, there would be clashes.

 

And from Ghaziabad, Tewary too reported that preparations were almost complete. The Noida owners’ association had issued a circular against the strike. The assessment of the Ghaziabad committee was that apart from Meerut Road and phase II Noida, the strike would be good. They anticipated a police crackdown on Sector 4, Sahibabad where the owners were terrorised.

 

This last meeting of the TU sub committee, in a sense anticipated the actual events of the strike itself, and was a measure of how close to the ground the campaign and its leaders had reached. It was summed up with the conclusion that although they had been successful in creating the atmosphere for the strike, there yet remained the task of consolidating this into 1) actual organisation of the strike, and 2) the ability to sustain this for seven days. For police intervention to be countered , “big julooses were necessary in order to dominate them”, and for sustaining over the days, responsibilities of experienced leaders would have to be concretely fixed. As secretary Jogendra Sharma put it, “3 lives must be there, if not 7 (for each activist)…militants must be there in each group for confrontation”

 

 

A persistent question that had come up in the earlier meeting (10^th Nov) came up again. Where were the julooses to be formed - from the jhuggies or elsewhere? The question was posed by Brinda Karat[89], who felt that the jhuggies should be the starting points. But obviously the situation was not uniform. In the south, the consensus that had emerged was to form the pickets at various strategic entry points to the different phases of Okhla. In the west, Inderpal had suggested that the julooses should be formed inside the industrial areas and not from the entry points. In the east, mobilising at the jhuggis was not a viable proposition. Although, it was clear from the experience of the north, and particularly Wazirpur, that the base area provided by the jhuggis opened out routes for workers’ mobilisation, protection and movement, which could not be manned by the police, the same tactics could not be operated everywhere. The discussion was therefore summed up by Bharadwaj on the note that flexibility of approach would have to be maintained according to the concrete situation prevailing in different industrial areas, with the perspective of eluding and avoiding unnecessary confrontation with the police. Unfortunately the record of the finishing touches to these preparations at each area level are not available, and we are left with the conclusions of the TU sub committee itself as the last words before the curtain opened on the strike itself. “If police repression is there, then running fight and stoning, etc.” 

 

 

Chapter 4: The seven days of the strike

 

“ 7-Day CITU strike begins” ran on the front page of the Indian Express on 22^nd November, the opening day of the strike. “One million workers to go on strike today” was the banner headline of a four column write up in the Times of India on the same day. Quoting a press release, the Times reported, “the workers are demanding the right to a minimal human existence, a minimum relief from the present situation where work is savage exploitation and leisure a living hell,” while the Indian Express focussed on the statements of retired judges of the Supreme Court and some High Courts supporting the strike and requesting the Police Commissioner, Delhi and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad “to ensure that no police intervention is undertaken in any way hindering the workers from the legitimate exercise” of the right to strike. At the same time they also reported, “At least 10 police companies have been told to gather around the industrial pockets” where the strike was to start. Almost all the papers reported the rally of “poets, professors, artistes, students, lawyers, jurists, intellectuals” in support of the workers demands which had been held the previous day.

 

From then onwards till the last day of the strike, it continued to be reported upon at a daily level, providing a valuable record of the day to day frame of events which would otherwise perhaps have been impossible to recover with any degree of accuracy. The oral testimony of the participants in the strike, having been taken 12 years after the event, provide great insight into the experience of the strike, but for establishing the chronology of events, the daily newspaper reports have been a more reliable source.

 

For the first time an action of the capital’s marginalized working class, had demanded the notice and attention of the  media. What was it about this strike that was able to bring a movement of workers onto the front pages of the major newspapers of the city? No doubt the propaganda blitz unleashed by the organisers had been able to highlight the pitiful wages and conditions of life that the unorganised workers of Delhi were condemned to. No doubt the mobilisation of artists, legal luminaries, and intellectuals had  made the media sit up and take notice. No doubt the throbbing anger and force of huge processions of workers during the strike touched chords in the minds and hearts of many a hardened and sceptical journalist. Despite the persistent efforts by some of the other unions to downplay the impact of the strike, despite the series of contradictory statements emanating from the owners’ associations, despite the massive deployment of the police and repeated lathicharges, tear gassing and arrests, every day from the 22^nd to the 28^th of November, 1988, the industrial areas of the city witnessed huge mobilisations of workers, and churning unrest that penetrated all corners. For the seven days of its course, its impact could be underestimated, events and facts could be distorted and lied about, but its scale and sweep were such, that the seven day strike could not be ignored by the media.

 

For beyond its immediate issues, the strike of 1988, carried within it, a much more widespread popular anger against the growing repression of all popular protest and open corruption in the government  of the day. It was an anger tinged with a sense of betrayal since in 1984, following the assassination of his mother, the people had given Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress such a huge mandate. This overall political context, from which the middle classes of the capital were not excluded, was to be reflected in the defeat of the Congress in the election that followed the next year.  It was also a major factor in determining the space given to a clearly anti-government working class movement by the media mandarins in Delhi. The result – for a few moments, the mass of workers in Delhi were able to acquire visibility in a city which otherwise continues to mete out the most callous indifference to their concerns. Extracts of the newspaper reports covering the day wise series of events and the responses of other unions, owners’ associations, as also the stances and actions of the police have been attached in annexure. In this section is detailed, the events as they unfolded in three industrial areas – Wazirpur, GT Karnal Road, and Mayapuri, But before such a description, some words on the form and nature of this strike, that most suits the conditions of unorganised workers.

 

The strike of the unorganised

 

Unlike strikes in the organised sector, the key to success of the seven day strike lay in effective picketing at major entry points to the industrial areas, not at an individual factory gate. The pickets would turn into demonstrations which would then go around the area, knocking at every factory gate and calling out workers to join the strike. It was a form that was given birth to during the textile workers’ strike and bandh call in April ’73. A juloos of workers that moved from factory gate to factory gate, powerful enough to terrorise the managements or maliks with its size and potential for damage of property. A juloos which drew into its fold ever expanding numbers of workers who poured out of the factory gates, now emboldened by numbers, to implement a strike.

 

For it is not just the demands that impel workers to action. Who among them would disagree with the demand for increase in wages? The crucial question that had to be answered before his participation therefore, was: would the strike be successful enough? Would the organisers be able to close down all the factories? For the common worker, unprotected by the union, at the mercy of his employer, and afraid of losing his job, would not want to risk being absent or be identified by his malik going around in the procession of workers. He knew that should he be dismissed, there were thousands ready to take his place. So, he had to be convinced that there were forces more powerful than he, in his alienated and atomised individual existence could mobilise, that would ensure success. The organisers, aware of this had pushed forward a veritable blitzkrieg of a campaign. And the confidence level of ordinary workers went up by leaps and bounds through the progress and heightening pitch of the campaign.

 

Firstly, the primary campaign of street corner meetings (over one thousand of them), mike announcements, processions in the areas and bastis, public meetings, had informed the workers about the issues and the plans. Through them workers had learnt what the demands were and why. Leaflets and posters had been avidly read by them. They had stopped and listened to speeches in both street corner meetings and the tempo campaigns. They had clapped and laughed at the mockery of their oppressors in the play, Chakka Jaam. They had noted that there was a whole range of people giving the speeches and campaigning for the strike. They had been enthused by daily reports of how the preparations were going on in their own area as well as in other areas. They appreciated the fact that the speakers challenged and openly criticised not only the maliks but also the police, whom they feared, but also resented. And of course they had responded to the fact that the campaign content was speaking about their own lives and its details. As leaflets, speeches, plays and songs touched and presented the class basis of their multiple experiences, as the demand for increased wages and DA appeared as a concrete programme of action to deal with the rise in prices over which they had no control, as the tragic experiences of disease and even deaths due to cholera that year, were condemned and its cause identified, the thirst for explanations was also being quenched.

 

Secondly, they were impressed by the fact that what each was observing and being part of, was being duly reported by others also. In factories, in buses, in jhuggi bastis, friends and neighbours confirmed and added to this experience. The reassurance that what was taking place was a widespread powerful event and not just an aberrant risky adventure began to grow through this. The very sweep of the campaign touching all industrial areas and also the residential settlements of workers, constituted an important element of the depth of contact established with the individual worker.

 

Thirdly, the papers were also reporting upon the preparations. This was very unusual for the worker. He was used to reading reports only of distant events, rarely if ever about the struggles of his class. And finally, the flurry of activity by his malik and his ilk, and the local police confirmed the fact that they too were perturbed by the preparations. They abused CITU, repeatedly threatened their employees that any absenteeism would be severely dealt with, had meetings with the thanas. The worker while getting nervous about all this also realised that the strike call had to be of some weight, otherwise, as in the past, the maliks would not be so active.

 

Here it must be emphasised that the organisers of the strike have an instinctive understanding of this process that goes on in the minds of the workers. They plan the campaign accordingly. They consciously arranged a series of meetings, processions, street corner meetings and street plays, all harping upon the same theme. They brought in bank employees, insurance employees, college teachers, students and union leaders from bigger units to address meetings. Reports (sometimes exaggerated) of momentous preparations, huge meetings and processions, brave resolutions were routinely declaimed in meetings so that the workers of one area learn about and draw inspiration from other areas. Speeches by the more experienced leaders always strike a chord as they never fail to warn the employers and police that any interference against the strike will not be tolerated. The role of women’s teams in their campaign, especially in the residential areas was also important. The worker was impressed by the fire and commitment of these activists. Moreover, his family also started talking about the strike, supporting it. Thus the hesitant, suspicious worker was not only convinced but also became  confident.

However the strike does not become successful only by correct slogans and intensive propaganda, as many organisers realised to their dismay. One leader of north Delhi[90] summed it up by saying that a successful strike is 50% propaganda and 50% picketing. This was a lesson learnt directly from the textile mill gates where a militant fighting picket at the gate was essential. In the seven day strike, the success or otherwise of the strike varied, among other things, with the planning and positioning of the picket. Places were selected from where the maximum number of workers enter the industrial area. Depending upon the strength of the union in the area, members were deputed to report at the pickets at about 7:30 in the morning, because workers start arriving by 8 o’clock. Leaders were also deployed according to the importance and difficulty of each spot. By 8 a.m., the picket is in position. If it was a gate then it was blocked by flag waving, slogan shouting workers. If it was simply a path then it too was blocked. A wide road, though not a good spot for picketing, required more people on both sides. Preferable pickets were near jhuggi bastis where the picketers could take shelter in case the police intervened, as happened at Wazirpur.

 

By 8:30, a sizeable number of workers would be held up at the picket if it was successful, if the workers were confident. The individuals manning the picket were crucial for this. An active, angry militant picket which was willing to take on anybody would  immediately draw the support of workers and boost their morale. For, just as the workers, the police and the employers’ associations also knew the importance of the picket. Police was present in force at each picket, as soon as they get to know its location, or when it was pre-determined by circumstance. Often, the employers associations were present too. In GTK Road, for instance, the association was present in full strength behind the main gates of the industrial area, exhorting workers to come in, and directing the police to break the picket.

 

The leader of the picket decided the time when, seeing that a sufficient number of workers had collected, the mass should be organised into a procession which would enter the industrial area and go around the streets mopping up all those who had either entered the factory or were hanging around. This was always a tedious, tense process. The police usually did not want any such thing to happen. On the other hand the workers would by then, be in a state of frenetic jubilation - they would want each and every factory checked so that not a single worker was left inside. As the procession slowly wound its way through the streets of the industrial area, the numbers would swell to several hundreds, sometimes thousands. Initially the procession would simply do a couple of rounds along the main roads, even as the CITU activists tried to maintain order, lead the slogans, negotiate with policemen and generally direct the proceedings. However, after some time, the impatience and frenzy of the workers would become over-riding. Rumours about such and such factory running full swing, of so and so malik locking up his workers and forcing them to work etc .would grip sections of the procession. It would stop at a factory gate while leaders peered through grills and chinks to ascertain the status. Slogans would reach a crescendo making the accompanying police posse nervous. First they would try to convince the leadership that the factory was empty. However, a peering face from the second floor or a glimpse of cycles in the porch might point to the contrary. Workers would beat the iron gates with sticks. From behind, someone might hurl stones at the glass panes which if shattered would send a thrill down the crowd. Ultimately, the police might convince the factory owner to let a couple of activists in to check. Often they came out escorting a group of sheepish workers, eyes downcast. They were greeted with jeers and insults. If it has taken too long, then some of them might even be manhandled. After celebratory slogan-shouting the procession would move on dragging excited workers with it. Of course, more often than not, the police would not allow this dominance of the proceedings by the workers. They might not have let the workers enter the area itself, or prevented them from searching factory premises. In either cases the equilibrium was determined by the strength of the workers. If the gathering was large, no amount of police presence would deter the workers from proceeding with the meticulous implementation. On the other hand, if their strength was low, they instinctively realised that most of the workers had gone in, and the police would then escort the procession around. In some places, especially in the north it was reported that groups of workers were deputed to patrol the streets in the night and stone factories where work was going on. This helped in not so much stopping the work actually, as creating an atmosphere of terror amongst the employers.

 

What the collective strike of all industrial units in an area does is to treat the whole area as a unit, thereby obviating the individual disability of workers of each unit  to fight against their respective employers. Although the strike is actually directed against the government, in terms of the demands that are being raised, the worker is actually fighting against his or her employer. And thence arises the anger and fire that marks the striking workers. They are no longer afraid of being identified by their maliks, or losing their jobs. They are part of a larger collective which provides safety and security. Under the protection of this collective, each worker sheds the fearful and submissive integument he has acquired to tide him through his tough life. This breaking down unleashes an overflow of pent up anger, resentment and suffering from his soul. He exults in his freedom. He openly disobeys the policeman, disregards the threats of employers and babus, fights hirelings of the management and generally is willing to take to violence against any sign of interference from the rich. Even a car trying to enter the industrial area is objected to! Leaders who try to exercise some control are criticised for being too soft, although the veterans realise that restraint is always more paying than just arbitrary running around. The strike is thus a celebration for each worker, an assertion of his individuality and freedom even as he is part of a larger collective. He realises this intrinsic link between the class to which he belongs and his own life, in a strike. The whole uncertainty and insecurity of his atomised and solitary existence pitted against the uncontrollable forces of capital and urban life, is transformed into an exhilarating sense of belonging and purpose rooted in the collective of his brethren and backed by the confidence in an organisation. This feeling is not permanent - but it incrementally contributes to his growing consciousness. Thus he may not join the union immediately afterwards, but he develops an attachment which lasts.

 

 

North Delhi: Wazirpur and GT Karnal Road

 

From newspapers as well as organisational reports, it is clear that Wazirpur and GT Karnal Road, were the most advanced centres of the strike. The internal review of the CPI(M) assessed that the strike was 90% in both areas. Located at right angles to each other, the two industrial areas almost meet through the contiguous belt of jhuggis that lie along the railway line adjacent to, and within Azadpur and Lal Bagh. The presence of the old industries of Ajudhia Textile Mill at the entry to Azadpur, and Birla Mill on the GT road itself, just a little further inwards towards the centre of the city, had given this area, a longstanding working class character. Organised mill workers and unorganised small scale industrial labour were socially mixed here as nowhere else in the city, and many a worker effected entry into the smaller factories of the area through association with mill workers. Associations that  stretched from deep in the rural hinterland.

 

The industrial area of GT Karnal Road, established in the sixties, was divided into A block, on the northern side towards Azadpur, and B block on the other side of the Satyawati College Road flyover. Almost completely dominated by the manufacture of auto parts, GT Road housed some 300 factories. In 1988, the strongest unions of CITU was in Sigma, Chaman Rubber and Smart (universally referred to by workers as Samrat). It was these workers, who provided the core organised force in the area during the strike. Another prominent factory was D.D. Gears with an independent union[91],  which later affiliated itself to the CITU some time after the seven day strike. The Wazirpur industrial area which came into existence in the mid seventies, was much larger (84 hectares as compared to 50 for GT Road), housing some 1,000 factories. It was dominated by steel rolling units, although many other types of industries – auto parts, electricals, and hosiery factories were also located here. Bordered on two sides by the goods railway line which curves away from the main Northern Railway Amritsar line[92] to connect with the line towards Ferozepur[93], the Wazirpur industrial area lies alongside Ring Road as it moves away from Azadpur alongside Shalimar Bagh. Flanked by thousands of jhuggies all along the railway line, in both character and appearance, Wazirpur reflected unorganised labour to a far greater extent. The predominantly contract labour in the steel rolling units set the standard for the area.

 

The chronology of events in these two areas as recorded in the newspaper reports, show that on the first day of the strike, the police lathi charged and tear gassed a workers’ demonstration in Wazirpur, while an aggressive police blockade at GT Karnal Road prevented workers, gathered at the entrance to the industrial area on the main GTK Road, from entering the industrial area.

 

 At GTK Road, the owners of factories openly stood at the entrance to the area, with rope barricades and large numbers of police. The method of preventing the workers from entering the area, was through arbitrary arrest of those in the leadership, which included women. Asha Lata[94] and Kamla[95], both of the Janwadi Mahila Samiti recall that during the campaign in the industrial area, the owners, were already perturbed by the atmosphere, as they felt that if the strike succeeded, there would be some raise in the wages. This they wanted to prevent at all cost. From the first day of the strike, the maliks in concert with the police tried to get the strike broken.

 

On the morning of the first day, Kamla, north Delhi district president JMS, along with some women from Sawan Park,[96] reached the entry to B block of GTK Road at 8 a.m., where some 50-60 workers were gathered, while others were standing scattered around on the road in the expectation of formation of a procession. The police was everywhere in force. The workers told her that the police had already beaten up and taken away the leading CITU whole timer of the area, Subodh.  At that point she decided that they should form the procession on the main road itself and march towards A block, tie up with the workers there, and with greater force effect entry into the industrial area. In the meantime Asha Lata, who was at A block from 7 a.m., along with another contingent of women and workers, was facing similar problems. The police, who were standing there with the maliks, were harassing the workers and not even allowing them to stand together. A “policeman in civilian dress”, told her that some of her comrades were standing at another point and the police was picking them up. She went to see what was happening, and from behind, the police picked up the group of Sigma workers who had been standing with her. When she saw what had happened, she and the group of Azadpur women who were with her, went into the jhuggies of Azadpur and mobilised more workers. They had gathered again when the other group from B block arrived. Together, they tried to break through the manned rope barricade put up by the police. As the two segments of the workers met, the numbers became very large( reported to be 1500 by the newspapers). It was already clear that the bulk of the workers in the area were on strike, and most of the factories were closed. But in the scuffle at the barricade, a few stones were thrown, and then the police lathi charged and scattered the workers. During the lathi charge, they dragged away and arrested both workers and some of the women who were in the lead. Asha Lata recalls that just as they were attempting to breach the barricade, she was given a letter from Nathu Prasad, the convenor of the hartal committee instructing her not to allow herself to be arrested. So when she was dragged to the other side of the road, amidst the confusion, the diminutive Asha quickly covered her head with a shawl and slipped away from the place of confrontation.

But about 12 of the women, and a number of workers were arrested at the spot, while the remaining workers were scattered. They remained unable to enter the industrial area that day. Later, in a JMS  meeting on 16th December, ’88, one of the women, Chamela, is recorded as having described the incident in the following words,[97] “When Asha and Kamla beaten, I took a policeman’s lathi. Police said, “Catch this fatty”…Four were dragging Asha. I said leave her and gave him 2 slaps. They pushed Kamla into the van. We took Asha out of the van and courted (allowed?) arrest”. At the police station, Kamla said that they were being pressurised to sign a statement saying that they were trying to setting fire to the factories. They refused. While the others were let off in the evening, Kamla, Chamela and Maya[98], who were among the key militants, were sent to Tihar Jail. They were to gain release only on the 25^th night.

Meanwhile, in Wazirpur too, from the first day, police repression was let loose on the workers. Pickets were organised at four strategic points: A-block jhuggies,   petrol pump, aara machine (wood-sawing factory in B-block) and Steel Ball Bearing[99] (near Azadpur railway station). Participants at the latter recall that they collected in the morning in large numbers and the factories were closed up. As the juloos moved from B block to A block, the police lathi charged the procession. Explaining the events, Shrawan Kumar[100] said that the maliks association used to run from A block and it was therefore here that the police used to intervene. Along with many other workers who were injured in the lathi charge, Jagdish Manocha, a senior leader of the CITU was badly beaten and then arrested. Devi Prasad, a worker of the area recalled the police beating Jagdish Manocha, who “just kept on going” .[101]  The case that was registered, against five of the leaders of the CITU  (although all could not be arrested), came to a close only in May, 1999, eleven years after the event. Shiv Sharan, of Premier Electricals in Wazirpur, who was injured in the attack recalls that after the lathi charge, many of them came to the CITU office at Kamla Nagar, where their injuries were attended to. He added that the more “hungama”  there was, the greater was the support for and success of the strike.[102]

Newspaper reports (23 Nov 1988) on the events of the first day in Wazirpur were as follows: “In the Wazirpur industrial area, a procession of about 4,000 workers was tear-gassed, as they were moving around the locality urging the few workers to come out.” (TOI). “The police action followed stoning on various factory premises and on the police about 11 a.m. by a mob of about 1500 workers who had abstained from work¼”(HT) “Violence at several places marked the first day of the seven-day industrial strike… The police fired about a dozen rounds of tear-gas at workers taking out a procession in Wazirpur around noon. As the police lathi-charged and tear-gassed the strikers, many from the crowd hurled stones at a police vehicle and at a factory.” (Indian Express)  “At 12.30 in the afternoon, a procession of about 4,000 workers was going around Wazirpur industrial area.” (Navbharat Times).

According to Jaimangal, one of the key CITU leaders in Wazirpur, there was stoning on the procession from some factories, and the plan of the police was to create an incident, lathi charge and arrest the leaders, so that the strike could not be sustained.[103] Obviously, despite the police attack, the strike was a big success in the area.

The second day of the strike was a Wednesday, the weekly off day in the north. Again on the third day, there was a lathi charge and injuries to women activists at GT Karnal Road, where Asha Lata and Suman of the JMS were arrested, but the police blockade at the GT Road industrial area was broken that day. Shiv Sharan recalls that he and some others went from Wazirpur into GT Road, entering from the back by going along the railway line along which Azadpur and Lal Bagh jhuggies are located. But the main juloos from Wazirpur went along the main road to cross the police barricade. Jagdish Manocha (not taped) recalled that there were some negotiations with the police, and finally when it was clear that the juloos would not budge, the police let them in. There could be little point in stopping them, since in any case most of the factories were closed.  Asha Lata recalls that earlier that morning, she and another young girl Suman, were surrounded by police at the bus stop on the main road, but newspaper reports quote eyewitnesses saying that they were arrested while leading a 3,500 strong juloos in the area. Obviously, the juloos in the area and the arrests were mixed up in the perception of both reporters and participants. But the fact remained that the blockade was broken and the police were no longer in a position to stop the workers. The workers were exhilarated and newspapers reported that there was a 7,000 strong procession which culminated in a meeting at Wazirpur, addressed by Jogendra Sharma.

 

It was on the fourth day that conflict became more intense, when an attack was launched on the workers by Congress supporters from inside a factory in Wazirpur. Soda bottles were thrown at the procession of workers, followed by a lathi charge and tear gassing by the police. Such was the uncontrolled ferocity of the police attack, that they entered the jhuggies and indiscriminately beat up women and children. That day, in the afternoon, the Wazirpur and GT Karnal Road processions, instead of winding up for the day within the industrial area, converged in a big demonstration at the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Northwest district), at Ashok Vihar.

 

The incident was reported in the newspapers as: “In Wazirpur, eyewitnesses said, a peaceful procession of about 3,000 workers was attacked with stones and soda bottles when it was near factory no. A-115 by a group of about 50 anti social elements led by a Congress member, Nandan Singh. According to eyewitnesses, the retreating workers were lathi-charged by the  police and a 15 year old boy was severely injured. Irate workers then set up roadblocks and were soon joined by a procession of more than 1,000 from the adjoining GT Karnal Road industrial area. They later gheraoed the Ashok Vihar police station for about two hours and demanded immediate action against the factory owner and the Congress member.  Ashok Vihar station house officer refused to comment on the incident.” (TOI, 26.11.88)

 

“The police reported that it had to fire four rounds of teargas shells to disperse a crowd and rounded up at least 11 persons, all “hired by the local managements” who were obstructing a CITU workers’ procession. According to the police spokesman, nearly 20 men belonging to local management groups and armed with lathis, attacked the procession which was accompanied by a small police posse. The workers retaliated by throwing stones. Soon a larger police force arrived and fired teargas shells to disperse the clashing groups. The police said that the incident took place outside factory no. A-115.The CITU claimed that the police aided the attackers and the local SHO in collusion with the management ordered simultaneous lathi-charge on the workers. Several workers were injured in the process and a 15-year old boy who has not been identified received head injuries.”(Indian Express, 26.11.88)

The brutality of the police attack had shaken the workers, and Krishna Prasad, of Premier Electricals recalls that they went that evening and campaigned among the jhuggi residents, but he himself was worried as to whether people would turn up the next morning after such an attack. He says, “we campaigned in the jhuggies till 12 at night… but we thought tomorrow the public will not join us..” But on the next (sixth) day -“when we went in the morning to establish our morcha,- when the eight thirty bus comes,- that is the time we take out our procession - but when it started, the public was already out, carrying big ballis and lathis, and the police seeing this began to run ahead…the road was so jammed that if anyone thought of crossing from one side to the other, it was not possible. That was a scene we had the fortune to see comrade, with the police almost fleeing ahead and the public racing behind…there was an urge in the people to break up and smash things, but Comrade Nathu said, ‘look, we have to work in there. If we smash it up, then we will only harm ourselves. Wait now, we will see on the last day (Aakhree din hum dekhenge)’”   Both Shiv Sharan and Krishna Prasad saw this as the basis of the power of the demonstration on the last day of the strike.[104]

Thereafter, the police was no longer able to intervene in the industrial areas of Wazirpur or GT Road and took recourse to trying to pick up leaders at night. Although some activists were arrested, the main leaders were able to evade the police[105]. The extent of the enthusiasm and sense of power among the unorganised small scale industrial workers acquired in the course of the preceding days, became a force with which the organised textile workers in the area were also drawn into the strike. On the sixth day, early in the morning a strike picket was established at the gates of Birla Mill, while leaders of the other unions stood around ready to encourage workers to enter the mill. A restive and heavy police picket was stationed there, but when the clash between the striking workers and the police took place, the other union leaders standing around could not be distinguished from the strikers.[106] The result, Birla Mill closed down for the day. At  ATM, the morning picket was not so successful and a number of workers had reported for duty. But the juloos from GTK Road reached the ATM gates in time to close the afternoon shift. A most interesting incident was the story of Lakshmi, wife of an ATM worker who had broken the strike and gone into work that morning. Lakshmi remained standing for hours at the factory gate, and when he emerged in the afternoon, just as the juloos from GT Road arrived, she spat on his face and abused him. She is recalled to have said, “Are you not ashamed of yourself for going to work when all the workers are struggling?”[107]

A mighty momentum was revealed on the last day of the strike, when ten thousand workers, according to participants and 5,000 according to newspapers, marched out from the industrial areas of Wazirpur and GT Road, Nirankari Colony and Rajasthani Udyog Nagar, swept through the main arterial roads of North Delhi to the Labour Office at Rajpur Road, and thence to the Old Secretariat in a culminating demonstration, which even the newspapers referred to as “a massive rally”. Krishna Prasad recalled that they carried bamboo sticks in the front to keep the crowd together and that the police were running ahead telling shopkeepers that a bandar sena is coming. Others recall that the workers had broken off branches from trees and were carrying them like flags, and as the procession approached the market area at Kamla Nagar, the sound of a series of shutters rolling down could be heard.

Of this demonstration, Sudhanwa Dehpande, a college student at the time, and an actor in the Jana Natya Manch play, Chakka Jaam, said, “one of the things I remember, was the fact that we did not walk, we ran. It was actually difficult to keep pace with the workers. They were going forward with tremendous speed...not the kind of walk one does in various demos. Here it was very very fast and I remember when I came to Rajpur Road I was exhausted, I was huffing and puffing… I was vividly struck by the strength, the sheer physical strength of that entire procession. It was really like a bullet, very powerful, that power was very palpable, I remember that very very vividly.” [108]

 

 

West Delhi: Mayapuri

 

In the Mayapuri industrial area, on the other hand, the actual strike (the number of  factories that were closed during the strike), was much less than elsewhere. In its internal review, the CPM assessed the strike to be 25 – 30% peaking on the third day at  50%.  Yet, its impact on the workers was quite dramatic, and in the period following the strike, large numbers of workers enrolled in the union, while some of the organised unions changed over and began to affiliate to the CITU.[109]

 

Dominated by the imposing presence of two large scale industrial units of Metal Forging and Ashoka Machine Tools, Mayapuri is located along the main line of the Northern Railway, just beyond its intersection with the Ring Road in west Delhi. The bulk of the factories here came up in the mid seventies along a grid of wide lanes that stretched between the Mayapuri Road and the railway line which further east ran alongside the Naraina and Kirti Nagar industrial areas. Along the railway line was an almost continuous line of jhuggies, although they had different names at each major point.

 

The western entrance to the industrial area on the Mayapuri Road was itself, a strategic point in the campaign since through it travelled thousands of workers from the huge stretch of unauthorised colonies in Sagarpur, Uttam Nagar, and the Pappankala areas (Dwarka), who worked not only Mayapuri, but Kirti Nagar, Naraina and Motinagar as well. Early in the morning, a sea of cycles would stretch across the Mayapuri Rroad, where leafleting was most effective.

 

Unlike in other areas of west Delhi, the three day strike of 1987, had not been very successful in Mayapuri. It had been essentially confined to phase II, while phase I, with bigger units and containing the heart of the owners’ association, had remained untouched. It may be recalled that the Mayapuri industrial area had been identified as one of the weakest points in the last meeting of the TU sub committee before the strike, with an aggressive owners’ association. At the time of the strike, the CITU had only one union in phase II of the area and a membership of about 50. The campaign and the strike, had to therefore be organised by outsiders, and women played a key role in this area.

 

As in GT Road, the women activists played an initiating role here in the course of the strike. Their participation began during the campaign itself. It was unusual for women to be standing on the roads and distributing leaflets and, the curiosity of the workers was aroused. Rushing to work in the morning, they would stop their cycles to take the leaflets, or stretch out their hands from buses, asking for them.  As the word spread, the second time round workers were prepared. At lunchtime, generally workers were out on the streets since it was winter, and they preferred to come out in the sun. Lunchtime meetings attracted huge crowds, and workers, both organised (mostly in other unions) and unorganised, started coming to the CITU office to express their support.

 

Lacking experience of effective strike in this area, two nights before the strike it had been decided to establish two pickets inside the industrial area. The first was to be at the gates of the BEC factory in phase II which had the lone CITU Union in the area. It was to be manned by DYFI activists along with the BEC workers. The second was to be established at the gates of Lumax in phase I, whose workers, although members of Sadhu Singh’s union, had displayed keen support for the strike, and assured support. This picket was to be manned by JMS activists from Sultanpuri. In the early hours of the morning, workers had begun to gather round the pickets, but they were not as yet prepared for police action. And the police quickly dragged away and arrested the  main picketers at both points, so no juloos was formed within the industrial area.[110] Although later in the day, workers did demonstrate at the police station against the arrests, the effect of the strike remained limited to a degree of absenteeism, but few closures. Workers, although sympathetic had not yet crossed out of the boundaries of inhibition and remained inactive spectators to the police actions.

 

The Times of India reported, “Most of the factories in the Mayapuri industrial area remained open, and the police arrested seven women volunteers..for leading a procession. These women volunteers were dragged away by policemen into the police station and detained there for a long time¼.The volunteers also alleged that they were beaten up with lathis in the stomach and on the wrists inside the station premises.On the other hand, the situation was most peaceful in the sprawling industrial area and there was not a single incident of violence as the majority of workers abstained from work¼” (23.11.88)

 

Confident that the picketers, being outsiders, would not be able to do much, those arrested in the morning were let off at 5 o’clock. A change in tactics was in order and the next morning, a single picket was established on the Mayapuri Road at the point where leafleting had been so successful. The experienced trade unionist, Puran Chand ( the then president of the General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union), led the picket. The change had immediate effect. Workers on foot and on cycles were effectively gathered together and a  juloos of about three hundred workers was formed on the second day. The procession was able to enter and go around both phases of the industrial area, but it remained surrounded by a large police posse. It was decided not to make any attempt to close factories as many were already closed due to GuruPurab, and the day passed off peacefully.

 

It was on the third day, that the strike action struck root in the area, as a juloos of over two thousand workers was formed on the main road itself. The morning picket had been strengthened by about 10 JMS and 10 DYFI activists who had been brought in from Shakurpur on this day. For the first time the police were outflanked, being initially confined to the front part of the juloos, before whose strength, many factories started shutting up. More and more workers came out and joined the procession. The tail end which had itself swelled to about 5,000, packing the road from side to side, closed up the remaining factories. The factories so closed included two belonging to Chawla, the most feared malik of the area. It was at this point that one Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ajay Kashyap decided to personally intervene. Accompanied by a force of some fifteen policemen, he ordered them to arrest one of the women activists who was in the lead of the rear end of the juloos. But by this time, the workers had become a fierce force, and they physically prevented his men from arresting her.

 

While the front was led by a more orderly group, the rear could no longer be called a procession, rather a huge mass stopping at and shaking factory gates, and calling workers out. The mass seemed frightening to the few women workers, who came out of the factories that were getting shut. With great difficulty passageways were made through the press of innumerable male workers for the women workers to come out without being shoved around. In the meantime, police reinforcements had been brought in including the CRPF women’s battalion. It was then that the police lathi charged the workers from the rear.

 

The opportunity for the lathi charge came when the rear end of the juloos was stuck outside one factory in phase I for an inordinate length of time, as over 500 workers emerged from within. For almost 15 minutes, the workers had been stationary, their attention fixed on the emerging workers who had to pass through a tortuously slow process of body search by security guards at the gate. Twice messages were sent from the front leaders of the juloos which had already reached the next phase, that the rear should be made to move on, but the mass pressure to ensure that every worker had come out from the factory was too intense and nobody would budge. The factory was located close to the end of a lane which was blocked by a wall virtually enclosed on three sides. The density of workers packed from side to side, and lack of lateral space gave the workers almost no space to escape. Hampered by their cycles, they were almost helpless in the face of the lathi charge and ensuing stampede.

 

After the lathi charge on the rearend juloos, activists from both front and rear julooses gathered within minutes at the CITU office in Mayapuri. Many of the scattered workers too converged there. State leaders who had been informed immediately arrived there within the hour. The leaders, accompanied by the activists and some 200 workers who were still hanging around went immediately to the police station where it was felt that some of the workers including a young woman worker who had been among the most militant might have been detained. Since the numbers were still sizable, and state leaders as well as journalists were present, activists were allowed to search the thana premises to assure themselves that no worker had been detained there. One BEC worker and some few others who had been were thus quietly let off.  ACP Kashyap could be seen to be fuming and fretting but was unable to prevent the search since the reinforcements had left and only the local thana police were there.

 

Newspapers reported, “The day began with large demonstrations in almost every industrial centre in the city. One of the largest of such rallies was held at Mayapuri.The procession began peacefully, doing rounds of all working units. It would stop outside these units, exhort workers to join the strike and move on.The procession made one such stopover outside a unit in ‘A’ block. CITU activists say they were only shouting slogans when the police attacked them, but an eyewitness said a stone hurled at the factory had stirred the police into action.” (TOI, 25.11.88). The Navbharat Times reporter who reached the area shortly after the lathi charge wrote, “Today, the workers of Mayapuri industrial area were the worst victims of lathicharge by the police. The workers allege that when they were demonstrating in full strength, then ACP Kashyap got them lathicharged¼about 150 workers were injured. Among the injured was a 13 year old boy named Kanchan Das. Hundreds of broken cycles of workers were lying around at the place where the lathicharge took place in Mayapuri, phase-I....Workers told us that one of the factory maliks supplied the lathis to the police. There was talk about a white Maruti with some people in civilian clothes who were threw stones at the workers and police and then escaped. Workers said that when they were holding a meeting at night in the jhuggis, the police came, surrounded and terrorised them, but they did not get terrorised.  After the lathicharge, a women’s jatha was singing with gusto: “Chahe lag jaye hathkadiyan hartal karayenge” (Even if put in handcuffs,we will keep the strike going on)¼”(Navbharat Times, Nov 25).[111]

 

From the next morning, Mayapuri took on the appearance of a police camp. Police were lined up at every entrance and many of the key activists were picked up from the CITU office in the early hours of the morning. Puran Chand who had been first to arrive, quickly saw the lay of the land and bundled the first woman activist straight from the bus stop towards hiding at a nearby petrol pump. She was practically the lone leading figure to escape arrest that day. Others were not so fortunate. Shakuntala recalled that five or six of the women had come with from Sultanpuri in her husband’s three wheeler. As soon as the vehicle halted in front of the office, they were surrounded by the police. She tried to pretend that she was an ignorant, but the police were not taken in and arrested them. [112] At the same time, two of the women coming in from Shakurpur were also arrested. Puran Chand himself, Tripurari (textile worker, who was secretary of the west engineering union branch)[113], Brij Bhushan Tewary, secretary of the Textile union, and  Vimal Paliwal from the DYFI were all arrested. By evening, Party lawyers managed to get three of Shakuntala’s associates from Sultanpuri released that evening, but four of the women and all the men were sent to Tihar. Later, some Mayapuri workers reported that the maliks had had a meeting with the police on the 24^th evening resulting in the police crackdown. “Earlier, about hundred factory owners under the banner of the Mayapuri small industries welfare association staged a protest march in the locality against yesterday’s attempts by some CITU activists to force workers out of some establishments. Mr. S.K. Khurana, president of the Mayapuri small industries welfare association, praised the role of the police in handling the ‘ugly situation’ which might have escalated into an uncontrollable situation. (TOI, 26.11.88)

 

For that day, the police lied and refused to admit that such arrests had been made. “However, the Naraina ACP, Mr. Ajay Kashyap, denied that any arrests were made. A delegation of Communist Party of India (Marxist) which included two MPs, Mr. Basudev Acharya, and Mr. M.A. Baby, who went to inquire the whereabouts of their activists were told the same.” (TOI, 26.11.88) One of the arrested women, Ram Piari of Shakurpur said in a meeting, “..on 25^th – Kashyap caught hold of me. Slapped me and beat me with a lathi. When I saw Nikki was caught I decided to stay on and not escape arrest. Taken to Cantt. thana. Then to Vasant Vihar, Patiala House. In the evening went to Tihar Jail.”[114]

 

As soon as news of the arrests reached them, the state and local committee leaders came to the area and instructed the remaining activists not to try to take out any procession that day, and to remain out of sight of the police. But the police repression left a palpable tension in the air, and the success of the strike on the 24th had fired a resistance in the workers of BEC, who had earlier displayed little enthusiasm for the strike. The next day evening (it was Saturday, the weekly off in Mayapuri and the day had been spent in individually contacting workers in the jhuggies and nearby unauthorised colonies), at the initiative of the BEC workers, a meeting was called in the Lajwanti Garden park which lay west of the industrial area, and was attended by some 200 workers from within Mayapuri.The picket point was shifted further east on the Mayapuri Road and picketers were told to stay in the shadows until a signal was given.

 

On Sunday morning, (27^th November), in their enthusiasm, BEC workers brought red chilly powder in their pockets to throw at the policemen’s eyes if necessary. Reinforcements came in the shape of the night shift of DCM Silk workers, of whom about 15 came to Mayapuri straight from their factory in the morning. The police were caught unawares since all their officers and main force was concentrated in the original picket area. Once again a thousand strong juloos was formed on the main road that was then able to go round the industrial area, albeit flanked on either side by a substantial police force. Similarly, on the final day, workers from other areas in the west also converged at Mayapuri which had become a symbol of police repression during the strike.The strike action in the west culminated in a march from Mayapuri to Tihar Jail where about 10 leaders and activists of the area were still imprisoned. So fired were the workers and activists, particularly the women, that they wanted to break through the jail gates as they had broken through so many factory gates. It took all the skill of the remaining leaders to restrain them and remind them that they had still to march back to the police station in Mayapuri to protest against the actions of the district police. The demonstration ended at the Mayapuri police station, with angry slogans directed against ACP Kashyap who was held as being primarily responsible for the scale of police repression in Mayapuri.

 

South Delhi: Okhla

 

The Okhla Industrial area, sprawls over 294 hectares, with about 2000 industrial plots, many of them larger than is the norm in other areas. It is the single largest industrial area in Delhi. Divided into three phases, it moves southwards from Phase III to Phase I, i.e., from the outer Ring Road and alongside the main Central Railway line between Maa Anand Mayee Marg and Mathura Road (NH 2).  Phase III, which stands somewhat apart from the other two phases, is flanked by the old style large scale factory of Modi Flour Mills at its northern end and G.B.Pant Poytechnic at its southern side. It is separated from Phase II by green “orchard” land and Harkesh Nagar. Phase I  lies contiguous to Phase II on its southern side and is bounded at its eastern end by Tekhand. Both Harkesh Nagar and Tekhand are built up urban villages, increasingly dotted with very small industrial units and commercial establishments. Many Okhla workers also live in rented quarters here. The number and concentration of jhuggies both in Okhla (such as Sanjay Colony, Indira Vihar, Rajeev Camp, etc.) or close to Okhla (such as the contiguous belt of Navjeevan Camp, Nehru Camp and Bhumiheen Camp along the Govindppuri Road), is among the largest series o