Nobody can doubt that nation-wide strike on 24 February, 2004 scored a magnificent success.

Since the beginning of the implementation of the IMF - World Bank dictated economy of neo-liberal globalisation since 1991, nation-wide general strike has been organized at the behest of Sponsoring Committee of Trade Unions and national federations at least six times to thwart the economic offensive of that globalisation.

But this time, the nation-wide strike was of a different kind. True, the issue of the strike arose out of neo-liberal economic onslaught on the employees and teachers of Tamilnadu and the resistance they put up by their united strike since July 2, 2003, but the issue ultimately assumed a different character. The savage victimization launched on the striking employees and teachers by the Jayalalitha Government and the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court declaring strike by government employees as illegal, immoral and unethical and simultaneously castigating the strikes by other sections of the workers, gave birth to a new situation arousing the anger and protest not only from the government employees and other sections of the working class, but from a cross section of the democratic minded people and the intelligentsia of the country, particularly the legal luminaries beginning from Mr. Soli Sorabjee, the Attorney General of the Government of India to a number of ex-Chief Justices of the High Court, ex-Judges of the Supreme Court and eminent legal practitioners of different political inclinations.

At the very beginning, as the government employees are the direct victims of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the All India State Government Employees Federation in consultation with Confederation of Central Employees, in August, 2003 vowed to counter and challenge this most unacceptable interference in the traditional trade union rights of the government employees and other workers by such arbitrary judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court and decided to organize a massive strike of the employees at the national level.

The judicial offensive on the employees’ Right to Strike and blatant justification of the savagery of Jayalalitha Government came to the focal point and laid the objective basis of an unforeseen unity and determination of the working class to mightily thwart this pernicious onslaught and defend the fundamental trade union rights, that of Right to Strike.

The ball was set rolling by the declaration of the AISGEF and Central Employees Confederation for a country-wide strike. Through national level, state level conventions and innumerable seminars and writings the real concept of the strike was brought to the fore. That this time, the strike is of a different kind - that of united resistance against the attack on democratic right of the working class, against the autocratic attack on the rising struggle of the workers by the entire bourgeois state - right from its administrative wing , the repressive wing of police upto judiciary - was amply explained. . In fact, judiciary’s attack caught the attention of the entire nation as totally unacceptable.

For about last three years, Indian judiciary was opening up its fangs against the rising struggle of the working classes to resist neo-liberal economic offensives.

Kerala High Court’s ruling against Bandh and the Supreme Court’s approval subsequently, Supreme Court’s reversal of its earlier judgment on Contract Labour, Kolkata High Court’s sudden ruling against procession in the day time - all constitute a systematic attempt by one very important organ of the bourgeois state to bind the working class hand and foot in order to incapacitate their power of resistance.

In fact, globally, when the intensity of economic offensive of imperialist globalisation is fast sharpening, world capitalism is also bent upon rendering the working-class resistance powerless by banning or severely curbing their trade union activities. Spain, South Korea, Maxico, some Latin American Countries (not to speak of Pakistan or some Middle East countries where traditional democratic rights and workers’ right to strike are severely curtailed by the nature of their state structure) are witnessing this dictatorial offensive on the trade union rights - not only by the administrative and police wing of the State, but by Judiciary also. Of late, in Galicia (Spain) the Judicial Court has sentenced a number of workers for simple picketing during a strike in June, 2002 to 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with a huge amount of fine. Spanish workers led by CIG are building up protest struggles to undo this judicial autocracy. It is in this global context, the onslaught of the judiciary on the working class resistance is, in all likelihood, to intensify if not checkmated in time by the combined might of the working class with the support of the democratic minded intelligentsia, legal professionals and other sections of the people..

Imperialist globalisation itself is a veritably undemocratic phenomenon. The entire process of globalisation is dictated by the needs of the imperialist - capitalist interests in the phase of world capitalism’s prolonged and deep rooted structural crisis . It is a bid to tide over this unprecedented crisis at the cost of the common people in general, the working class in particular.

Obviously, the mechanism for implementation of this globalisationn in imperialist - capitalist interests cannot be evolved democratically. When offensive is directed against the common people, the question of democratically deciding the devices of that offensive is unreal and ridiculous too.

In India, all these privatization, closure, downsizing, disinvestment, retrograde change of labour laws and in workers’ service conditions - are arbitrarily decided and implemented by the executive in the interests of the big bourgeoisie and the multinational capital. The elected Parliament is totally bypassed, or bulldozed to ditto these anti-worker, anti-people policies with the help of a subservient Parliamentary majority.

It is a very peculiar situation developing in the present phase of world capitalism i.e. imperialist - globalisation . Today’s working class movement is faced with the autocracy of the bourgeois state in all aspects of life of the toiling people and the democratic minded people as such. The present phase of capitalism is fast losing all bourgeois democratic norms which it espoused in its earlier phase. The BJP led NDA Government by its very class nature and BJP’s religious fundamentalist and outmoded outlook has turned out to be totally autocratic in forcing its anti-people, anti-democratic and reactionary economic and social policies on the people. The trade union movement is hard hit, not only by its economic offensive and anti-working class attitude, but by its divisive castetist and communal policies also. As a result, the trade union movement of the country cannot remain just confined to economic demands of wages and other economic issues relating to the workers’ economic interest only.

Need for taking up democratic issues

Long back in 1902 in his celebrated work What is to be Done? Lenin sharply criticized the trade union movement in Russia at that time, particularly the trade union policy of the Mensheviks. Later in 1905 , in his Two Tactics of Social Democracy, Lenin argued that working class should move beyond the confines of its economic interests of wages or so only and fight against the Tsarist autocracy and act as the leading force in the democratic struggle against Tsarism.

Lenin taught the working class the need for acquiring political consciousness (which has to be brought from outside by the Communist Party) and their rise above sheer economism. All these teachings of Lenin are well-known. But even then it needs reiteration considering the growingly autocratic attitude of the bourgeois state (including judiciary) and growing attack on the working class, its trade union movement and democratic aspirations of the people.

The traumatic events of July - August, 2003, when the entire state and its organs heavily came down upon the working class struggle, Lenin's teachings assume more relevance to the trade union movement. It is in this background, championing the slogan of Right to Strike and building mighty unity leading to the nation-wide strike of 24 February, 2004 signifies its historical importance. This latest episode of trade union resistance unleashed by the government employees' and the major part of country’s trade union movement has marked a much needed and much desired change in the quality of the Indian trade union movement.

It is true that barring AISGEF, CITU and some left trade unions, a few trade unions added a number of economic demands also according to the needs of their own sectors for the strike, but during the campaign of the strike and its final implementation, overshadowing everything else , the democratic issue of Right to Strike has come into the national focus, and the bourgeois media was also constrained to focus the 24 February’s strike as a nation-wide working class action for Right to Strike.

Here lies the crucial importance of the strike of 24 February, 2004.

The nation-wide strike on 24 February, 2004 was a united working class action - but not an action of all-in-unity. In the trade union movement ‘all -in- unity’ is a strategic slogan with the purpose of uniting the entire working class. But in practice, the slogan is to be materialized through different phases of struggle not only in the trade union front, but in the left-radical political front also.

It is true that the capitalist offensive of any form is directed against the entire working class without discrimination. It is more so in the phase of imperialist globalisation. Moreover, the question of 'all-in-unity', if looked only from the angle of top level unity of different trade unions as the primary condition to ensure the grass-root level unity of the entire working class, then in the concrete situation of Indian trade union movement and also that of at political plane, one's attempt is most likely to flounder. In India the division of the trade union movement, even before independence and particularly after attainment of independence, took place on ideological plane. It was not just an organisational decision by one or a group of persons when INTUC was born on the eve of independence separating itself from AITUC. And BMS was born in 1956 as a trade union wing of the Hindu Communal Jan Sangh - now meta-morphosed into BJP. The first one was born with the design of transmitting the ideological conviction of the capitalist class and the second one, in addition, carried the Hindu religious fundamentalist ideology into the ranks of working class movement. Thus the ideological standing of these two organisations was designed for penetration of the capitalist ideology among the working class - not to fight it out resolutely. In the present phase of imperialist globalisation, when offensive of the capitalist exploitation is being virulently intensified, practical experiences show that true to their birth marks, these trade unions occasionally murmur their protests against governments’ anti-working class measures, but do not come forward for any resolute resistance. Of course, in some cases in industry-wise struggles, where the national economic policy of the state is not challenged, they do participate, but they take care to see that the ruling class's over all policy and interests are not targeted.

In India's trade union movement, therefore, historically a strong right wing current of reformism persists and continue to do so even in this phase of sharpening capitalist offensive on the working class. The reformists remain aloof from any trade union struggle that is designed to challenge the basic economic policy of the ruling class.

Moreover, this reformist ideology is so strong that it tends to affect the centrist trade unions and on occasions any left trade union also. In fact, in the struggle against imperialist globalisation, world wide two trends in trade union struggles are visible - one reformist and compromising and the other of resolute opposition and resistance. In India, the reformist ideology has been instrumental in making the trade union movement sharply divided, preventing the unified and determined resistance by the working class as a whole. These reformists, by their very class and ideological nature, subordinate the working class interests to capitalist interests.

It is in this concrete situation, attempts should be made to penetrate into the ranks of the reformists and draw them into struggle. And it is possible also considering the fact that despite the anti-struggle roles of the reformist leadership, the ordinary workers affliated to them are also equally affected by globalisation offensive as the other sections of the working class.

The 24 February, 2004 strike has been a typical lesson in this regard.

After the Jayalalitha Government's savagery towards the striking employees and teachers, it is the AISGEF, the state employees’ national level trade union in co-operation with Central Employees Confederation took the initiative of resistance in the form of nation-wide strike and waiting and waiting for unduly long period for the Sponsoring Committee to take a decision in this regard, ultimately announced on 20 November '03 the date of strike to be 11 February, 2004.

This unilateral announcement created a new situation. CITU and other left trade unions who were from the very beginning wanted nation-wide strike , also faced a frustrating situation in their attempt to unite the other central trade unions, including some partners of the Sponsoring Committee of Trade Unions ( a joint forum of Left and Central Trade Uions) to join. Finally, in its December 03 conference at Chennai, CITU took the formal decision for joining the strike and appealed to others also to join. And it is in this compelling situation only, the remaining partners of the Sponsoring Committee of Trade Unions and even INTUC sat together with CITU and other left trade unions in a joint meeting on 5 January, 2004 and decided to join the strike, but the agreed date was announced to be 24 February, 2004 .

But, INTUC kept aloof at the last moment. HMS always remained aloof. Even then, big section of their ranks, a section of the ranks of even BMS remained in the strike and the unprecedented success of the strike is for all to see. Thus the unity of the working class was ultimately built from the below and it succeeded to a great extent.

This is a big lesson in the desired task of building trade union unity in the country. Trade Union unity is achievable by struggle only, not simply by top level negotiation.

This tactics of trade union unity was quite successful in state employees front. That the slogan of defending Right to Strike in defiance of the most harmful judicial prohibition and building unity from below was correct is confirmed by the fact of unexpected success of the strike in Jammu & Kashmir (Kashmir valley in particular), Gujrat, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and to some extent in Karnataka. Who expected that in the existing political scenario of Kashmir, in the situation of dangerous communal polarisation in Gujarat, or in the historically persisting division of the state employees movement in Andhra Pradesh, such massive strike will take place in these states and that too on the slogan of Right to Strike?

Moreover, it is very much for government employees’ movement, but also for all other sections of workers, the slogan of defending Right to Strike in the context of Supreme Court's ruling undisputedly clicked and caught the imagination of the workers. Otherwise on such a democratic issue of Right to Strike - how the massive success of the strike of 24 February was possible?

So this time, tactics of the trade union unity and the correctness of the slogan worked wonderfully and , the result is achieved. More so, the importance of the success is notable that though Parliament was dissolved , Lok Sabha election was imminent, all sorts of confusion also arose in this regard, the strike ultimately succeeded. This further confirms that raising the demand of defending Right to Strike was just timely and the workers accepted it whole heartedly, though there were many initial questionings.

Apart from the lessons of tactics of trade union unity and the correctness of the slogan and the appropriate timing of raising the slogan and unleashing the struggle, there are other vital lessons also to be taken from the strike.

Firstly, the barbaric victimization in Tamilnadu followed by the atrocious Supreme Court ruling initially created a highly demoralizing situation and fear psychosis, particularly among the government employees. But the decision of the strike and its massive campaign and ultimately successful observance of the strike - turned the negative situation into a positive one.

Secondly, at appropriate moment, with a slogan - on purely a democratic issue like Right to Strike, without depending simply on economic issues like wages etc. - if properly conducted and propagated and unity built - a massive and successful strike is possible.

Thirdly, the reliance on the masses is another important lesson - that fighting trade unions, if deeply penetrate into the ranks and the issues are properly explained, then the masses of the workers can be moved for a big action on simply a democratic issue also as was 24 February, 2004.

Finally, working class movement while fighting against economic offensive, should also try to come out of sheer economism, deal with the popular issues of the democratic masses, unite with them, in the process get themselves politically educated, unleash united democratic struggles to defend democracy, trade union and political rights and get involved in the struggles for other national and international issues. This is of paramount importance in this phase of imperialist globalisation, imperialist aggression and all the aggressive and autocratic measures accompanying it.