Chronicle of a strike

V. SRIDHAR The Indian Railways Strike of 1974: A Study of Power and Organised Labour by Stephen Sherlock; Rupa & Co, New Delhi, 2001; pages 513, Rs.295. TWENTY-five years later, the Indian Railways strike of 1974 continues to evoke images of the heroism of ordinary railway workers, their families and those who dared support them against the might of the Indian state. Although much has been written about the Emergency which followed a year later, the most widespread revolt by the working class in independent India has received comparatively little attention from labour historians. Stephen Sherlock's book is one which fills the gap and does justice to the workers' resistance against heavy odds. The book recalls the vivid images of terror unleashed by the Indira Gandhi regime on railwaymen across the country, a prelude to what was to follow on a much wider scale during the Emergency. The 1974 rail workers' strike was a unique event for several reasons. It occurred at a time when labour militancy was at its highest in independent India: the number of workdays lost owing to all industrial disputes in India touched 40 million in 1974, more than double that recorded in any single year during the preceding decade. The strike and the manner in which it was put down marks a turning point in labour's leverage with the Indian state. The 1974 strike forced political parties across the spectrum to spell out their stand clearly. In fact, parties which were ambivalent or inconsistent in those heady days are still trying to come to terms with the position they took then. The strike also provided a stunning launch pad to mass appeal for those like George Fernandes who, as the president of the All India Railwaymen's Federation (AIRF), was the main leader of the strike. Although portrayed as a failure, the strike achieved later what it sought to achieve then. For these reasons the strike marks a milestone for labour historians. The study evaluates the role of the three main agents in the arena - the Indian state, the Railways management and the workers' unions. Conventional labour studies perceived unions as intermediaries between workers, whom they were supposed to represent, and employers. In the case of the state-owned Indian Railways, the government played the role of the employer and that of the agency entrusted with the task of protecting the interests of the weaker party in the compact between labour and capital. Sherlock's study reveals that although the Railway Board is supposed to work under government supervision, in reality it enjoyed more autonomy in day-to-day matters than what the government has or is willing to concede. In part, such a situation arose because of the colonial legacy which laid the basis for the Indian Railways after Independence. This meant that although in the public perception the government was under pressure to appear pro-labour, the power of the bureaucracy, particularly of those in the bastion of the Railway Board, ensured that even genuine and long-pending labour reform measures remained on the backburner, albeit seething. The Railways bureaucracy and the government preferred to deal with "tamed" leaders of the Railways' working class. In doing this, it thwarted all attempts by workers to establish "their own" unions. Sherlock points out that before the strike the AIRF leadership had "accepted and adjusted to that reality" which demanded that they keep the workers on a tight leash. The government stubbornly refused to allow union recognition on the basis of election of representatives by secret ballot. While the government, as employer, perceived the unions as devices with which it could "discipline" the workers, the unions, over a period of time, had grown into bureaucratic structures alienated from ordinary

workers. The 1974 strike was symbolic of the workers' refusal to accept the "patron-client" character of the two major unions which claimed to work for their behalf. In the Railways, government patronage of the two dominant unions led to two developments that provoked the upsurge of workers in 1974. One, the distance between the officially recognised unions and the rank and file widened because workers no longer saw the unions as representing their interests before the government. Secondly, the government's patronage of the officially recognised unions, at the exclusion of all other voices of the working class, led to a complete blockage of possibilities of the redress of the grievances of ordinary workers. The situation was thus fertile for an explosion of anger from below. Although on paper more than 70 per cent of the 1.4 million rail employees (permanent ones) were members of the two official unions on the eve of the strike, they led the leadership to the strike. In fact, the strike was the plank on which Fernandes was elected president of the AIRF a few months before the strike. Sherlock's documentation - from union, government and Railways management sources - exposes the shocking working conditions that provoked the workers to revolt in 1974. The 1974 strike, contrary to popular belief, was not a sudden action. It was preceded by strikes by rail workers across the country in 1967, 1968, 1970 and 1973. These strikes indicated that the workforce was restive and on the brink of exploding into revolt. The 1974 strike was led by rank and file workers, particularly the newly-emergent crafts unions among the rail workers. Labour historians generally regard crafts unions as being restrictive in their class consciousness, and prone to the pulls of sectarian rather than wider class loyalties. Although this has been borne out by the decline of the crafts unions after the 1974 strike, such crafts unions broke the stranglehold that the two main unions had built for themselves. Sherlock provides an exciting flavour of the turbulent 1970s when rank and file workers, fed up with the bureaucratic ways of the two officially recognised unions - the pro-Congress National Federation of Indian Railwaymen (NFIR) and the Lohiite Socialist-inspired AIRF - forced the leadership to address their long-pending demands. The long working hours of rail crew - "loco running staff" in industry parlance - was one such demand. For instance, loco drivers had often to be on the high-pressure job for days without a break. Historically, many of the British-run rail networks had termed the work of the loco staff as "continuous", implying that workers would have to remain at work as long as the train ran on its trip, often for several days at a stretch especially on the goods trains. Independence did not change this. The spread of diesel engines and the consequent intensification of work in the Indian Railways since the 1960s created much resentment among the workers. The Railways, although government-owned, remained an island in which the accepted worldwide standard of an eight-hour working day was violated with impunity. In fact, when the crafts unions raised the issue, they demanded a 12-hour working day for loco running staff. Besides this, there were other issues. Pay scales in the Indian Railways had remained stagnant, unlike those in the public sector companies and in departmental undertakings. The officially recognised unions stayed aloof in the wake of the rising tide of protests in 1973. The die was cast for the biggest confrontation between the Indian state and the working class. The Railways was one of the earliest vehicles of industrial capitalism in India. The railway industry was also the first in which industrial workers launched collective action. In 1862, more than 1,200 workers struck work at Howrah station demanding an eight-hour working day. Waves of strikes by railway workers occurred in the privately-owned rail networks of British India and culminated in the great wave of unrest on the eve of Independence. Sherlock provides an inspiring account of the unionisation in the Indian Railways and the militant struggles of ordinary workers.

The first hints of workers' disillusionment with the recognised unions came in 1966 when firemen at Madurai, Tamil Nadu, organised themselves into the Southern Railways Firemen Council. Similar councils were soon formed in other parts of the State. The strikes of these councils, in 1967 and 1968, were so effective that goods and passenger traffic came to a halt. The strike was called off by the workers only after the Railway Minister agreed to settle their demands. The success of the "independent" union led to the formation of the Loco Running Staff Association (LRSA), which played an important role in the 1974 strike. In 1970, firemen joined loco staff in successful industrial action in the Southern Railway. In doing this they overcame the traditional animosities which were based on narrow prejudices. Workers were quick to realise that united action insured them against the threat of victimisation by the management and improved their chances of succeeding in their struggles. These unions succeeded largely because they were close to the aspirations of the rank and file workers, unlike the two recognised unions. In February 1974, the National Coordinating Committee for Railwaymen's Struggle (NCRRS) was formed to bring all the railway unions, the central trade unions and political parties in the Opposition together to prepare for the strike to start on May 8, 1974. The workers' resolve was matched by the government's determination to put down the strike with a heavy hand. This was revealed in its obdurate stance on the demands raised by the workers. Even as negotiations were proceeding, the government queered the pitch by arresting Fernandes at the Lucknow railway station on May 2. Across the country thousands of railway workers were arrested. The draconian provisions of the Defence of India Rules and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) were used against the workers. Later, the same provisions were used with telling effect against every shade of the Opposition during the Emergency. With the countrywide arrest of the top leadership of the unions, the success of the strike now depended greatly on zonal and local union leaders, and of course, the rank and file. Workers from other industries and services were quick to express solidarity with the striking rail workers. The action of the government provoked the workers to go on an immediate strike instead of waiting for May 8. In Bombay, electricity and transport workers as well as taxi drivers joined the protests. In Gaya, Bihar, striking workers and their families squatted on the tracks. More than 10,000 workers of the Integral Coach Factory in Perambur, Tamil Nadu, marched to the Southern Railway headquarters in Chennai to express their solidarity with the striking workers. Similar protests erupted across the country. Not a single important rail centre in India was immune. The brutal methods adopted by the government against the striking workers and their families have been fairly well-documented. The railway colonies were practically under siege. For instance, in Mughalsarai in Uttar Pradesh, which has one of the biggest railway yards in the world, women were assaulted and even children were not spared. The Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Provincial Armed Constabulary were deployed in the labour township. There were also instances of workers forced by terror to work. Instances of train drivers who were shackled in their cabins were reported at the height of the strike. Much has changed on the labour landscape since 1974. Although Sherlock's sympathies evidently lie with the revolt by the crafts unions against the established unions, events since 1974 have proved that these unions have themselves been successfully tamed by the Railways management and the government. The strike leadership, particularly Fernandes, were perceived as having betrayed those who had sacrificed their all for the larger cause. Fernandes, as Union Railway Minister soon after the Emergency, has been criticised for having failed to restore the rights that thousands of workers lost during the strike. http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1819/18190750.htm

Strike out: Bandhs, lockouts decline

TNN Mar 29, 2006, 11.34pm IST
NEW DELHI: There has been a decline in the number of strikes as well as lockouts since 1997. At the same time the number of workers' affected by strikes, has been going up, a labour ministry survey shows. The number of strikes declined from 1,305 in 1997 to less than 300 in 2004. Lockouts too show a declining trend from over 500 in 1997 to less than 300 in 2004.

Nevertheless the number of workers affected and the mandays lost have been increasing and this is considered to be a direct measure of the impact of industrial unrest on workers. The increasing trend of
mandays lost is also due to growth of economic activities and expansion of industrial establishments involving larger number of employees. Besides when larger establishments employing more number of employees go even on a day's strike, the mandays lost obviously go up, an official said. The workers affected due to strikes and lockouts increased from 1.82 million in 2003 to 2.07 million in 2004 showing a 13.74% rise in mandays lost. During the first 9 months of 2005, a total number of 340 strikes and lockouts took place affecting 1.41 million workers. The number of mandays lost increased from 16.97 million to 23.87 million in 2004. Among the states West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Kerala were the most affected states due to strikes and lockouts and number of workers affected.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-03-29/india/27828393_1_lockouts-mandays-strikes

India lost 181.82 crores because of strikes and lockouts

December 5, 2006 by Sutirtho Patranobis, Hindustan Times New Delhi, December 4, 2006 The numbers are worrying. India lost 13.75 million man-days and incurred Rs 181.82 crore as production-related losses because of strikes and lockouts in the first nine months of 2006, data with Ministry of Labour and Employment has revealed. The Ministry, however, says the lining of hope is the reduction in the number of strikes and lockouts as compared to 2005 or even 2004. The total number of strikes and lockouts till September 2005 were 397. The corresponding figure for this year is 346. Minister of State for Labour and Employment Oscar Fernandes told Lok Sabha on Monday that there was no proposal to review the existing mechanism; to avoid strikes as the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 provides a mechanism to maintain harmonious relationship between employer and employee.

The Act provides a framework for investigation and settlement of the Industrial disputes. It also seeks to regulate illegal strikes and lockouts, and provides protection to the workmen in case of lay-off, retrenchment and closure of establishments. The declining trend in strikes and lockouts was around 4 per cent in 2005 compared to 2004. During 2004, the rate was 13 per cent as compared to 2003. West Bengal, though its government is considered to be a progressive one at present, is an easy first among states in terms of losing out on man-days. In 2005, West Bengal was responsible for the loss of 13.99 million man-days or 60.15 per cent of the total man-days lost. In 2004 too, West Bengal led accounting for 17.56 million man-days. A Ministry official said the definition of a man-day may vary from one company to the other, but on average it comprises a working day of eight hours. He added that while employees trigger strikes, the employer puts lockouts in force. Reasons for a lockout could vary from weakening demand of the companys product, resulting losses or indiscipline on the part of workers, he said. The official said the last few years have seen comparative industrial peace with none of the major strikes with the possible exception of state bank employees strike that lasted for a few days having an impact on general life. http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/india-lost-18182-crores-because-of-strikes-andlockouts/

Bandh costs India Rs 13,000 crore in losses

Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 9:59 [IST] New Delhi, Jul 6: The 12-hour Bharat Bandh called for by the Opposition to protest against spiralling prices costed the country a loss of an estimated Rs 13,000 crore. The Bandh which was effected by the Opposition parties across the country on Monday, Jul 5, has accounted for a loss of Rs 13,000 crore, according to Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). However, the Confederation of Indian Industries pegged the loss at Rs 3,000 crore, which experts feel is an understatement. Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka were among those states which were badly affected by the bandh. While railways, road transport and aviation services took a hit in several states, public properties were at the receiving end of Opposition workers' anger. While Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena workers went on a rampage in Maharashtra, the IT industry in Karnataka took a hit as the BJP-ruled government made sure that the call for bandh was fully respected. TV Mohandas Pai, HR head, Infosys Technologies told a newspaper that the IT giant lost close to Rs 50 crore as they were forced to shut down operations on Monday, Jul 5. We took a decision to shut down our operation because the government withdrew public transport. The

government, by its action, created a sense of fear and threat of violence in the streets. It"s a big shame that the city had to be close down We (Infosys) stand to lose close to Rs 50 crore," he told DNA. The same amount was quoted by Girish Paranjpe, joint CEO (IT business) and executive director on the board of Wipro Ltd, who also added that the company will recover it by working on an alternate day. As expected, the non-UPA ruled states were the worst hit. While the Opposition parties are feeling triumphant now, the common man and the the industrial giants are fuming. OneIndia News http://news.oneindia.in/2010/07/06/bandh-costs-india-rs-13000-crore-in-losses.html

10 lakh Andhra Pradesh govt employees on strike

Ramu Sharma, TNN Jan 19, 2011, 02.02pm IST HYDERABAD: The entire state administration in Andhra Pradesh has come to a grinding halt as 10 lakh employees, including teachers, have gone on a three day pen down, tool down and chalk down strike from Wednesday. Though the strike does not affect the economic activity in the state, it means paying Rs 158 crore per day as wages to the striking employees for doing nothing. The three day strike would mean that the government would be spending about Rs 474 crore on them without extracting any work. The employees on the other hand claim that they should not be blamed for this economic loss to the exchequer since they have been patiently waiting for a positive reply from the state government for more than a year. According to employee unions they have not put up any fresh demands before the government. All that they wanted was implementation of the recommendations of the 9th pay revision commission. The commission had given 12 recommendations which were accepted by the government in 2009. Of that only one demand, fitment of scales was implemented by the state government. The union leaders claim that the government since then had been dillydallying and had not taken any decision so far despite several meetings with cabinet sub committee. The demands include issuing of health cards to all the employees. But the government has turned down the proposal saying that it would soon constitute Arogya Trust and they would get health insurance cards. The employees are against insurance companies managing the health cards. Another important demand is hike in house rent allowance (HRA). The cabinet sub committee suggested that it could accept a hike of 2% and not on the basis of category of the city they live in. It also indicated that it might accept the demand of automatic promotions after 6, 12, 18 years. However, there are serious differences on regularizing contract employees. Employee union leaders K Swami Goud and V Gopal Reddy claim that if the government does not consider their demands sympathetically in next three days, they would go on an indefinite strike. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-19/india/28363443_1_employees-health-cards-strike

IDSA COMMENT The Culture of Bandhs and the Absence of Local Governance in the Northeast
Namrata Goswami November 25, 2010 In common parlance and academic literature, good governance is the prime indicator of the success of a state. While many would argue that Indias experience with governance after independence is mostly unique based on a delicate interplay between a modern state and a traditional society, it is also equally true that governance in India depends to a large extent on individual rationality, which is bounded by the local context and embedded values, based on the perception of sanctions, welfare and identity as well as general trust. Thereby, the level of governance in a state is conditional on its ability to transform citizens into stakeholders in the process of governance itself. This in turn is co-related to the pay-off structures in which abiding by the rules is viewed by citizens as offering an incentive structure for a better living. The most important indicators of good governance are institutions based on rules, absence of disorder, riots, murders, unwarranted state closures, and violence of any nature. As far as we can see, the Indian state since independence has been committed to individual rights based on the constitution, and no one group or community has the right to deter the free movement and entrepreneurial aspirations of another. In stark contrast to this optimal understanding of governance in the Indian context, the culture of bandhs (state closure) paramount in the Northeastern states like Assam, Manipur and Nagaland goes against the notion of individual rights, is a stigma on the effectiveness of local governance structures, and is unconstitutional to say the least. For instance, Manipur suffered from bandhs almost every day during the two month-siege of the state by Naga groups earlier this year as a protest against Thuingaleng Muivah, leader of the NSCN (IM), being refused entry by Manipur to his native village due to security concerns. When the author was in Manipur in August 2008, there were nearly 19 bandhs in that month alone due to protests related to the doping controversy of Monika Devi, the weight-lifter from Manipur during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This resulted in all roads being closed, prices of basic commodities tripling, and a loss to the local economy in crores. While the bandhs were underway, called either by armed groups like the United National Liberation Front of Manipur (UNLF) or the Manipur Civil Society organizations, the state functionaries including the Secretariat merrily closed down as well without any accountability whatsoever. For local government officials, it was just one more holiday added to their list of holidays in the official calendar for which nothing is deducted from their monthly pay. So, state government employees might be absent for nineteen days of the month including Sundays and other holidays and effectively work for less than 10 days a month and yet get their full monthly salaries. This bandh culture, while coming down drastically in states like Mizoram and Tripura with a proactive public and responsive state governments, is a disease in Assam and Nagaland. The call for bandhs in Assam are issued by the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the All Assam Students Union (AASU), or any other local group through local newspapers, and is strictly observed by the local people. Bandhs in Assam have a rippling effect all over the Northeast as most basic commodities like rice, pulses, medicines, vegetables, poultry, etc., reach the other states via Assam either by road or by rail. In Nagaland, bandhs are called by either the NSCN (IM) or the National Socialist Council of Nagaland led by S S Khaplang [NSCN (K)] and is followed by the local people for fear of being killed, despite great hardship caused by multiple bandhs in a month.

While the fear of the locals to abide by the diktat of the armed groups is understandable, what is perhaps not acceptable is the adherence to these bandhs by the local state authorities. The very fact that state governments cannot negate this bandh culture, and are unwilling to ensure that common people are secure during the bandhs even if they defy it, smacks of the lack of legitimacy and democratic grounding of these governments. It is also an abysmal state of affairs when armed insurgent groups like the ULFA or the NSCN (IM) with a membership of 1000 to 5000, respectively, can hold the entire population of a state amounting to millions hostage by just issuing the call for a bandh. This culture of bandhs has resulted in crores of rupees in losses for the local economies, especially the private sector. The most affected are of course the daily wage workers, who are dependent on day-to-day earning to feed their families. Governance in the Indian context is dependent on the ability of the modern institutions to accommodate embedded values, undertake strategic reform and maintain the difficult balance between force and persuasion in the management of law and order, as argued by Subrata K. Mitra in his book The Puzzle of Indias Governance (2006). It requires not only effective party systems, but also a federalism that works well for the common man. The bandh culture in states like Assam, Manipur and Nagaland are not only a negation of individual rights but goes against the strategic choices of many, thereby throttling citizens initiatives. The most adversely affected from the bandhs are the common people in these three states, while the local state governments absolve themselves of any responsibility to counter this culture, when they should ideally have been at the forefront punishing those who disturb public order. (It is important to note that law and order is a state subject in India and hence states in India are obligated to maintain a secure environment based on the rule of law for their citizens). The time has therefore come for citizens of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland to stand up against the negative culture of bandhs issued by armed groups who invariably represent only themselves, and hold their state governments accountable for poor governance, in order to enable their future generations to have a progressive and peaceful life.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheCultureofBandhsandtheAbsenceofLocalGovernanceintheNo rtheast_ngoswami_251110

Strike hits Left-ruled States By Aarti Dhar . NEW DELHI MAY 21. The day-long nationwide general strike, spearheaded by the Central trade unions, brought the Left-ruled States to a virtual halt today while it evoked a partial response elsewhere in the country. There were reports of stray incidents of lathicharge and arrest of the striking employees who registered their protest against the Centre's economic policies. The banking and insurance sectors were the worst affected across the country. Describing the strike as "historic and the biggest-ever in the country after Independence", the trade unions claimed a resounding success but the Government dismissed it as a "politically-motivated annual ritual of the Left" to make their presence felt.

The strike was called to protest privatisation of the profit-making public sector undertakings and oppose changes in the labour laws in favour of employers. It demanded immediate enactment of legislation for agricultural workers. The other demands are scrapping of policies leading to the aggravation of joblessness and unemployment, wider social security schemes for all, particularly those in the unorganised sector, restoration of the quantitative restriction on import, removal of the ceiling on payment of bonus and restoration of the 12 per cent interest rate on Provident Fund deposits were the other demands. The strike was near total in West Bengal and Tripura, it had a good response in Kerala, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand while life in the other States was partially affected. Reports reaching here said that the Left-dominated sectors in oil, power, coal, mining, telecommunications, engineering and textiles saw their workers keeping away from work. Loading and unloading at the docks and ports was also partially affected. Rail and road transport was disrupted in the strike-hit States and two private airlines Jet Airways and Sahara suspended their regular flights to and from Kolkata. However, there was no change in the domestic carriers, Indian Airlines and Alliance Air. About 60-lakh State Government employees, including the municipal and panchayat workers, joined the strike. The Central Government employees, owing allegiance to the Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers, also kept off work. The Reserve Bank Employees Association also took part in the strike. At a joint press conference in the evening, representatives of seven Central trade unions said the strike sent out a clear message to the Government to reverse its policies. "However, they should not take it as the last resort. We will intensify our struggle," said Umraomal Purohit of the Hind Mazdoor Sabha. A democratically-elected Government had a right to draft its economic policies but the Centre had done something that was "injurious to the country as well as the people" and, unfortunately, the Opposition had not been able to play its role, he said. The representatives claimed that police resorted to lathicharge at 16 places and arrested 3,000 activists, including some outside the Supreme Court here for violating prohibitory orders. The Union Labour Minister, Sahib Singh Verma, said the unions had never approached the Government on their demands. "We received their memorandum and their decision to go in for the strike but they never asked us to discuss the matter." In fact, the Government was looking into the possibility of increasing the ceiling on bonus and was making all efforts to give the best returns to the Provident Fund contributors. Denying that the Prime Minister had refused to meet the unions as claimed by them, Mr. Verma said the representatives had made it clear that they would go ahead with the strike irrespective of their meeting with Mr. Vajpayee. The striking trade unions include the AICCTU, the AITUC, the CITU, the HMS, the TUCC, the UTUC and the UTUC-LS and independent unions and federations. The INTUC and the BMS backed out at the last-minute describing the strike as "anti-national".

General strike 'cost India $320m' Thursday, 22 May, 2003, 12:19 GMT 13:19 UK
Wednesday's general strike in India cost the country's economy 15bn rupees ($320m; 196m) in terms of lost production, the Press Trust of India has reported trade unions as saying. "We might go for longer strikes if our demands are not met," PTI quoted Centre for Indian Trade Unions general secretary MK Pandhe as saying. "But for that we [the trade unions] will have to sit together to make enough preparations since any hasty decision could derail the country's economy." Up to 50 million workers in India went on strike for one day in protest at government plans to privatise state-owned businesses. The one-day stoppage severely affected the banking, transport, insurance and mining sectors, and brought Calcutta to a virtual standstill as protesters marched through the streets. Discontent The strike was called by trade unions including the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Centre for Indian Trade Unions and the Hind Mazdoor Sabha. They are calling for a halt to the government's ongoing privatisation and plans to change labour laws. The strike was described as the biggest show of discontent in recent times against the central government's economic policies. The government's privatisation plans aim to raise 132 billion rupees ($2.75bn) by selling off state-run companies in the year ending March 2004. But protesters claim this is leading to huge job losses. They are also angry at plans to allow state-run companies to fire workers and reduce deposit rates for pension funds. Deficit BBC correspondent Sanjeev Srivastava said the government was unlikely to give in to union demands immediately but that the strike could slow down reforms. But he said the government may not want to annoy the trade unions in the run up to national elections next year. The government has said labour reforms are needed to allow Indian industry to compete with countries such as China. And it says privatisation is needed to bridge the government's increasing fiscal deficit. But plans to sell national oil firms have been strongly rejected by key ministers including defence minister George Fernandes and petroleum minister Ram Naik.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3050367.stm

Strike call by nine trade unions

Sep 07, 2010 Special Correspondent NEW DELHI: Functioning of banks, industrial units, ports and docks, public/private sector units, defence establishments and communications industries is likely to be affected on Tuesday as nine major trade unions, including the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), the labour wing of the Congress, have called for a strike to protest the rise in prices of essential commodities and the policies of the UPA government-II. Besides the major trade unions, the federations of bank employees and insurance workers are also joining it. Though the BJP's labour wing Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) is not part of the Joint Action Committee of the Central Trade Unions (CTUs) which have called for the strike, they are not opposing it, claimed leaders of the CTUs. Besides the INTUC, the AITUC, the CITU, the HMS and the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) are joining the stir to condemn inaction of the government on the genuine problems of the working class. The other demands include: concrete measures to protect recession-stricken sectors by offering a stimulus package; strict enforcement of labour laws and punishment to those violating them; creation of a national fund for the unorganised workers to provide for social security; and dropping of the proposal to disinvest shares in the central public sector enterprises.