gandhian approach to trade unionism

8/8/2019 Gandhian Approach to Trade Unionism

1/86

CHAPTER V111GANDHIAN VISION O F TRADE UNIONISM

8.1 Introduction8.2 Trusteeship in Industry8.3 Meaning of Trusteeship8.4 Gandhiji and the Trade Union Movement8.5 Gandhian Approach8.5.1 Gandhiji's Concept of Industrial Relations and its

Influence on Indian Labour Policy8.6 The Ahmedabad Experiment8.7 Gandhian Perspective on Capital Labour Relationship8.8 Gandhian Ideology in Action8.9 Conclusion

References


2/86

8.1 Introduction

T h~ s haptcr discusses the Gandhian vision of industry and tradeunionism. It explains the suggestions of Mahatma Gandhi to solve the tradeunion problems. The purpose of this chapter is to develop from what Gandhiwrote and spoke, a framework of Industrial Relations system which could beregarded as Gandhian and to outline the prospects that the future holds out for

the adoption of Gandhan model of industrial relations and trade unionism inthe land of Mahatma Gandhi.

"In his lectures, letters written to or editorials in Young India andHarrjan he made references to the prevailing industrial relations situationwith his own comments and appeals added to them".'

'This is an attempt to place these bits of writings together to projectwhat Gandhi thought was an ideal industrial relations system for India. Thelimitations on such an attempt are self evident - particularly of those flowingfiom quoting Gandhi's statements taken out of contexts.

The twenties and the thirties witnessed the emergence of a newideology in the trade union movement, the Gandhian ideology, Gandhiemphasized that the ideologies of his socialist and communist contemporariesin India were essentially alien to the Indian tradition and he therefore soughtto evolve "a truer socialism and a truer communism than the world has yetdreamed ofZ


3/86

Gandhiji's vlews on industrial relations are based on some of hishndamental principles which constitute the core of his philosophy. Theseprinciples are ( l ) Truth and non-violence (2) Aparigraha i.e. non possession.It is from these principles Gandhi evolved his concepts of non-co-operationand trusteeship, which are fundamental to his model of industrial relationsand trade unionism.

8.2 Trusteeship in lndustry

The modern society is in the midst of confilsion. As it is confrontedwith many complex problems, such as poverty, exploitation, unemployment,inequality, inflation, conflicts, conuption and violent outbreaks, the people arefrustrated and they have lost hope in the existing socio-economic order andpolitical system. Capitalism is mainly held responsible for all these evils.

"The modem world is faced with the problems of social injustice,economic disparity and concentration of economic power, problems that havearisen out of the capitalist system of economic order. It is accepted on allhands that the capitalist economy of our times had a historical role to play in

the process of economic growth, In helping the release of factors and powersof such a growth at its proper stage, the capitalist system had its validity andjustification. But with a further advance in the process of economicdevelopment the capitalist economy, in the opinion of all thinking people, ofwhatever shade or colour of thinking, has out lived that validity and


4/86

justification. Hence, the system stands challenged and alternative solut~onsoreplace it have been suggested from time to time."

'The notable defects of the w o r h g of capitalism are the concentrationof wealth and income in the hands of a few, vast disparity between rich andpoor, exploitation of the working class by the owners of the means ofproduction and the commercialization of every dealing in the society.

On the one hand, a large section of the people want to destroycapitalism and create a new social order based on the principle of equality.But they are prepared to adopt any means to achieve thcir ends. They evensuggest bloody revolution. On the other hand, the rich people prefer tomaintain the status quo by strengthening their economic and political powerand giving few benefits and privileges to the poor. We find that both theseapproaches are not helpful in solving the problems of capitalism and tradeunions.

As Gandhi wanted to create a new social order, namely sarvodaya, inwhich the welfare of all would be looked after, he thought about the ways andmeans of transforming the existing capitalistic society and evolved his grandtheory of Trusteeship. He believed in the theory of continues evolution ofindividual and society and expected that the rich man in the society wouldrealise their soc~al esponsibility. He had developed the theory of trusteeshipas an alternative to private ownership.


5/86

The trusteeship theory envisages a new society and has a distinctphilosophy of its own. it stands for the reconstruction of the society on thetwin principles of truth and non-violence.

8.3 Meaning of Trusteeship

J.D. Sethi says "of all Gandhiji's ideas and concepts, Trusteeship wasthe most original as it was also the most tentative since he did not have timeto experiment with it on a scale that would match the grandeur of the concept.He did not have time enough to even define it precisely, not to speak ofspelling out its implications in concrete terms".4

The term trusteeship was first used in relation to property and itsownersh~p.n our country the "Trustee" is used in connection with templesand mutts the word "Trustee" means a person who manages the property ofthe temple without any selfish interest.

Trusteeship has in its origin jurisprudence in western countries. U .N .Dhebar says "this western concept of trusteeship implies that there should befirst of all property. Secondly, that there should be a legal owner of propertywho has the right to take decisions about the use of such property He istermed in law as the author of the trust. Third, he has to fix, settle anddetermine the objects of such use. These are called the objects of the trust.Fourth, he has to decide for whose benefit such property would be used.Those for whom the property is to be used are called the beneficiaries. Fifth,


6/86

he decides about the trustees and their rights and obligations, their powersand functions" '

E;. Arunachalam points out, "Mahatma Gandhi, whose concern waswith setting right human relationshps in all fields on the basis of truth andnon-violence, was also attracted towards the doctrine of trusteeship. He gavea new meaning and interpretation to the word "trusteeship" andrecommended the idea of the princes, landed aristocracy and propertiedcapitalist for adoption. As a matter of fact he wanted everyone to be atrustee".'

Gandhi has widened the meaning of trusteeship. When others use it inconnection with property only, he used it in a broader sense to indicate a

man's attitude to his entire life. The attitude of trusteeship involves ouridentification with the entire humanity.

J .D . Sethi observes, "there are three important aspects of trusteeshipwhich correspond to Gandhian values. First, it demands transfer of ownershipfiom individual, either directly or via the state. Also from the state to commonownership among those who would run an enterprise, those would consumeits products and those who will represent larger against sectional interests,with all the built in provisions for social priorities. Second, trusteeship is not alimited economic exercise; it is a non-violent movement or method ofdispossessing the owners of wealth and property, the details of which havebeen given by Gandhi himself, but in actual practice they have to be worked


7/86

out in each -different situation. Third, the trusteeship will have to satisfyconditions of ethical economics, i.e., create those conditions of production andconsumption economics which do not permit greed, conflict or alienationamong different classes of the society, including the workers."'

Gandhi came to the conclusion that the basis of all relationships istrust and faith. He accepted the concept of Satyagraha 'as it enabled one tofight or resist the root cause without hating the doer or human being. Onemust resist evil but not hate the person who becomes its victim or perpetratesit . If power, wealth, skill or knowledge are owned by society then there is nocause or room for conflict. Society or people' do not mean a crowd. It meansa living entity, a sum total of relationship. Since the root cause of conflict isthe concept of ownership and authority or power inherent in it, Gandhi triedto find a way of extinguishing the concept. This way is called "Trusteeship".The way of emancipating ourselves from the concept of ownership istrusteeship. Our concepts of "owner", "employer", "employee", "wealthylabourer" and so on cannot build harmonious human relationships. Only anattitude of sharing and co-operation can eliminate classes and discrimination.

In theory, everyone accepts Gandhiji's trusteeship. But the realproblem is that no one wishes to take the responsibility of bnning it intopractice. We all want "tieedom" but not responsibility. George Bemard Shawonce said "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it."


8/86

Gandhiji oflen said, "My life is my message". And so in seekingGandhiji's principles of peace making and non-violence let us turn to his lifeand understand what he stood for and on what thought and ideas he based hisactions.

The key to an understanding of Gandhian principles is to comprehendhis revolutionary mode of actions namely "Satayagraha" and his challenginggoal of "Sarvodaya", the good of all a fuller and richer concept of "peoples"democracy than any we have yet known. The central figure in all these is theindividual, the human being of soul, mind and body, the three-dimensionalbeing. Therefore the individual is the one supreme consideration with hisconscience and will together with h s eason to affect change.

B. Kumarappa was underscoring the aspect of Gandhian thoughtwhen he said "while pacifism hopes to get rid of war chiefly by refusing tofight and by canying on propaganda against war, Gandhiji goes much deeperand sees that war cannot be avoided so long as the seeds of it remain in man'sbreast and grow and develop in his social, political and economic life.G a n a ' s cure is, therefore, very radical and far-reaching. It demands nothingless than rooting out violence from oneself and from one's environment"."

The "right m i n d that Gandhlji envisioned is universal, inclusive, non-exclusive. It is not a mind of intolerance, of accusation, of d~vision.Rather i tis a mind of unity, understanding and infinite love that works for harmony, forpeace. It is a spirit that would heal division. Gandhiji knew the reality of


9/86

hatred and intolerance because he had experienced them in his own life insouth Ahca, In British dominated India, in the caste-ridden society of India ofhis time. Indeed, he succumbed to the reality of intolerance and hatred whenhis life was taken on January 30, 1948. No peace could be built onexcluvism, absolutism and hardness of hearts, which must result if individualsmade no efforts to rediscover the "right mind.

Peace cannot be built on vague slogans or pious programmes. Therecan be no peace on earth without the kind of inter change that restores man'smind to the fact that all life is one emanating from one universal self- "whatthought we have many bodies? We have but one soul. The rays of the sun aremany through refraction. But they have the same source9

The greatest of man's spiritual needs is the need to be released fromevil and untruth that are in hunself and in society. Individual freedom andpreservation of individual integrity were high in Gandhiji's values. But it didnot seek elevation of individual ego. "Individual in society" not individual perse, stands out in Gandhian thought. However, if this individual in societybecomes an automation, the society would be adversely affected. "One maylive in a cave in certain circumstances, but the common man can be testedonly in society" ''

Gandhiji thus developed a method to create possibilities, to conquerviolence and to involve oneself in acts of "ethical existence" within the


10/86

context of relationships transforming them toward a new, restructured,reintegrated pattern He called this technique or way of life "Satyagraha".

'This word was coined during the resistance movement led by Gandhijiin South Afnca while protesting against the Asiatic Law AmendmentOrdinance introduced in Transwall Legislative Council in 1906. As thestruggle continued he became aware that a new principle had emerged andwas operating. He wanted to give a name to this principle and through hisnewspaper, "Indian opinion" he announced a prize for the best namesuggested. The name that was suggested was "Sadagraha". But Gandhiji feltthe word did not fully express the whole idea . . . . . "I therefore corrected it to"Satyagraha" Truth (Satya) implies love and f i m e s s (agraha, engenders andtherefore serves as a synonym for force . . . . . that is to say the force which isborn of truth and love or non-violence"."

"Satyagraha" has within itself the Gandhian concept of truth, non-violence (ahima), self-suffering (tapasya). It is essential to understand"Satyagraha" fully in order to grasp Gandhij's principles of peace making.The ingredients of satyagraha include truth - nothing "is" or exists in realityexcept truth which in Sanskrit means "sat" - "is ness" or "being" "sat" ortruth is perhaps the most important name of god. In fact, it is more correct tosay truth is god, than to say that god is truth.'' To hlm truth and god wereconvertible terms - "I came to that conclusion &er a continuous andrelentless search after truth which began filly years ago.""


11/86

The truth which is not absolute, which is not for Gandhiji- God, relateeverybody's life to human beings in terms of the community of which he is amember, in terms of the society of which he is a part. Thus, "truthful dealingseven in the least things of life, is the only secret of a pure life. Quest for truthcannot be prosecuted to a cave.14 Thus, when conflict arose, Gandhiji resortedto the dynamics of interrelationships for judging the truth of the situation.

PLhimsa (love or non-violence). How does truth become a force in life,in field of action, in a situation of conflict? Gandhiji held that "it excludes theuse of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth andtherefore, not competent to punish.'5 Thus truth has its inter-relationship withnon-violence as an operative principle. There is no way to find truth exceptthrough the way of non-violence. "I then found that the nearest approach totruth was through love".16 Therefore, "ahlmsa" is our supreme duty. Non-violence becomes the supreme value.

Gandhiji did not consider non-violence as a matter of tactic although i twas certainly effective in liberating India's people from an alien rule. On thecontrary, he believed that the essential spirit of non-violence springs, from adeeper, Inner realization of spiritual unity in one's own self. Therefore, it is asmuch a means of achieving unity as the h i t of the inner unity alreadyachieved. Gandhiji's non-violence was not a sentimental religiosity or adenial of the reality of evil. The first duty of a real satyagrahi is to bring tolight the evil, the wrong, the injustice that he knows of even if he has to suffer


12/86

by so domg "There is no limit whatsoever to the mcasurc of sacrifice that oncmay make in order to realize this oneness with all life.' ' Love and non-violence must be the means because truth is the end and because truth andlove are "the law of our being". "If love or non-violence be not the law of ourbeing, the whole of my argument falls to pieces"."

Man cannot be free if he is not aware of the fact that he is subject tonecessity. All forms of necessity can contribute to man's freedom materialneed, economic need and spiritual need.

Gandhiji repeatedly warned of the dangers involved in focussing uponthe misdeeds of the opponent. He observed, "no one is wicked by nature -and if others are wicked, are we the less so?"" Thus non-violence extendsthe area of rationality. There is a high level of responsibility toward the"other" who is not an "enemy", but an "opponent", the one who "disagrees".The act and the reaction are not automatic but conscious. They have thestrength of conviction and of being able to convince.

Self suffering:- "Tapasya", once again a Sanskrit word, which means austerityand has within it implied both self discipline and self restraint. Gandhijibelieved that in the satyagraha mode of action self suffering is the chosensubstitute for wolence to others. To punish and destroy the oppressor is toinitiate a cycle of violence and hatred. Self suffering, Gandhiji held, enableslife and morally enriches the world. There is an arresting paradox in this thatone can overcome evil by suffering it. The only way truly to "overcome" the


13/86

adversary is to help him become other than an enemy. This is the kind ofwisdom one finds in Gandhijis principles.

Besides truth, non-violence and self suffering, ends-means relationshipis very important in G a n h a n principles of peace making. Ends alone can,never justify the means. It was Gandhiji's firm conviction that means are asimportant as, and often even more important than, ends. The inseparablecombination of truth and love in Gandhian principles form the basis ofGandhian solution to problems. Non-violence and truth ahimsa and satya",are so intertwined that it is almost impossible to say where one begins and theother ends. "They are like two sides of a coin, or rather of a smooth,unstamped metallic disc." No action is worthy of human effort if it degradesman even if the outcome is a spectacular success. "They say means are &erall means. I would say means are after all everything. As the means so theend. There is no wall of separation between means and end."

The Gandhian experiments suggest that if man is to free himself fromfear and threat alike, he must set himself to the task of conquest of violence bymoral means that must conform to the test of truth and non-violence. Intoday's world a separation of ends and means is assumed. Success hasbecome the touchstone of ends, thus proceeding to eclipse meansconsideration by over emphasizing concern for ends. The cornerstone of theGandhian basis of ends and means centres upon the utter necessity ofreconciling ends and means consciously through a philosophy of action deeply


14/86

rooted in truth (Satyagraha) that can face the penetrating test of the highestethical values

It is clear that Gandhiji called "Sarvodaya" the good of all as his goal.The good of all without any distinction between high and low, rich and poor,strong and weak, even the good and the bad. "Savodaya" literally means''uplift of all". Following the political independence in India, "Sarvodaya"became the primary Gandhan objective, it also became a part of hisprinciples necessary for achieving peace and keeping harmony. It calls forself-giving in socially beneficial labour. It is also a means for working foreconomic equality, abolishing conflict. Gandhiji's philosophy offers apractical way to peacefbl social revolution to improve the quality of life. Everyform of self giving enriches human relationship. In essence, that is"Sarvodaya".

8.4 Gandhiji and Trade Union Movement

Gandhiji is known as the greatest political leader of our country. Butthe fact that he was also the greatest trade union leader of our country is notso well known. 7he history of the national trade union movement started withthe struggle of the Ahmedabed textile workers, organized under theleadership of Mahatma Gandhi as an epic struggle of the worhng class toachieve them just demands through methods peculiar to the Indian tradition."The smke commenced on February 22, 1918; every day Gandhi used toaddress the workers under the shadow of a Babul tree on the bank of the


15/86

Sabarmati river in Ahrnedabad, to remind them to their pledge and tocontinue the strike peacehlly till the 35 percent increase in wage wassecured. It was from the Babul tree that the story of the struggle of Indianlabour really began".zz The struggle ended in a success to both anddemonstrated for the first time the efficiency of the new techniquepropounded by Gandhiji to govern labour management relations. The mannerin which Gandhi conducted the strike and the method of its settlement wereunique in the histoly of Industrial relations and probably in the history ofindustrial relat~ons nywhere. For Gandhi the struggle was only a particularapplication of the weapon of "Satyagraha" which he had devised not only as ameans for furthering the cause of Indian nationalism but as a means for theattainment of "truth" and "justice".

For Gandhi's followers in the trade unions, the methods used atAhmedabad in 191 8 constituted an ideal to be applied as far as possible to thesettlement of industrial disputes elsewhere.

For Gandhi the stoppage of work at Ahmedabad was not a mere strike,but a "Satyagraha", a striving for truth. According to John Bondurant,"Satayagraha" is characterized by adherence to a stated truth by means ofbehaviour which is not violent but which includes self-suffering. It seeks toeffect change and it operates within a conflict situation2'. Thus the satyagraha,when applied in the field of labour, can be distinguished from an ordinary


16/86

strike and the settlement reached at the end of a satyagraha is not a merecompromise.

The first distinguishing feature of Gandhian method in lndustrialrelations is that only "truthful" claims should be made.

A strike is a form of "satyagraha" a striker, therefore, would notsubmit to superior force or hardship; once he resolves, he keeps firm to i t andeven at the cost of privations including starvation, he sticks to the resolutionz4.

A stick was justified in Gandhi's view only if other means fosettlement had failed. Firstly, the parties should try to convince each other ofthe truth of their claims. Secondly they could agree to appoint a respectedarbitrator. Gandhi was prepared to respect the interpretation of truth reachedby an arbitrator even if it did not measure up to his own version. Finally if theemployers refused to accept arbitration, the workers had to go on s hke whichwould continue until their demands were met. The objectives of a strike wasnot the coercion of the employers but their conversion. By being stead fast intheir behaviour the workers would show to the employers that truth was onthe worker's side. Gandhi did not want the employers to relent because oflosses due to the stnke or for other such practical reasons, but because theyhad been convinced that the works claims were just.

Gandhi's recognition that different men might sincerely take adifferent view of truth, implied for him the use of non-violent means.2s


17/86

Non-violence was also implicit in Gandhi's theory of trusteeship.Naturally, if the employers were to be considered as "trustees" in this sensethere could be no justification for the use of violence against them. The lessonGandhi taught was that the workers should always respect the good in theiropponent.26 Khandubhai Desai has explained that in a strike "the workers arefighting the evil in the employers, and not the employer personally?7

Kh ~d u b h a iDesai has summed up what is expected of the workerwho follows Gandhian principles when he is on strike. "While on strike, theworker should be truthful, courageous, just, and free from hatred or malicetowards anybody, and should be prepared for the voluntary sacrifice puttinghis faith in g o d Z X

Thus the essence of Gandhian methods when applied to trade unionquestions is its emphasis on persuading the employers rather than on coercingthem, the strict adherence to non-violence, and a willingness to bear anysuffering rather than to betray a principle. For Gandhi the trade union'sfunctions did not end at the factory gate.

Supporters of the Gandian approach to industrial relations tried toregard the concept of voluntary arbitration as his main contribution toindustrial relation. This approach is regarded as "indigenous" and sometimesas uniquely Indian. In fact the Gandhian approach is not distinguished fromthe western approach by this concept which of course is quite compatible with

the western approach. The differences go much deeper and concern attitudes


18/86

more than the formal machinery of settlement. A western trade unionist wouldbe quite prepared to accept voluntary arbitration if, in the circumstances, hethought it would lead to hlgher wages or better conditions, but he would beequally prepared to use other tactics if the circumstances were different.Although in practice Gandhian trade unionists do use other methods, theytned to believe that voluntary arbitration is somehow superior. The westerntrade unionist is concerned with results. The Gandhian is concerned withmeans and ideally would be prepared to sacrifice results if the means were notentirely pure

Sound trade union movement is based on democracy and democracy isbased on truth and non-violence. He advocated the theory of trusteeship. Thetheory of trusteeship ultimately means that both the employers and theemployees are equal partners in a joint endeavour for the good of thecommunity. They hold the industry in whlch they are worlung, in trust for thecommunity. They are equal partners, co-workers neither is superior norinferior to th e other. When that approach is assimilated the whole prospect oflooking at the industry changes. The whole mental outlook is revolutionized.

It is clear that Gandhji wanted to treat the society as an integralwhole. Society cannot be broken up and treated piece-meal. No section canthink in terms of isolation. If one t M s good of the society we cannot treatlife in parts.


19/86

8.5 Gandhiji's Approach

Mahatma Gandh~ hilosophy is based upon the "Sarvodoya" principlesof truth, non-violence and trusteeship, in which class harmony prevails. Heconsiders trade unions as essentially reformist organizations and economicinstitutions, which must be organized on the basis of the assumption thatcapital and labour are not antagonistic but are supplementary to each other.He observed, "my ideal is that capital and labour should supplement and helpeach other. They should be a great family living in unity and harmony capitalnot only looking to the material welfare of the labourers but their moralwelfare also- capitalists being trustees of the welfare of the labouring classesunder them"

Gandhiji's view was that trade unions should not only undertake thefunctions concerned with improving the economic conditions of workers, butmust also try to raise the moral and intellectual standards of labour and shouldbring about an all-round development through internal efforts. They shouldalso undertake programmes for teaching supplementary occupations to theirmembers so that uncertainty of employment during a strike may be reduced tothe minimum. He declared "the working class would never feel secure ordevelop a sense of self assurance and strength unless its members are armedwith unfailing subsidiary means of subsistence to serve as a second stnng totheir bow in cris~s".


20/86

Accord~ng o Mahatma Gandhi, the aims objectives and policy ofunionism are "it is not anti-capitalist. The idea is to take from capital labour'sdue share and no more, and thls, not by paralyzing capital but by reformamong labourers from within and by their own self-consciousness: not againthrough the cleverness of non-labour leaders, but by educating labour toevolve its own leadershp and its own self restraint, and its self-existingorganization. Its direct aim is not in the least degree political. Its aim isinternal reform and evolution of internal strength. The indirect result of thisevolution when and if, it ever becomes complete, will naturally betremendously political.29

Gandhiji said that " . .while it's quite proper to insist upon (worker's)rights and principles, it is imperative that they should recognize the obligationthat every right carries with it .. . .. the workers should treat the business oftheir employers as if it were their own business and give it their honest andundivided attention- (They should) fight, if they must, on the path ofrighteousness "

As a matter of fact, Gandhiji was never against strikes as such. He hadhimself led some smkes in Ahmedabad and declared that a strike was anInherent right of the worlung men for the purpose of securing justice, but itmust be considered a crime immediately the capitalist accept the pr~nciple farbitration. Accordmg to Gandhiji, stnkes might be permitted and wouldsucceed if these conditions are fulfilled.


21/86

(A) The causes of a s t ike must be just and only for redressal of genuinegrievances, strikes should be organized. He &d not want workers toresort to strikes for unreasonable demands which the capitalist cannotmeet without impairing the production unit.

(B ) There should be practical unanimity among the strikers

(C) Strikes should be peacehl and non-violent- i.e., the worker shouldrefrain from assaulting or abusing capitalist or their agents and avoidviolence against the non-strikers. Even damaging capitalist property isconsidered by Gandhi as violence.

(D) Workers should undertake stnkes only &er taking up alternative jobs fortheir living during the strike period.

(E) Workers should go on strike only after the capitalist failed to respond tomoral appeals and only as a last resort &er exhausting all other means ofpersuading the capitalist to concede their just de~nands".'~

Gandhiji did not favour unions akmg part in political activities for tworeasons. First, because the workers were not enlightened, and second,because political parties exploited the workers for their own ends.

Regarding sympathetic stikes, he advocated that such strikes shouldbe organized in sympathy if workers who were for a just cause afterexhausting all other means of settling disputes and were following the non-


22/86

violent path. He, however, disapproved of strikes organized by workers do~ngessential services. He conceded that "one had every right to lay down . . . , . ..condit~ons f service (but) the laying down of conditions is not an absoluteright. Even if such an absolute right would be permitted, it might not beproper to use it under certain circumstances".

He insisted that such, strikes should be resorted to with a "fair notice"being given to the authorities and &er "every other legitimate means hasbeen adopted and failed".

Thus, it would be evident that Gandhiji insisted that strikes should beundertaken only after adopting the legitimate means of settling disputes.These means in his views were;

(a) Moral appeals to the conscience of employers to concede their justdemands and.

(b) When moral appeals failed, resort to voluntary arbitration, Gandhijiwould not like the parties to declare a strike or a lockout without, firsttrying to refer the dispute to an umpire who would give a decision on thedispute which would be binding on both the parties.

Accordmg to Gandhiji, the unions should raise the moral andintellectual heights of labour and such qualities in the labour will make themmaster of the means. He always demanded equal status for capital and labour.He desired that capital and labour should be mutual trustees as well as


23/86

trustees of the consumer class. One must not look after his own interest butshould safeguard the interest of others. In this manner, interest of both theclasses will be safeguarded. He wanted to develop clear understanding andco-operation between the two and the two must help each other. No oneshould have any kind of misunderstanding or distress. They should decide thematters themselves. Labour supplement and help each other . It should be alarge family living in unity and harmony. Capitalist being trustees for thewelfare should not only look to the material welfare of the labourers but thismoral welfare also. Gandhiji never advocated the agitational role of labour.There is no place for coercion in Gandhian scheme for trusteeship. He feelsproud in him to identify himself as labourer because without labour nothingcan be done.

Gandhiji did not yield himself to Marxian concept of class struggleand he advocated class-collaboration, mutual confidence and self-sacredheartedness as the pillars of the relations between capital and labour. Ifworkers are properly organized, they have more wealth and resources throughtheir own labour than the capitalist through their money.

Gandhiji was in favour of organizing trade unions. According to himthe thoughts and methods of western thinkers would fail to solve, theproblems of our country. The structure of the trade unions inevitably leaves itsstamp on the character of its member workers. The union should make labourthe master of the means of productions. The union should enlighten the


24/86

worker, so that they can earn livelihood. The welfare, and safeguard of theworkers entirely rests or the trade unions. In a country like India education isthe maJor obstacle in the way of development of strong union, moreover, tokeep harmony, it is realized that there should be one union in the industry.Union should not wait and seek help from outside and the workers fromwithin should be invited to share the work of the unions as far as possible.

The actual strength of the unions is within itself in spite of the outsideguidance. But it has been observed that the worker in India has an ingrainedtendency to let others rule his destiny and settle his disputes.

GandhiJi suggested that the unions should expand its activities toincrease the welfare of the members. This will enhance their will power toparticipate more in the working and hnctioning of trade unions. Gandhijispelled out the duties of the trade unions as:

(a) To make arrangement for educating both men and women. This is to beregularly undertaken through night schools.

(b) Children of the labourers should be educated.

(c) There should be a hospital and creche and a matem~ty ome attached toevery centre

(d) Labour should be able to support itself during the strikes. GandhiJiadvised the workers that while forming their unions, they must select their


25/86

rcpresentat~vcscarefully. He writes: "I caution you once again, by allmeans set up organizations, establish your unions but see that you framerules and select your representatives men to whom you will entrust yourinterests with a full understanding of your responsibility. You will keep awatch over them not only about the finance and management of yourafiairs but also to know what they have actually done in your name andwhere they have singed on your behalf You will have to go into all thesethings".

The workers have the full right to strike but it should bot be exercisedindiscriminately. It should be the last weapon of the workers to solve theirproblems. Gandhiji laid down the conditions under which the strike should beresorted to.

The cause of the stnke must be just. There should be practicalunanimity among the strikers. Strikers should never depend upon publicsubscription or other charity but should occupy themselves in some useful andproductive temporary occupation. A stnke is no remedy when there is enoughother labour to replace strikers. Strikers must fix an unalterable minimumdemand and declare it before embarking upon their strike. There is no roomin a non-violent stnke for violence in the shape of intimidation.

A sbike should not be manipulated. It should be organized under nocompulsion. It should be characterized by perfect co-operation amongst thestrikers. It should be non-violent and there should be no show of force. There


26/86

should be no room for goondaisrn and looting. The strikers should take upsome work elther singly or in co-operation with each other so as to earn theirbread during the strike period. Strikers should not lose patience under allcircumstances after going on stnke. But the strikers should not intimidate,those who do not join the strike. In Gandhiji's own words, "The labourershave a right to go on strike if the arbitrators do not give their award or if(the)workers do not go to arbitrators; or if the owners do not act according tothe solution (decision) of the arbitrators".

The stnkers should stick to their demands until they are fulfilled by thefactory owners. Gandhiji laid down the following code of conduct for theworkers to follow during the period of strike. Never to resort to violence,never to molest black legs; never to depend upon alms; and to remain firm. omatter how long the strike continues and to earn bread during the strike byan y other honest labour.

8.5.1 ( h d h i a n Concept of Industrial Relations and its Influence onIndiun 1,ahour Policy

M .K . Gandhi's personality was vast; he devoted his life for thepromotion of human, dignity and welfare, particularly of the under privilegedsections of the community. He made significant contribution to labour-management relations which has influenced Indian Labour Policy since thetime the Indian National Congress (congress) took the reigns of governmentIn the states and at the centre.


27/86

Gandhi's main aim was to eliminate the conflict potential inherent inthe economlc system by making it shed, to the extent practicable,acqu~sitiveness nd the spirit of discord between employers and workers. Heworked for the golden mean of compromise not only in their mutual interestbut also for promoting the welfare of the community by making uninterruptedproduction possible.3' Gandhi's ideas of worker's right to organize forthemselves and to strike work in the last resort, his advocacy of the tripartiteprinciple for peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, his concept thatemployers should function as trustees of labour and both of them ascustodians of the interests of the community, were being experimented in thetextile industry of Ahmedabad at the time the Internatlnal Labour Conferencecame into existence in April 1919." G a n h considered industrial relations aspart of human relations and dealt with them at the normative level. He set

norms of behaviours for both employers and workers, the observance ofwhlch would ensure smooth industrial relations and increased production.

Before analyzing Gandhi's norms of industrial behaviour, his ideas onindustrialization may briefly be stated. HISstrong conviction gravitated to theresuscitation of the rural economy. He believed in the potency of the spinning

wheel not only to make the village, Self-sufficient but also to relieve thepoverty of the rural masses. In reply to a question, Gandhi said that he was notopposed to mass production provided it was done in individual homes andwith simple machine^.'^ Even so, he reckoned with the fact that by the


28/86

twenties the textile mills had come to stay despite handicaps to industrialprogress. Though opposed to mechanization, he was pragmatic to recognizethe problems emerging from factory production and propounded a self-regulated system of labour management relations to meet the extant situation.His attitude to industrialization had gradually undergone change, as he lateron felt that cottage industries and large scale industries could be harmonized"if they are planned to help villages" and that "key industries which the nationneeds, may be centralized." Thus, Gandhi reconciled himself to dualism inthe economy Industrial development, to the extent it was unavoidable,should, according to him, centre mostly round the "model consumer" apartfrom the key industries which he agreed should be "centralized".

The principles which Gandh~wanted labour to observe in its dealingswith management were truth and non-violence. He expected the workers, inthe event of differences, to take up only genuine issues with the managementfor peaceful settlement. This normative approach to industrial relations wasan empirical test by the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association (TLA) underGandhi's guidance. Gandhi wanted labour to unite and emphasized labour'sright to withhold co-operation when its interests were in jeopardy. He felt that"if labour were to understand the workmg of non-violence the powergenerated by combination would any day exceed the power of dead metal inthe hands of the cap~ta lis ts.'~


29/86

Gandhi, however, wanted labour to be organized "along Indian lincs,or if you will, my lines"." He exhorted workers to be truthful, since hebelieved that even if only one side adhered to truth the struggle for it wasbound to succeed." This anchorage of industrial relations to "truth" hadintroduced an ethical element raising the plane on which collective bargaininghad to be conducted. In this way, Gandhi applied the principles of non-violentnon-cooperation, which he adopted in the political sphere, to industrialrelations. But before resorting to the extreme course of strike action, Gandhimade it incumbent on workers and those who guided them to explore andexhaust all possibilities of a peaceful and "honourable" settlement. Gandhiobserved: "I know that strike is an lnherent right of the worlung men for thepurpose of securing justice; but it must be considered a crime immediately

capitalist accept the principle of arbitration."

According to Gandhi, the right to strike arises only when employersarc adamant not only to concede the legitimate rights of labour but also toagree to the reasonable course of arbitration of the issues at dispute. Subject tothese qualificat~ons, abour disputes that may arise would obviously be thosein respect of which employers resort to unfair and stubborn unilateral action.

Not only did Gandhi hedge, the right to strike with arbitration as a pre-condition for resolving differences and disputes, he also laid down imperativenorms of industrial discipline to be observed by workers who followed him.Workers had. thus, rights with countervailing obligations as "part-proprietors"


30/86

to collaborate w~thmanagement in production. Gandhi's advice to labourwas:

"You ought to take personal interest in the work which you may bedoing whilst you have a perfect right to demand from your employers goodtreatment, adequate wages and decent conveniences, it is expected of you thatyou will render proper honest service for the wages you get. If you will onlythink a little, you will find that by reason of your being employed as labourersin any individual concern you become part proprietors of that concemprecisely as are those who invest money in that concern." 39

As illiteracy and unenlightened approach might make workers un-responsive to such dedicated responsibility expected of them, Gandhi laid

emphasis on proper education of workers."What are your duties and what are your rights?. I t is simple to

understand that your right is to receive higher wages for your labour. And it isequally simple to know that your duty is to work to the best of your ability forthe wage you received . . . . . If we find that we are not adequately paid orhoused, how are we to receive enough wages and good accommodation? Whois to determine the standard of comfort required by the labourers? The bestway no doubt is that you labourers understand the method of enforcing yourrights and enforce them. But for that you require a little previous training-educationn4"


31/86

The education of workers has a significant place in the Gandhianconcept of industrial relations which lays considerable emphasis on the meansto be adopted for achieving modest and just ends. While duly dischargingtheir responsibilities workers were required to have a balanced approach intheir relations with employers characterized by restraint and constructivespirit of compromise which they acquire partly by instinct and partly byeducation.

Gandhi's advice for a sense of responsibility and restraint was by nomeans one-sided. He expected capitalists to hold their wealth as trustees andto make workers contented. The scheme of thls trusteeship theory was notspelt out.41The trusteeship concept was left only to the goodwill and socialconscience of the capitalists.42

Gandhi wanted that workers should have access to the working ofmills and their business transactions. This was a natural corollary to thetrusteeship concept and the idea of considering workmen as part-proprietors.One of Gandhi's arbitration awards regarding an industrial dispute inAhmedabad contained the following significant sentence: "it is vital to thewell-being of the industry that workmen should be regarded as equals withthe shareholders and that they have, therefore, every right to posses onaccurate knowledge of the transaction of the mills".43

Gandhi believed that if employers turn into trustees of their wealth andconsider workers as partners in a joint enterprise there would be no occasion


32/86

for labour disputes, and in such an ideal state labour might lack interest toorganize itself as a viable group poised for conflict.

Gandhi's trusteeship concept considered not only capitalist but alsolabourers as the custodians of public interest. This is based on the assumptionthat both employers and workers would develop an enlightened, constructiveand non-violent out look in the discharge of their productive functions andmutual obligations to promote the interests of the community. The followingobservations by Gandhi make this aspect clear:

"The realization of their (worker's) strength combined with adherenceto non-violence would enable them (workers) to co-operate with capital andturn i t into proper use. Then they will not regard it as a conflicting interest,they will not regard the mill and the machinery as belonging to the exploitingagents gnnding them down but as their own instruments of production, andwill therefore protect them as well as they would their own property Theywill not steal time and turn out less work, but will put in the most they can. Infact, capital and labour will be mutual trustees and both will be trustees ofconsumers. The trusteeship theory is not unilateral, and does not in the leastimply superiority of the trustee.""

It is evident from these observations that Gandhi's aim was to maketrade unlons shed some of their syndicalist characteristics such as violent classstruggle, cont~nuous strikes, sabotage, etc. and make workers adopt


33/86

constructive methods of collective action, settling their difference withemployers as far as possible by negotiation and arbitration.

8.6 The Ahmedabad Experiment

Gandhi did not merely propound his concept of industrial relations andleave it to his followers. As a pragmatic labour leader he put his ideas intopractice. For an appreciation of his influence on the labour movement a briefaccount of the labour dispute he sponsored and got settled by a fastidiousapplication of the principles of "Satyagarha' and arbitration may be relevant.In the first half of 1918 an industrial dispute regarding the quantum of"plague bonus" paid to textile mill workers at Ahmedabad had arisen. Theywere paid 70 to 80 percent of their wages for inducing them to stay at workeven when plague broke out. Though the plague had subsided, the war-timeinflationary prices of necessaries of life did not abate. Therefore, the bonuswas continued. But the workers had misgivings that the mill-owners werethinking of discontinuing it. They demanded that if the bonus was to bediscontinued they should be given a 50 percent increase in deamessallowance in lieu of the bonus. Gandhi was requested by a mill-owner(Ambalal Sarabhai) to intervene in the dispute. It was agreed by therepresentatives of the parties to the dispute that the issue should be settled byarbitration. The arbitration board consisted of representatives of mill-ownersand workers45 in equal numbers, with the district collector as the umpire.While Gandhi was away from Ahmedabad the workers of some mills


34/86

precipitated a strike. On hearing about the strike, Gandhi returned toAhmedabad and apologized to the mill owners for the precipitate action andoffered to dissuade workers from continuing the strike. But the mill-ownerstook the stand that since the workers struck work after the appointment of thearbitration board, the arbitration stood cancelled and that they were free todeal with the workers who were reluctant to work with 20 percent increase inwages offered by them.4"

During this period of stalemate that followed, Gandhi made ameticulous study of the financial position of the mills, thc wage levelsprevailing m Ahmedabad and Bombay, and the economic condition ofworkers, and concluded that workers should not demand more than 35percent increase. Before broaching the proposition to workers, he mooted itwith the management which neither accepted the proposal nor agreed to referit to the arbitration board. The mill-owners declared a lockout from 22February 1918 for 25 days. During its pendency, Gandh~exhorted theworkers to maintain themselves by alternative employment. The mill-ownersattempted at breaking the strike by ending the lockout on 12 March 1918 andby announcing that the mills would be open for those willing to accept the 20percent increase. With the lifting of the lockout, a strike had commenced.Gandhi, sensing that workers were giving away, commenced his historic faston 16 March 1918 which finally led to the acceptance of arbitration by the


35/86

mill-owners on 20 March 1918.47 The arbitrator gave an award for 35 percentincrease in wages

In announcing the settlement, a leaflet anal~zedts implications thus(I) "If a serious dispute arises between parties it should be settled not by resortto a strike but by arbitration", (11) 'since the settlement has come aboutthrough arbitration it is presumed that on a similar occasion in future also an

arbitrator will be appointed', (111) It should not be taken that "An arbitratorwill be appointed even in regard to trifling differences", since (IV) "it will behumiliating to both parties if a third party, has always to intervene wheneverthere is a d~fferencebetween the employers and the ~orkers".~"usemerged certain principles for the settlement of industrial disputes, namely,the need for bipartite negotiations for resolving differences, avoidance ofrefemng trivia for arbitral settlement; the condition that arbitration of adispute should precede strike action, and the application of tripartite principleas the fulcrum of industrial democracy. And the tripartite principle for theresolution of industrial disputes gained ground. Commenting on this event,Louis Fischer observed.

"The principle of arbitration is essential to Gandhiji's philosophy. Iteliminates vlolence and compulsion even in peacehl struggle. It teachespeople tolerance and conciliation. G a n h j i fasted in Ahmedabad labour strikenot for anybody or against anybody, but for a creative idea".4"


36/86

At Gandhi's suggestion, the president of the Ahmedabad mill owner'sAssociation (Ambalal Sarabhai) called a joint meeting of the managingcommittee of the association and representatives of the TLA on 18 December1919 for exploring ways of setting up a permanent machinery for thesettlement of industrial disputes. On 12 January 1920, a tentative scheme wasdrawn up providing for a board of referees with seven members from eachside who were to elect a chairman from among themselves for deciding alldisputes. This was referred to a sub-committee. Finally, it was however,proposed to create a permanent arbitration board composed of Gandlu and thechairman of the Ahmedabad mill-owner's association. On 14 April 1920 theassociation resolved that:

"lf any dispute or difference of opinion arises between the mill ownersand working people and if they are not able to settle it among themselves,such dispute shall be settled by Mahatma Gandhi and Seth Mangaladas(president of the Ahmedabad mill owner's Association). For doing so they areinvested with such powers as are ordinarily given to arbitrators on eachoccasions." "'

Gandhi did not endorse compulsory arbitration. He suggested that inthe first instance there should be negotiation and discussion between theaccredited organizations of employers and labour and if they provedinfructuous there should be conciliation. If mediation did not succeed,reference might be made to a single arbitrator or to a board of arbitrators and


37/86

their decision should be binding. If for any reason the result was inconclusivethe question should be referred to an umpire whose decision would be final.If, however, the umpire was unable to give his decision, either of the partiesmight resort to direct action, i.e., lockout by employers or strike by workers.

Suitable arrangements for the settlement of individual grievances arenecessary so that they may be mopped up to the satisfaction of the workersconcemed in early stages without allowing them to accumulate. A grievanceprocedure is often prescribed for thls purpose. Such a procedure which playsa useful role in a sound industrial relations system was prevalent in theAhmedabad textile mills at the time the royal commission on labour reported.The working of the Ahmedabad industrial relations machinery was describedby the royal commission on labour (1931) in the following words:

"All grievances are, in the first instance, discussed between theworkers themselves, and the management of the mills concemed. If anyworker has a grievance, he reports to a member of the council ofrepresentatives f ~ o m is mill. The member speaks to the head of thedepartment and the agent of the mill, if necessary. If the gnevance is notredressed a formal complaint is recorded in the labour association. Theassociation offic~al sually the secretary or the assistant secretary goes to themill, ascertains the correctness of the complaint and requests the mill officeror the agent to redress the grievance. If no settlement is arrived at during thisstage, the matter is reported by the labour association to the mill-owner's


38/86

association, The secretary of the mill-owners association speaks to the millconcemcd anti tries to settle the matter amicably. If the workers do not getredress after the matter has been discussed between the mill-owner'sassociation and the labour association, it is finally referred to the permanentarbitrations board. In case of disagreement between the arbitrators, the disputeis referred to an umpire acceptable to both and the decision is binding."

With few exceptions, the system of voluntary arbitration had ensuredfrom 1920 to 1957 that there was no serious strike but for one in 1923 forabout ten weeks5' M.A. Pate1 of the Ahrnedabad mll-owner's Associationwhlle mentioning about advantages of arbitration to the textile industrywrote: "The bonus dispute from 1920-1923, the wage disputes of 1930 and35 and such others were amicably settled. It (arbitration) prevented loss ofmillions of man-days, loss of wages to workers, and loss of profits to theindustry. With this spirit of co-operation, it was also possible to accept theprinciple of rationalization in 1935, as well as the introduction ofstandardization of wages in 1938 which, in some cases, meant a decrease inwages."

Gandhi held the TLA as model saying that if he had his way he wouldpattern all the labour organization in the country after it. He continued, till hisdeath in 1948, to be a member of the advisory committee of the TLA.

It cannot be said that in Ahmedabad the relations between employersand labour were always idyllic. There were instances of anti-unionism and


39/86

non-compliance with awards on the part of mill-owners. The union initiallyreacted by striking work instead of seeking redress through established

54procedure. There were hying times which put considerable strain on thearbitration machinery The early period (from 1920 to 1923) was riddled witha series of strikes. A prolonged strike took place on the wage cut of 20percent effected by the mill-owners association owing to the worsening tradesituation. Gandhi was in prison at the time. The strike lasted from 1 April to 4June, 1923. It affected 56 mills and 43,113 workers and resulted in a loss of2,370,933 men-days. The strike weakened the union which finally agreed to a

815 -percent. wage Despite occasional strikes, however, the Ahmedabad5experiment in labour-management relations has, by and large, been a shining

example of smooth industrial relations. For this, the leadership and guidanceof Gandhi and the dedicated work of a band of trade unionists who have beenassociated for a number of years with the TLA are largely responsible. In astudy of the Ahrnedabad experiment, Gandhi's role has been succinctlysummed up as follows.

From one point of view the most important contribution of MahatmaGandhi in Ahmedabad was to supply first principles. He provided the workersand Ahmedabad Textile labour association with principles for trade unionaction and he offered the mill-owners, the principles of respect for theworker's right to organize, of joint &scussion with labour and of voluntaryarbitration.


40/86

8.7 Gandhian Perspective on Capital- Labour Relationship

The Gandhian ideology of industrial relations advocates a system ofconciliation and arbitration in resolving industrial disputes. In this ideology,capital and labour are not regarded as antagonistic but as interdependent, andthis interdependence is justified through the concepts of morality and ethics. Itis no wonder that it had been regarded as a reactionary ideology, which

restricts the development of class forces.A close examination of the Gandhian ideology indicates that the above

is too simple an analysis. Though Gandhi eventually wanted capital andlabour to evolve an interdependent relationship, he had simultaneouslyidentified some crucial areas of conflict between capital and labour. These

were related to the necessities governing the basic conditions concerning theexistence of workers. In the Gandhan system, these needs were consideredworkers rights and a struggle for these rights was given legitimacy. However,Gandhian ideology was not able to reconcile the two positions-that ofadvocating interdependence and mutuality between capital and labour, andthat of emphasizing the right of workers to struggle to obtain their basicneeds.

This inherent inconsistency in the ideology makes a possible formationof two alternative movements; one, a working class movement whicharticulates radical demands and advocates continues struggle against capital,and two, a trade union movement whose basic objective is to evolve an


41/86

understanding with capital and obtain those demands that capital is willing togive. A semblance of the first alternative occurred in Ahrnedabad during theperiod, 1920-23, after which took place the growth of the second alternative.The first part of this section will spell out the basic contours of h sphilosophy, while the second will highlight some of these inco ns is te nc ie ~. ~~

Until the dispute of 1918, Gandhi had not spelt out his thoughts on thecapital labour relationship in industries. As late as in December 1917, he hadevaluated the problem of capital-labour conflict as that of a familial conflictbetween the brother and sister Amhernabad Ansaya ~a rabhas . ' ~ owever,once he had identified himself with the issues raised by the workers, hedevoted his full mind to explicating the issue. The pamphlets he wrote and thespeeches he made to the workers during and after the dispute of 1918,indicate the extent to which he developed his ideas.

The core of the Gandhian ideology of Industrial relations lies in hisconceptions of morality and ethics built on such concepts as justice, honour,dignity and self-respect. These provide normative guidelines for interactionbetween the two groups.

Gandh~, ery early, recognized that both capital and labour had theirrespective "strengths"; the mill owners had money, the workers their handsand feet. While other social philosophers had highlighted the unequal natureof these "strengths, Gandh~emphasized a mutuality between capital andlabour. For him, the wealth of the capitalist was useless without the workers,


42/86

for there would be no hands to make the mills work. Similarly, without themill owners the workers would be useless; there would be no mills for themto work in."

Like many philosophers who made distinctions between the East andthe West, Gandhi also made an effort to highlight certain spiritual and inwardlooking dimensions of the East as against the materialistic and outwardlooking dimensions of the west. He justified his concept of mutuality incapital-labour relationship by emphasizing the "eastern" notion of justice asagainst the western notion of justice. To Gandhi, what was distinctive of theEast was the sense of justice based on notions of fellow feeling, compassionand mercy. These notions determined relationships between groups in society.In traditional society, this sense of justice was reflected in the master-servantrelationship. Servants who had been associated with the masters' family forgenerations were always regarded as part of the family. As a result, conflictsbetween master and servant were settled mutually.6n

Gandh~ xtended this argument to fit the modern industrial sector inthe East. If, what was distinctive of the East was its notion ofjustice, then thissense of justice should become the guiding norm in the industrial sector of theEast. Capital and labour in the east had to understand this notion of justiceand govern themselves according to the rules of mutuality. They should notimitate the west whose conception of justice was different- formal,


43/86

unemotional, and individualistic, so that continuous conflicts between capitaland labour evolved and were encouraged to develop.6'

On what basis should this mutuality lknction? Here, Gandhi developeda notion of rights and obligations of the two groups towards each other. Healso specified the distinct spaces in which both groups could operate. Theright of the worker was to demand and obtain for himself a decent humanstandard of living by which his economic, social and cultural needs would berealized. These were adequate food and clothing for a family, housing, andeducational facilities, and enough wages for a satisfactory living. These rightsof the workers become in turn the obligations of the employer would be toexpect the workers to be considerate in their demands and relate these to thehealth of the industry. This inturn, ecame the obligation of the workers." Byattachng these rights and obligations to the roles of both the mill owners andthe workers, Gandhi was able to reinforce the theme of "mutuality" he hadspelled out earlier.

But what do the workers do when their rights are not given to them?Here Gandhi appended to the other rights also the right to strike. This right,was in fact, a weapon in the hands of the workers through which they couldrealize their other rights. However, he was cautious about its applicability. Itwas a potentially dangerous weapon that had to be used with discretion.Therefore, the decision to allow the workers to go on strike was vested in thehands of the advisers extended to the industry who, because they understood


44/86

and supported the principles of huth, justice and non-violence, would be ableto take a f&r decision.'"

For Gandhi, it was important that the second course- that of strugglethrough strikes- should not be undertaken lightly while it meant a triumph ofjustice, it also meant suffering; whle it meant the realization of truth, it alsomeant v~olcncc.Therefore, he imposed a critical function on the role of the

advisers who, while acting in the interests of the workers, while dissuadingthem from striking would also pressurize the mill owners into accepting thedemands of the workers. It was then natural for Gandhi to argue that theseadvisers should help the workers kom a union to represent their demands (inthe context ot' their rights) to the mill owners and thus to curtail theirimpulsive action of resorting to strike by channelling these actions throughnon-violent means- the advisers, in the Gandhian ideology adopted the role ofmediators whose goal was to defuse the conflicts between capital andlabour '"

Having provided the justification for the interdependence of capital-labour relationship, Gandhi stipulated the means through which the disputesbetween capital and labour would be settled. Arbitration was the answer. Butthe Gandhian arbitration board would not function as a normal arbitrationboard whose decision would be binding on the parties. Instead, the 'panch',as he called it was to be a board in which the representation of the employeesand employers would have consultations and would try to come to a decision.


45/86

If these consultations failed to generate an agreement, then an empire wouldbe nominated whose decisions would be binding on both the parties.65 Inthis manner, Gandhi evolved a system of arbitration on conciliation to guidethe conflicts in the relationships.

Gandhi's notion of need was very ambiguous. He defmed the worker'sneeds generally including among these economic, social, cultural (including

health and education) and religious needs. Gandhi himself did not definethese needs clearly. They got defined by the workers with the help of theadvisers, when they started formulating their demands. Gandhi, early in 1918,had defined, economic need by postulating a correlation between priceincrease and wages.66 Housing was defmed as part of the economic need.Educational need was defined as creation of schools for education of worker'schildren and adult education classes for the workers.

I'he definitions of economic need raised problems, especially asGandhi had associated it with the health of the industry. Gandhi had definedthis notion very broadly, distinguishing only between profits and losses.Nevertheless, as the movement progressed, the concept of economic need-i.e., of higher wages- changed to a demand for linking wages to profits and/or profit distribution, a demand which was perceived as a threat by the millowners and which, ultimately, led to the stnke of 1923

To emphasize interdependence between the contending classes,Gandhian ideology converted rights of the workers into obligations of the mill


46/86

owners. 'This made the workers direct all their demands to the mill owners.This led to an increase in confrontations between the mill owners andworkers. Gandhi had insisted that strikes should be used to obtain betterconditions of living and for obtaining, the other rights which were part of thebasic needs of the workers.67 As a result, in the early years of the growth ofthe movement, the workers continued to use this strategy to press moredemands.

But should the movement always use the strategy of confrontation todemand improvements in working and living conditions, when its ultimateaim is to establish a harmonious relationship with capital? Would not thestrategy, of confrontation with capital, destroy the evolving harmoniousrelationship between capital and labour and invite a backlash from capital?Gandhi was not conscious of these problems. He left the decision to theadvisors whose role thus became critical. They became a decisive force inguiding the movement whether through a confrontation strategy or through aconciliatory strategy. In the period between 1920-23, it was a strategy ofconfrontation that was adopted by the movement.

This strategy had already been adopted earlier by Gandhi in thedispute of 1918 The momentum of building the movement in the context ofthe relative liberal attitude of the mill owners in granting wage demands,because of the need to continuous uninterrupted production and the absenceof trade union leaders to give a direction to the movement had made possible


47/86

the growth of a working class movement which had adopted a strategy ofconfrontation with capital.

On the other hand, the general strike of 1923 and the collapse of themilitancy of the movement led to the growth of a conciliatory strategy.

8.8 Gandhian Ideology in Action

On the basis of the teaching, e t i n g s and experiments of Gandhi ofwhich a reasonable though feeble account is attempted in the precedingpages, the researcher has made an empirical study of the relevance of thebasics of Gandhian principles and the scope of their applications in thepresent day trade union movement which can prove vital to the sustenanceand growth of this country's industry. The ills and ailments within the tradeunion area contributing to the adverse industrial climate in the country aresystematically analysed by eliciting the views of a cross section of theworkers, trade union leaders and managerial personnel. Though no concreteor definite treatments for the problems may be forthcoming in many cases ithas been found possible to study the symptoms in most cases. I t is not over

optimism to say that further systematic studies will lead to concrete, definiteand fruithl results. To many a problems Gandhian solutions have emerged asthe only solutions and their relevance even more understood today.

The analysis of the studies is given below. During the early stages ofgrowth of trade unions nurtured by Gandhi external advisers played a role


48/86

in educating the ignorant workers and guiding them in whatever theyneeded. External advisors as contemplated by Gandhiji are no more inexistence now Responses to the statements are given in the tables 8.1 and

Table 8.1Opinion of the Workers on External Advisers as Contemplated by

Gandhiji

41.3% 38.0% 14%INTUC 1 3 1 43, 8Others

40.4% 41.2% 10.8%Source: Primary data

A large majority of workers(81.696) either strongly agreed or agreed

that external advisers as contemplated by Gandhi are non- existent now.There is not much variation in the responses of INTUC, ClTU and otherunions workers though agreement is maximum among other union workers.

This observation by large majority of workers is probably anexpression that something which they want is missing. A force to fosterfraternity among workers and a near friend, philosopher or guide to help them


49/86

in times of need, to give a piece of advice when they are in trouble, to consolethem in times of difficulty: this may be what every average worker wouldhappily look forward to. This may be a group of dedicated trained people,different from the trade union leaders leading the trade union organizations.They will render a human touch to the day to day genuine problems of theworkers. This is probably the indirect meaning of workers response.

Table 8.2Opinion of the Trade Union Leaders on External Advisers as

Coatemplated by Gandhiji

No PercentageI l

AgreeI I I

Source: Primary data

34

5

50% of the leaders agreed that the kind of external advisers ascontemplated by Gandhiji are no more in existence while 26% strongly agreed toit . 4% did not give any opinion and 14% disagreed. 6% strongly disagreed.

While majority agreed that outside advisers are non-existent and only aminority disagreed. It is not clear whether the majority is failing to see th e

1026%

SOYO26

No oplnionDisagreeStrongly DisagreeTotal

Strongly Agree414

6

100

4%

14%

6%

100


50/86

external advisel-s whom the m inority is capable of seeing. The relevance of the

outside advisers is neither debated no r disputed in this con text.Workers as well as leaders joined hands in agreeing that external

advisers as contem plated by Gandhiji have almost becom e extinct. We can onlyguess what the course of trade union history would have been if the externaladvisers contemplated were allowed to hn ctio n and continued to existPossibly many good developm ents would have take n place in the trade unionscene if Gandhiji's dream s in these lines we re concretizedCandhian idea offinding out alternative work during strike period

Table 8.3Opinion of the Workers about Gandhixn idea of Finding out

Th e reason given by the highest percentage of w orkers of all union for

not taking up alternative job during strike period as advised by Gand hi is that

Alternative Work during Strike PeriodTradeUnion

ClTU

INTUC

Others

Total

Source: Primary Data

Fightingspirit willbc lost

56

45.9%39

43.8%23

59.0%118

47.2%

Opportunityto raise fundswould be lost

1 310 .7%

1415.7%

25.1%

291 1.6%

Otherreasons

-2

2.2%--2

0.8%

Total

12248.6

8935.6%39

15.6%25 0

100%

Allernativejobs are notavailable

4940 .2%

3 134.8%

1 230.8%

9236.8%

Workers maynot return tothe originalemployment4

3 .2%3

3 . 4 %2

5.1%9

3.6%


51/86

fighting spirit of the workers would be lost. This may be true to some extentas only if the workers concentrate on the agitation and involve in themdirectly good results would come. It may be noted that loss of fighting spirit isgiven as the reason by about 61% of the members of other unions.That meansthe real fighting spirit is with thamGandhi had in mind the all round growthof the individual worker including proper upbringing of the family , in mindwhen he advised workers taking up alternative job. The second reason givenby workers is non-availability of jobs which is given by as high as 40.3%CITU workers. They seem to be well aware of the unemployment problemwhich probably had not reached the present dimensions during Gandhiji'stime. Had this not been a living problem many workers would have taken upalternative jobs and then some might not return also.

L.oss of fund raising opportunity is not given us a major cause for notencouragmg taking up alternative employment. But it may be noted that it ishighest among INTUC workers and next comes CITU with other unionscontibuting only as low as 2% share .


52/86

Table 8.4Opinion of the Tra de union Leaders about Gandhian idea of Finding

oltt Alternative Work during Strike Period

Gandhian idea of finding out alternative work during strike period is notappealing to the present day leaders.

N = 00Multiple Responses

St. 1 Responses 1 No I Percentage (

E I Other reasons 6 1 % I

NoAB

C

D

Source: Primary dataGandhiji suggested that workers should find out alternative jobs but the

present day labour leaders are not taking this seriously. The reasons for this weresought from the union leaders. According to a bigger share of 72% unionleaders, non availability of alternate jobs was the main reason why workers didnot take up such jobs. According to 64% of them fighting spirit of the workerswill be lost if they take upon alternative job. Only 2% of the leaders stated thatthey did not take it seriously because it will not be possible to collect hnds fromthem in that case. A minority of 34% leaders gave the reason that the workers

Fighting spirit of the workers will be lostOpportunity to raise h d s for supportingthe striking workersAlternat~ve mployment are not availableWorkers may not return to original work

642

7234

64%2%

72%34%


53/86

niay not rcturn to their original work and that is why they did not encouragetheir taking up new job. A small minority of 4% gave other reasons.

It is clear that no union leader is against the above Gandhian idea but theconditions prevailing in this country now are not conducive to taking up newjobs. For example non-availability of alternative jobs or workers not returning totheir original job. These are very serious situations the present dimensions ofwhich possibly Gandhiji did not foresee.

While majority of workers gave loss of fighting spirit as the reasonfor finding out alternative work as not appealing while non-availability ofalternative job is given as the reason by majority of leaders. Employmentopportunities as visualized by Gandhiji during his times and the presentavailability of employment opportunities have different and divergingdimensions today. Hence evaluation of the responses pose a differentproblem

Another statement regarding Gandhian socialism was put before theworkers, leaders as well as managers. "Gandhiji aimed to convert thecapitalist order of society into an egalitarian one in which no property wouldbe held by any one except on behalf of the people and for the people." Theresponses are analysed below.


54/86

Table 8.5Opinion of the Workers about Gandhian Socialism


Strongly I Total I

Collective ownership of property for common benefit is nowuniversally accepted. Communists accepted it, irrespective of the modeadopted for implementing the principle. Gandhiji advocated it through truthand nonviolence. For this he advocated the philosophy of Aparigraha. ie. non-possession where individuals are encouraged to renounce worldly

possessions. 7'hls would facilitate equitable distribution of wealth on theprinciple of 'Love Thy Neighbour'.

The workers response to the question of collective ownership ofproperty and Gandhian socialism is found to be overwhelming. 78.7% CITUworkers affiliated to Communist party agreed to it as their own philosophy ofsocialism when 79.7% workers belonging to INTUC found socialism in


55/86

another cup as Gandhian socialism, a voluntary renouncement of privateownership of property, as agreeable. The largest percentage ofagreement(87 1%) came from workers of other unions affiliated to otherdifferent political parties or non-affiliated. All these may be the result of basichuman instinct to love and share, rather than to hate or separate. Man as asocial animal has no existence in isolation. Workers may be graduallyrealising and accepting it. It is probably this type of Gandhian socialism onlythat can equate the workers to managers(capita1) and leaders. This should inturn lead to universal brotherhood.

I t may be noted that a sizable percentage(] 5.2%) of workers have notexpressed the~r pinion on this vital question. During the present age ofglobalisation, privatisation and liberalisation when countries of the world areon cross-roads, a principle parallel to lake faire doctrine, it is only natural thatsome are hes~tant o express in favour of socialism of any kind. Thoseopposing socialism are however a minute minority

Table 8.6Trade Union Leaders Opinion ab out Gandhian Socialism

OpinionAgreedStrongly agreeNo opinionDisagreeStrongly disagree


No62222

Total

Percentage62%22%2%

122

12%2%

100 100%


56/86

62% leaders agreed to Gandhiji's idea while 22% strongly agreed. 2%leaders did not want to give their opinion. 12% disagreed and 2% stronglydisagreed.

This is a question on which trade union leaders are sharply divided.Though majority of union leaders agree to the Gandhian idea of collectiveownership of property ,a good section of the leaders, probably with capitalisticaftiliation, are strongly against the idea. It is probably fear of loss of popularitythat makes a big majority of leaders agree to Gandhian socialism.

Table 8.7Opinion o f the M anagers ab out the Ga ndh ian Socialism

A large majority of w orkers and their leaders wholeheartedly agreedand aflirme d the Gandhian vision of socialistic pattern of society. Majorityof managers also agreed to this, but their percentage is lower. Gan dhi'sbasic tenet of non-possession, aparigraha, is enshrined in the abov e vision.It is only natural that a cross section of the gro up predominantly managersare not in favour of comm on ownership of all properties as some of them are

OpinionsA g e eStrongly ag reeDisagreeNo opinionTotalSource: Primary data

N u m b e r15111014

50

Percentage30222028100


57/86

possessed with their possessions. But for a stable social order somesacrifices are mevitable.

"According to Gandhiji truth and non-violence must be the touchstones of the means to be adopted, while the socialists and the communistsemphasised the results and would use force, if necessary to achieve them." Tothis statement the opinions are table below.

Table 8.8Workers opinion about Gandhiji's idea of using truth and non-violence

as the means to be adopted

Those who strongly agree to the idea of using truth and non-violenceas the means to be adopted to achieve goals is maximum. This means thatthose who know and feel it do so strongly. Majority of workers are agreeing to

adoption of truth and non-violence. It can be understood that the ideology of

TradeUnionClTU

INTUC

Others

StronglyAgree54

44 3%32

3 6 0 %10

25 6%Total

3 8 4 %96

Agree

2520 5%

151 6 9 %

82 0 5 %

Source Pnmary data

48

1 9 2 %

N oopinion

2318 8%

890%

37 7 %

34

136%

Disagree

1814 8%

2427 0%

1 1

28 2%53

21 2%

Stronglydisagree2

1 6%10

112%7

179%

Total

12248 8%

893 5 6 %

391 5 6 %

19

7 6%

250

100%


58/86

the party to which a union is affiliated is not always influencing the means tobe adopted by the trade union. That is why CITU, which is affiliated tocommunist party, emphasizing the result and using force if necessary toachieve their goals is leading in adopting truth and non-violence. This isprobably the result of their experience that violence and force has never ledto an effective and lasting solution to any industrial problem. It is truth alonethat prevails. It is peaceful, non-violence, negotiations and collectivebargaining that has brought glory to the trade unions and positive gains forworkers. Though militancy may bring some positive gains, like workersrallying round the leaders, lasting peaceful solutions emerge only fromnegotiated settlements, which usually satisfy both workers and themanagement. Both parties also realise their roles in arriving at a peacefulsolution to the problems.

However, those disagreeing and strongly disagreeing to adopting truthand non-violence, as the means also are a sizeable number 28.8%. This mightbe because, experience taught them that no fruitful purpose will be served bytruth and non-violence. It might be the arrogance and non flexible attitude ofthe management towards some of the workers that led to such wnclusions.

Peaceful methods have more social acceptability and legal sanctions.


59/86

Table 8.9Opinion of the Trad e Union Leaders about Gandhiji's idea of using

Truth and Non-violence as the Mea ns to be adopted

Opinion I NO 1 PercentageAgree I 24 1 24 %Strongly agree l 10

Strongly disagree 1 10 1 10%No opinionDisagree

I ISource: Primary data

24% agreed to th e comm unist and socialist principle that end justified th emeans while 10% of them strongly agreed to it, 8% leaders did not give theiropinion. 48% disagreed while 10% strongly disagreed to the socialist andcommunist principle to give support to Gandhian principle based on truth andnon-violence

The above result shows that political undercurrents and ideologies arestrongly influencing the trade union leadership. Both factions are expressing forand against principles dearer t o them.

848

8%48%


60/86

Table 8.10Opinion of the Managers about Gandhiji's Idea of using Truth and

Non-violence as the Means to be Adopted1 Opinions I Number 1 Percentage IAgreeStrongly agreeDisagree


No opinionTotal

It can be observed that the mass of the working class want to expresstheir solidarity with Gandhi's adherence to truth and non-violence. At nopoint Gandhi is willing to abandon these basics which are dear to him.Majority of the managers are apparently agreeing to this. While coming toleaders they seem to be more practical and aware that achievement ofresults i.e. realization of goals, is what makes their role a success. For themtheir end is most important and any dispute about means cannot stand intheir way. But experience has shown and will show that any success

201210

achieved through un-Gandhian means will be short lived."Gandhiji warned labour to reject the principle that "Might is right"

and upholds the dictum that "Truth alone conquest, that truth knows no

4024

208

50

16100


61/86

mishap, that the strong and the weak allke have a right to secure justice". Tothis statement the opinions are tabled below.

Table 8.11Opinion of the Workers regarding Gandhian View of Justice

The sense of justice inculcated in the minds of the working cla

gandhian approach to trade unionism

Documents