December 6th, 2009
Dabur Nepal was forced closed by Maoists on May 20, 2006. The Maoist intention and demands behind their action was not made clear. The management was reported in the media as stating that they were forced to close the factory since they were unable to give the Maoist a ‘donation of 20 million’ rupee. The incident then took a dramatic turn with Maoists coming upfront that the factory was closed not by “us” but by a “trade union”.
On the other hand, the Maoist-affiliated All Nepal Federation of Trade Unions (ANFTU) which was germinated as the by-product of CPN (Maoists)’s ‘People’s War’ and had earned an image of “fax union” in the business community (for threatening through faxes to close down enterprises and business) for four years until it surfaced after the success of April Uprising, 2006, added that the particular case was not concerned with ‘donation’. It was rather a spontaneous “labour action” by the workers oppressed over years. The following week saw a number of claims and counterclaims of CPN (Maoist), their trade union and the business community marking a peculiar type of ‘love- hate relationship’ entrenched in them. And, finally, the issue got settled with demands for tender-based work, elevating the status of temporary and casual workers to permanent positions and pay hike.
The Maoists tactfully diverted this ‘action’ of muscle flexing ‘fusing’ it into popular labour demands such as ‘pay hike’ and elevation of temporary labourers into ‘permanent’ positions. This was the first phase of Maoist landing as trade unions following the establishment of Loktantra, a phase characterised by Maoists’ intrusion into factories and collect extortion in the name of ‘maintenance of PLA’ and advocating for a ‘two-state’ theory as per which the implied meaning suggested that they needed money to maintain their ‘state’. They adopted the same method to close down factories whether at the Pathlaiya-Simara corridor or in Pokhara or Biratnagar. This anarchy did not support them for long; the open environment was not that supportive to their intentions.
With the start of July, the outer cover of their activities changed, but not the strategy of “expanding organisation under the influence of fear”. They continued armed attacks on union activists in Bara-Parsa, Pokhara, Butwal and Biratnagar. Maoist activities continued behind the propaganda of “basic pay of 5 thousand, 7 thousand and 10 thousand”, “permanent appointment of all” and so on. A slogan of ‘revolutionary polarisation’ was uttered to, first, enter the workplace and, then, trap other union members into the libellous fishing net of “saleable elements”. Unions with an established history and recognition in the trade union movement were attacked both psychologically and physically.
They declared a new “war” on trade unions in the mainstream with the following libel published in their mouthpiece: “A decisive struggle should be waged against those who claim themselves as genuine and amass dollars from foreign NGOs and INGOs in the name of the workers … who collaborate with capitalists against the interest of the workers.” Adopting the colonial policy of “divide and rule”, they decided to “make GEFONT a target of attack, lure NTUC into nothing and threaten DECONT”. The meeting of the Especial Central Command of the ANFTU held on Sept. 11, 2006 adopted the following and circulated it to all its members: “…It has been decided that within 1 month, 100,000 memberships will be distributed. …The strategic goal and objective is to ‘wipe out’ GEFONT within 4 months.”
In meetings, senior leaders often complained: “You call us terrorists” and “You claim yourself as recognised and dominate us.” Their tone appeared to suggest that they expected to be recognised and involved in common forums and initiatives. But in practice, they followed the Especial Command decision of ‘wiping out’ GEFONT. On October 16, 006, senior leaders of GEFONT were attacked in front of the Central Office of Nepal Airlines Corporation. GEFONT Chairperson of Koshi Zone was attached around the same time. On Oct 22, GEFONT leaders at Hotel Malla were manhandled. On December 4, one of the founding leaders of GEFONT was maltreated in Hotel de’ la Annapurna. Abduction, forceful control of union offices and their smash, organising of events parallel to those of GEFONT’s, intrusion into agreements between authentic unions (CBA agent) and management, and introduction of “another set of demands” and “another form of strike” for the purpose of “entering into an another agreement” with management irrespective of its quality. To silence and control the existing unions in enterprises, “new recruits and former militias” in ‘barracks’ were mobilised in the name of WT as per the policy of “when there is a need, where there is a need”. The responsibility of those mobilised was to create mayhem. GEFONT colleagues faced such attacks and atrocities that occurred in their hundreds.
Such incidences occurred on a massive scale, but the CPN (Maoist) tried to downplay them as “isolated events” pointing only to one or two that drew widespread criticisms. Chairman Prachanda went elated while addressing the crowed gathered, using all means available, for the inauguration of ANFTU’s Congress, “Like Marx who had underestimated the Paris Commune … I underestimated [ANFTU’s claim of voluntary huge presence of workers] while talking to Comrade Laldhwoj….” In the eyes of media, this was but “a power struggle between GEFONT and Maoists”. Maybe, some unionists also saw it as a “tug-of-war for existence between two leftist forces”!
With the emergence of the Young Communist League (YCL), the scenario took a new turn. Now, the Maoists had a reserve army ‘to discipline’ the workers who would deny following Maoist orders in factories and communities. With the landing of this megalomaniac bunch, the most unruly of all other CPN (Maoist) outfits, it happened what many unionists had not even imagined that the fire in the jungle would also engulf them. On Feb 24, 2007, trade union leaders and activists from Carpet industry affiliated with all 3 Confederations were attacked. Some colleagues with NTUC were badly beaten. Trade union activists of 9 trade unions, who were preparing to celebrate the May Day 07, were manhandled right in front of the media. The height of megalomania was exposed when workers in Casinos of Kathmandu were gravely beaten with backup from YCL. Fourteen union leaders of Casino Royal stood to defy this unruly act. And, for their defiance, they were handed in a notice of termination collaborating with the owner of the Casino. The press statement issued by the ANFTU affiliate in hotel sector termed those terminated as “Kundale-Mandale-lofar-awara-gunda (unruly, uncivilised, thugs and stupid)” and claimed that they were terminated by the Casino owner tired of themselves. But this hyper claim did not last even 72 hours. This time the case was not limited only to certain party and trade unions but became a matter of concern of labour minister, home minister and prime minister.
To audit the Maoist ‘investment’ over the year in the labour sector shows that it not only became negative but is fast heading towards bankruptcy.
Even in terms of ideology, theory and political economy, this organisation is at odds and in confusion. First, Maoists seem confused about the nature of trade union organisation itself. Failing to unpack the confusion, especially to differentiate between a trade union organisation and a political party, and trade unionism and politics, they hold that mass organisations, like trade unions, should not be different from a political party both in substance and form. If “membership” is “only for party members” and “committee only for party committee”, why then a separate organisation is necessary! They seem to be unaware of the pattern of relationship between political party and trade union, and politics and trade unionism developed by well-known trade union centres in the world, such as the COSATU of South Africa & CUT of Brazil, KCTU of South Korea and so on. They have a straightforward mathematics: all the supporters of Maoists are revolutionary, the rest, either ‘class collaborationist’, capitalist or “trade unionist” at the least! This leads any observer to conclude that Maoists are not updated on the changes that have occurred in the world of the work but are shackled by traditional values derived from the classical Marxist literature.
With the rippling wave of globalisation, the site of production has become scattered throughout the world. Unlike in “those” days, today’s capitalist production system has left to tend to its fixed reserve army that would “dig its own grave”. It has made the world its factory. Now, an ‘unseen’ owner, residing in a corner of the globe, decides within a minute the fate of all workers toiling through out the world. Whether highly skilled workers with a PhD or unskilled ones, the payment for their labour has started to be determined on the basis of a downward bidding (as less pay as possible). The workers today have been forced to stand at the crossroads, like the passers-by losing sight of their direction to follow, to auction their labour. Having no security of work, they are compelled to hunt for next piece of work once the one in hand will be finished. In “those” days, some ‘lumpen proletariats’ in the mass of workers were the obstacles to revolution, today the ‘process of lumpenisation’ accompanying the informalisation of the entire workforce has been a challenge to the trade union movement. In the contemporary world of the work, a lot many things are decided not with the collective strength of the workers in an enterprise but with the “forces of market”. A Nepali case in point is the case filed (by a consumer rights group) at the Supreme Court against “10 percent service charges in hotel and restaurant business” which was “bilaterally decided” and “has no relationship of any kind with the rights of the customers”.
In today’s labour relationship, “production processes” have become “primary” and “physical status of enterprises, secondary”. In terms of the process of production, the world of work has been divided as “organised and unorganised, formal and informal, national and trans-national”, and labour as ‘regular’ (permanent or temporary) and ‘irregular’ (contract-based, daily-waged, seasonal, part-time, home-based outsourcing, etc). With this division, the universal principle of workers’ collectivism that “An injury to one is an injury to all” has been shattered since the workers have to fight each other for their daily survival. In such a scenario, the slogan of “those” days that ‘nothing to loose but chain, a world to win’, and the present-day Maoist hullabaloo of the salary of “5 thousand – 7 thousand – 10 thousand” fall far short of organising the entire workforce for the grand movement necessary for social transformation. Will inciting the workers with these slogans not amount to “arthabaadi (economism-nist)” as charged to others?
Maoist comrades are also confused as to how to change their individualist and consumerist thinking, their inferiority complex and the mentality of hatred towards the oppressed. They are also confused as to what kind of labour relationship should be advocated for. Overall, there are 4 “principles” defining labour relationship. First, the theory of class emancipation, which, according to “classical Marxist” viewpoint, compares the owner of the ‘means of production’ with ‘tiger’ and workers with ‘goat’, and stresses that without the negation of the former the latter’s emancipation is not possible. Second, the theory of the liberation of the oppressed, the proponent of which – Paulo Freire – holds that unless the oppressed are completely rid of the psychological effect of the oppressor’s action, liberation of the oppressed is not possible. For this to happen, the oppressor should listen to and negotiate with the oppressed. Third, the theory of Co-existence, in which, “those who invest in capital and labour cooperate with each other” as in the system of ‘codetermination’ in Germany and other forms of labour relations under the welfare state system prevalent in some Western European countries. And, fourth, the theory of submission, in which, the submissive leaders provoke the innocent masses for ambitious ‘achievement’ then the ‘leaders’ betray members aligning with employers for their personal gains. Surprisingly, to observe the most of activities under the banner of All Nepal Federation Trade Unions, it appears that the ANFTU has entered enterprises with the aid of the first theory – one of ‘tiger and goat’ – and left the enterprises as per the fourth, with submission for personal gains.
Finally, let’s spare a few words for class struggle. While Maoists are labelling others as ‘class collaborationist’, they do not appear sure of their version of “class struggle”. To hold that destructive hullabaloo is not ‘class struggle’ (unfortunately, many pundits in communist schooling hold it to be), the decade-long Maoist ‘People’s War’ has raised question against the validity of ‘class struggle’ itself. As a Nepali intellectual holds, a debate as to whether “class struggle” or “mass movement” has already begun in Nepal. The present eight-party government, in which the CPN (Maoist) compares itself with Nepali Congress as the “player in the final match”, indicates that the Nepali society of new Nepal would be based on the notion of ‘ethnicity, regionalism and gender justice’ and not on ‘classes. To base the project of social transformation on the end of economic exploitation should obviously take into account these three pillars of social oppression (namely gender, ethnicity and regionalism). If that is the case, what are the views of Maoists and their nasty organisation, ANFTU, which is claiming to “achieve successes making use of the new form of revolution” while being trapped sometimes in the debate of “identity versus ideology”, in this particular issue of ‘class struggle’ and ‘class contradiction’? And, how are their activities after joining the political mainstream linked to these philosophical issues?