Vol. 17, Part III · pages 211–215

182 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES There is no question that you must organize if you want to remove your grievances. The next question is what purpose is your orga nization to serve. That you must organize for trade purposes goes without saying. The question is should you form a separate union of your own or should you join any of the existing unions. This is a question which you must seriously consider before you decide upon your line of action. Trade unionism in India is in a sorry state. The chief aim of trade unions is completely lost sight of. The chief aim of trade unionism is to protect the standard of living of the working class from being reduced. In Europe there is a noticeable tendency on the part of a normal man to cling to his established standard of comfort to the mode of life to which by birth and training he is accustomed. He will resist with firm determination any attempt to reduce it. It is notorious that this determination is not to be found in the Indian worker. He is anxious only to exist. He has no desire to live. And as Mill pointed out “where there is not in the people a resolute resistence to this deterioration - a determination to preserve an established standard of comfort - the condition of the poorest class sinks, even in a progressive state, to the lowest point which they will consent to endure.” If there is any country where trade unionism was an absolute necessity in my opnion it was India. But as I said today trade unionism in India is a stagnant and stinking pool. It is entirely due to the fact that the leadership of trade unionism is either timid, selfish or misguided. There are some labour leaders who are only arm-chair philosophers or politicians who have limited their task to issuing statements in the papers. Organizing the workers, educating the workers and helping them to agitate does not form part of their duty. They are only anxious to represent the workers and speak on their behalf but avoid having any contact with them. A second category of labour leaders is of those who are engaged in forming unions for the sole purpose of finding a place for themselves as Secretaries, Presidents or Chairmen. To maintain themselves in their places they try to keep their unions as separate and rival entities. One notices the astounding and shameful phenomenon that the warfare between different unions is far more deadly than what exists - if any at all - between workers and owners-and all this for what- for no other purpose than that of securing

183TRADE UNIONS............INTERESTS mastery over unions for certain individuals whose ambition is to find a leader’s place for themselves. The third class of labour leaders is composed principally of the communists. They may be well meaning but I have no hesitation in saying that they are a misguided body of men and I go further and say that nobody has brought a greater ruination on the workers than these men. If to-day the back of workers is completely broken, if to-day the masters have the upper hand, if to-day unionism is an anathema it is entirely due to the misuse of the powers which the communists had at one time secured over the trade unions. Their aim seems to bring about discontent among the workers as though there was any absence of it, because they believe that with a discontented body of workers they will bring about a revolution and establish the rule of the proletariat. Therefore to bring about discontent they launched upon a systematic campaign of organizing disorganization. The series of strikes on which they drove the men can have no other meaning and no other consequence except that it was a deliberate attempt to organize disorganization. For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent; what is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social right. Not even a revolutionary Marxist would make a fetish of strikes, as was done in the good old days by the Revolutionary Syndicalists. The strike was never considered by revolutionary Marxists as a “revolutionary exercise” but was regarded as a very serious measure to be resorted to as a last extremity after all efforts have proved unavailing. But the Communists have thrown all this to the winds and have looked upon strikes as a divine means of creating discontent among the workers. Whether they have created greater discontent or not they have most certainly destroyed the very trade union organizations which were the source of their strength and their power and now they are practically on the streets seeking to take shelter under all sorts of capitalist organizations. What else can be expected from such a senseless activity. The Communist is like an incendiary who in his desire to set up a general conflagration has not taken care to save his own house.

184 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES As a result there are no unions in existence to which workers can resort to. I am not going to speak about the malaise that prevails among the textile workers in Bombay. The less is said about it the better. But take the state of affairs existing in the G. I. P. Railway workers. In 1920 the G. I. P. Railway Staff Union was organized. It was defunct between the years 1922-24. It was revived in 1925. In 1927 another rival union by name the G. I. P. Railwaymen’s Union was organized. In 1931 the two unions were amalgamated under the name of Railway Worker’s Union. In 1932 there was a split in this union and a new union called the Railway Labour Union was started. In 1935 the old G. I. P. Staff Union was revived and started as a new body. It is now the recognized union and there is a sharp conflict and rivalry between these unions which all are out to serve the interests of the Railway workers. All this conflict is due to competition for leadership between the communist and non-communist groups among the labour leaders. The same rivalry has caused a split in the central organization. The All India Trade Union Congress was started in 1919 as the central organization of labour. All unions were affiliated to this Congress till 1929. In 1929 a split occured at Nagpur and those unions which did not accept the leadership of the Communist section seceded and formed a separate body called the National Trade Union Federation. A sharp antagonism prevails between these two bodies. In 1931 and 1932 efforts were made to bring about unity between these two rival bodies. But they have failed. Something to that effect is now on the anvil. What good will come out of it is more than I can say. Under these circumstances it is difficult for me to give you any advice. There would be nothing wrong if you started a separate union of your own provided you have got the men to run the union. This is a very big proviso. A union if it is to flourish must function and a union cannot function if it cannot secure the services of efficient functionaries. Can you get men to run your union ? If you can, form your own Union. In fact it would be better if you did. There is nothing wrong in a separate union. Because separate unions need not result in separatism or weakness. Your separate union can always be affiliated to some central organization of labour which can give

185TRADE UNIONS............INTERESTS unity of purpose and unity of action. If you cannot organize a separate union of your own you may join any one of the existing unions. But you must take care that the union does not use you for its purposes. There is great danger of such a thing happening. It has happened in Bombay where invariably strikes have been called in the interests of the weavers and the spinners have been used to support the cause of the weavers. To avoid this you must insist upon two conditions. Firstly you must insist upon a special rep resentation in the executive of the union so that your special problems will receive the attention and support of the union. Secondly you must insist upon some part of your contribution to the union to be ear-marked for being used if necessary for fighting out your grievances. These must be two essential conditions on which you should join a general union of all workers if you do not decide to have a separate of your own. There is no question that you must organize a union for trade purposes. But that is not enough. You must also organize for political purposes. Experience has shown that trade unionism by itself cannot help the labourers to win in their struggle against the masters. The question whether trade unions should enter politics is a question on which there can now be no two opinions. Trade unions must enter politics because without political power they cannot protect purely trade union interests. Even for the purpose of securing such reforms as standard rate, normal day, common rule, minimum living wage, collective bargaining are aims which cannot be secured merely by organizing unions. The power of unions must be strengthened by the force of law. This cannot happen until in addition to organizing yourselves into unions you also begin to play your part in the politics of the country. The protection of purely trade union interests cannot be the only reason why trade union must enter politics. To confine your attention to trade unionism is to mistake the immediate task for the ultimate goal; it is to assume that slaving for others is a destiny which the labouring classes cannot escape. On the contrary your aim should be to replace this system of wageslavery by a system which will recognize the principles of liberty,

186 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES equality, and fraternity. This means re-building of society and, I say that it is the primary concern of the labouring class to bring about such a reconstruction of society. But how can the labouring class realize this ideal ? Effective use of political power is certainly a powerful means to this end. Why should they not seize such political power as they have got ? Repudiation of politics by trade unions does not mean that workers, as individuals will not interest themselves in politics. On the contrary, many of them will attend political meetings, vote at elections for one candidate or another and frequently join one or other of the political parties. “No politics” for trade unions does not mean no politics for workers who are members of the union. The watch word of ‘No Politics’ will apply only to the organized forms of politics. Under such circumstances every individual worker could privately engage in politics as much as he desired, and of any shade he liked, but when organized with his fellow workers he was to quit politics the moment he entered his organization. Naturally, by thus atomising himself politically, by refusing to use in the interests of his class, that which constitutes this main strength i. e. organization the worker is sure to be a prey to the organized force of the capitalist party. As you probably know that the two rival bodies which claim the right to speak in the name of labour, the Trade Union Congress and the Trade Union Federation have decided to merge themselves into one body. Each has gone by half to bring about this unity. The Trade Union Congress has adopted the constitution of the Trade Union Federation and the Trade Union Federation has agreed to drop its name. I understand that one of the conditions of this unity is that this organization is to be a purely Trade Union organization. It is to have no politics. When I heard this I wondered if these gentlemen really understood what they said. It is a matter of great sorrow that the workers have been suffering the gross injustice to which they have been subjected chiefly by neglecting to use the means at their command towards removing the cause of it, I mean the use of political power. I fail to understand what this trade union unity is if it is not for a united political action. There is some meaning in the phrase agreeing to differ if the point on which there is difference is so small or immaterial that it does not disturb the agreement