'We need a political movement against privatisation'

V. SRIDHAR

Interview with M.K. Pandhe, general secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions.

Veteran trade union leader M.K. Pandhe is the general secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). He joined the trade union movement in 1948 at the age of 25, soon after graduation. Ten years later, he obtained his doctorate in economics, working under Professor D.R. Gadgil, a key architect of economic planning in India. Soon after this he joined the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) office in Delhi. He associated himself with the CITU when it was formed in 1970. Pandhe is also a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Excerpts from an interview he gave V. Sridhar:

During the last one and a half years, since the sale of Balco, several public sector enterprises (PSEs) have been sold to "strategic partners". Several more, notable among them the oil PSUs, are now on the line. How do you think the trade union movement will join battle at this stage?

The trade unions have not given up the battle. But I agree that the trade union movement has not been as powerful as it ought to be. However, all is not lost. Significantly, all the trade unions, including those of the ruling party, have condemned privatisation. Several other unions, affiliated to the BJP's allies in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), like the Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat (HMKP), which is close to George Fernandes, have condemned the privatisation drive. It is also not as if we are losing ground in every area. In certain areas, like the banking industry, where the government has been planning privatisation for a number of years, we have managed to hold back the threat. This is because all the nine federations of unions in the industry came together to resist privatisation. All the five federations of the port and dock workers have also joined to resist such moves. So, wherever the movement is strong and wherever workers are in a position to assert their strength, there is resistance.

But the government is picking those areas where the movement is weak, in order to push ahead with its drive. For instance, take the case of Balco...We have to learn from that experience. The trade union movement could not give a call for an all-India strike. The Balco workers could not sustain the long struggle against the takeover by Sterlite. Had there been greater solidarity with the Balco workers, perhaps the struggle would have taken a different turn.

The division within the ranks of the trade union movement has weakened the workers' struggle against privatisation. In certain industries, the Indian National Trade Union Congress [affiliated to the Congress-I] has decided not to oppose privatisation. In the case of Hindustan Zinc, the INTUC supported privatisation and its eventual takeover by Sterlite. The divisions within the trade union movement have prevented a united resistance to the offensive of the government. However, there is hope.

The struggle against the privatisation of Nalco has continued for longer and has achieved some results. This is because the unity among the trade unions has been stronger. The INTUC is fully involved in the struggle. There is also the possibility of nation-wide support for the Nalco workers.

The picture is like this Wherever the movement is strong, we are able to stop the drift towards privatisation; but wherever it is weak, the government has been successful. There is greater unity now. In many areas and sectors even the INTUC unions are opposing privatisation.

What are the changes that give you reason to be optimistic?

In several industries, united movements are emerging at the local levels. This is because there is unity of the working class in the public sector. But within the PSEs also, the movement is not strong everywhere. For instance, the movement was weak in Modern Foods [which was taken over by Hindustan Lever]. We need to do much more. The privatisation drive has come in such a big way that the government is pushing it at any cost even at the cost of the ruling party losing its mass base.

There has been opposition to privatisation from within the ruling coalition. Does that give hope?

When opposition started building up, Vajpayee stalled the privatisation drive for three months. During the three months, the World Bank applied substantial pressure. Foreign investors stayed away. Vajpayee had to announce that he would go ahead with privatisation, although at some stage even he advocated caution. Within the Cabinet too there has been dissent against privatisation.

How do you view the "pressure" from individual Ministers and Ministries against particular instances of privatisation? S.S. Dhindsa has talked against disinvestment of the fertilizer companies, Uma Bharti about Nalco, Ram Naik about the oil companies... Is this dissent substantial?

We meet some of these Ministers often. They tell us they have no say in the matter because of the overriding powers of the Disinvestment Ministry. Some of these Ministers feel that the move towards privatisation is eroding their political bases. It is significant that all the trade unions of the ruling coalition have come out against privatisation. After all, when George Fernandes opposes privatisation, it reflects the mood in the HMKP on the issue. This is also the case with the Shiv Sena, which has mounted an attack on the government on the Centaur Hotel issue. Dhindsa is also under pressure from workers in the fertilizer PSEs. There is also opposition within the ranks of the parties belonging to the NDA.

But the opposition by these Ministers is not credible. For example, George Fernandes did not say anything when Balco, Modern Foods and many other PSEs were privatised. It was only when it came to the oil companies that he started talking against privatisation.

There is also resentment against the Disinvestment Ministry. The Ministry enjoys overriding powers over the other Ministries. Other Ministries are not even consulted on the sale of the PSEs in their charge. For example, in the case of Nalco, the Ministry of Mines and Coal was not even consulted.

The other aspect of disinvestment is that it invariably involves kickbacks. It is common knowledge that deals are made between companies in the race for the takeover of PSEs and those in power. At the time of the Balco sale, we had said that Sterlite was being given the company, while Nalco would fall into the hands of the Birlas (Hindalco). The Birlas did not bid for Balco because they were probably assured that they would get Nalco.

The discontent in the Ministries in charge of units that are being sold is also based on the way the Disinvestment Ministry values the companies. The actual value of the assets is several times the value computed by the Disinvestment Ministry. That is why every episode of privatisation has been controversial.

The Disinvestment Ministry has a purposeful plan to underestimate the value of these national assets and to sell them cheap to private companies. It has even announced that even if private groups have unpaid loans to public sector banks, or have not paid taxes to the government, they would not be barred from bidding for PSEs. The idea is to somehow sell these companies and achieve the financial targets. The government has announced a target of Rs.78,000 crores through disinvestment in the Tenth Plan. We do not know of any other country that has fixed long-term targets for the sale of PSEs. The fixing of such targets only means that the government plans to go ahead and sell PSEs regardless of the price that private companies may be willing to pay. This is another reason for the discontent within the Union Cabinet.

Initially, ten years ago, when the government talked about disinvestment, it was confined to loss-making PSEs. Now, most of the units that have been or are being sold are profitable ones. How do you see this change?

Earlier, they were trying to sell a part of the government's equity in PSEs. Now they are selling to strategic partners. Strategic sale means that the government can directly deal with the private companies. Selling shares involves the markets (which can also be manipulated), but does not involve any negotiations with private entities. It is common knowledge in government circles even Ministers admit in private that every sale of a PSE involves kickbacks. Even officials in the Disinvestment Ministry have said that the system is highly corruption-oriented.

The disinvestment in the oil companies has also been controversial. How are the trade unions fighting the move?

The companies are highly profitable and can become even more profitable in the future. These companies have returned to the government several-fold the sums that the government has invested in them. Till now the movement in the oil industry was weak. Of late, it has been possible to build unity among the workers. Twenty-seven unions in the industry met in Mumbai recently and decided to launch industrial action if the units were privatised. Parliament will have to amend the laws that govern these PSEs. The government tried to push through the move without even amending the legal provisions. The Union Cabinet decided to sell these companies without waiting for the legal provisions to be changed.

Do you think the unions can stop privatisation in the absence of a political movement?

The problem is that there is no political movement to support the opposition to privatisation. The trade union movement on its own, in the absence of a political movement, cannot fight privatisation.

Across the political spectrum, barring the Left, most of the Opposition parties have been ambivalent on the privatisation issue. How long is it possible for these parties to maintain this stance?

If a movement takes shape, political parties will also be forced to change their position. For instance, the Congress(I) has changed its decision to support the Bill for privatising the coal industry. Manmohan Singh now says that profitable PSEs should not be privatised. The Congress(I) did not take this stand earlier. Maybe the change in stance is because of the political mileage that the party gets on this issue. That is certainly a change that is perceivable on the ground. The absence of a big political movement has made it easy for the government. Many of the political parties are taking an ambivalent position on privatisation. That is affecting the trade union movement. We cannot fight this battle without a political movement.

There are also electoral compulsions for parties. Elections are due in several States and their results may have an impact on the next parliamentary elections. Would this affect the way the government pushes ahead with privatisation?

Many of the political parties and personalities are taking positions depending on their vote banks. Politicians and parties take this posture from time to time, depending on specific conditions. Very few parties have come out categorically against privatisation. The lobby for privatisation is very powerful, while the opposition to privatisation has not grown as much as it ought to have. In some States, even the BJP is opposed to privatisation, but supports the move in others.

Is there an apathy to economic reforms in general, and privatisation in particular, at the popular level?

My experience does not indicate apathy. But we have not been able to make it a public campaign. It has only been a trade union campaign. The trade unions must approach the people and educate them about the issues involved.

What has been the role of communalism in the context of the neoliberal agenda?

They are related. The rise of communalism is essentially a step to divert the attention of people from the economic issues that they face. The rising communal danger has seriously affected our ability to mobilise people on the real issues. Elements within the Sangh Parivar, such as the Swadeshi Jagran Manch and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh itself, sometimes speak out against the government and its policies. This is aimed at protecting the mass base of these forces. But these elements do not mobilise people. Their action is limited to making noises. As someone said, they are dogs that only bark, they cannot bite.