The Statesman: Wages Of Trade Unionism

NK SINGH

The current labour trouble in the Delhi office of The Statesman has more than meets the eye. On the surface, it seems to be a simple case of labour-management scuffle plus intra-union rivalry. A closer look, however, shows that it is an instance of the rapprochement between the government and the industrial owners of newspapers- Tatas, Martin Burn and Andrew Yule in this case at the top and the understanding between the management and the unscrupulous labour leaders the CPI in this case at the level of labour relations. Further, it symbolises the wages of trade unionism.

The entire concept of trade unionism has changed recently instead of fulfilling the dual role of providing temporary relief to workers and intensifying the class struggle it has become a tool in the hands of the exploiting classes for disrupting the solidarity of the working classes and diverting their struggle towards petty economic gains. 

Consequently, a whole class of unscrupulous labour Meaders has, over the years, entered the profession in search of easy and quick money. Moreover, trade unionism can lead to more drastic consequences when indulged by the petty bourgeoisie; their struggle tends to end in the fulfilment of economic demands

Let us take the rapprochement between the government and the Press owners, first.

The most appropriate instance would be, perhaps, the government's amazing inaction in the matter of change in the articles of association of The Statesman Ltd.

Article 82 of the articles of association gave the editor of the newspaper editorial freedom. A board of trustees was entrusted with the task of safeguarding the policy laid down in the article. As soon as the new industrial owners took over from the erstwhile management, they tried to poke their noses into the news and editorial rooms. 

Mr Pran Chopra, the first ever Indian editor of this Anglo-Indian newspaper, asserted his rights and the board of trustees stood by him. Though he was sacked consequently, the new proprietors took their lesson.

In August 1960 they scrapped the provision for the board of trustees, created a new post of managing director, and gave him the authority to ensure the maintenance of the paper's editorial policy as laid down in Article 82. The Company Law Department pleaded its helplessness, saying that every company had the right to change its articles of association. 

So, now we have a paper whose editorial policy is decided by the management and not the editor! The government, which cries itself hoarse over the 'freedom of the press', was silent at that time. 

However, replying to a short notice question on The Statesman affair, Mr Inder Gujral, the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, stated in the Lok Sabha on September 5, "It is very unfortunate that in the articles of association, The Statesman has provided and given powers to the managing director to enforce the policy of the paper and not to the editor".

How would Mr Gujral describe the incident in which the West Bengal Chief Minister, Mr Siddhartha Sankar Ray, reportedly pleaded strongly against the removal of The Statesman's managing director, arguing that his exit would lead to the "communists" getting control of the newspaper? 

It is now a well-known fact that when some of the directors of the company wanted to sack the managing director the latter managed to retain his position with the help of the West Bengal Chief Minister. 

The state of affairs in The Statesman is shocking. The right of appointment and transfer and other important administrative powers, which the editor used to enjoy, have been taken over by the management. 

By using the editor to issue directives regarding the selection, suppression or distortion of news, the management can get its line across while escaping the charge of direct interference with editorial freedom. No evidence is kept of the direct instructions to the reporting staff so the government can deliberately plead helplessness.

The less said about the financial bungling the better. Suffice it to point out that the Statesman has gone to court to contest the government's right to seek information on its finances needed for the work of the fact-finding committee on newspaper economics.

While the majority of the stringers at district headquarters were sacked to save money, The Statesman found one lakh rupees to invest in a publication racket started by a gentleman of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, one of the conduits through which CIA money flowed into India. When this publishing outfit incurred a "loss" the Statesman came to its rescue by investing another one lakh rupees.

The managing director has a guest house of his own in New Delhi on which thousands of rupees have been spent. There are plans for an imported car from STC in addition to the three cars already there for his exclusive use in Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. 

The annual medical bill of the six top executives comes to nearly a lakh rupees. On the other hand, the editorial staff (in Delhi) are made to work in congested rooms without proper seating arrangements, typewriters or telephones. The reporters who need office transport cannot get any.

To understand the 'wages of trade unionism' it is better to have a brief chronological outline of The Statesman labour movement.

The CPM-dominated Statesman Employees' Union (SEU), is affiliated to the AINEF. was a powerful body having full hold over the majority of workers. It participated in the 1966 and 1967 strikes successfully. In 1970 it was affiliated to CITU. It must be said that since then some sort of understanding has developed with the management. 

The union was content with the former fulfilling certain of its economic demands now and then. As such, there has been no agitation for the last three years and everyone was happy - the employees, the labour leaders and the management. It must also be pointed out that there was no attempt whatsoever on the part of the union to politicise the workers.

Some allegations regarding funds were levelled against the union leaders last year. The management. which was waiting in the wings, promptly sponsored a rival union, the Statesman Workers' Union (SWU) and doled out concessions to the workers joining the new union. The apolitical workers joined the bandwagon. If the ultimate goal is economic salvation, then why not the easier way?

The CPI and the local AUNEF leaders played a very dirty role. They not only supported the new union whose general secretary has a Jana Sangh background but also did not condemn the beating of SEU leaders by the goondas of the new union- even while the SEU was still an affiliate of the AINEF.

When the newly formed Statesman Journalists' Association (SJA) started an agitation on certain demands affecting both journalist and non-journalist employees, the leaders of the SWU, backed by the CPI-and naturally the management too tried to subvert the agitation. A leader of the AINEF went to the extent of branding the journalists as 'traitors'.

The recent trouble started on July 11 when a correspondent belonging to the SEU was allegedly assaulted in the labour court, where he was fighting a case against the management, by the manager of the Delhi office of The Statesman. 

A contempt of court case has been registered against the latter. (Incidentally, this chap writes the column, Labour Notes. for the paper). A senior correspondent, who had been fighting it out against the management for the last two years, resigned on grounds of conscience.

In a resolution, the Journalists' Association pointed out that the editor and the management of the establishment had displayed a lack of common courtesy by not even acknowledging the communication sent by the staff.

The SEU supported the journalists' demands. It was followed by a strike and consequent clashes between the rival unions. The agitation still lingers on thanks to the disunity among the workers. 

At one stage the management even threatened to close the Delhi edition. It is well known that The Delhi Statesman is not a profitable venture The Delhi edition is being run just in the hope (which does not go in vain) that the journalist employees may serve as middlemen between the Tatas and the government.

Frontier

November 24, 1973