Delhi has, in the month of September 2002, seen two important struggles against anti-people WTO dictated policies. One of them is the struggle of the teachers of Delhi University under Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) banner. The teachers have launched their struggle against the immediate provocation of a circular issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). But in their fight they have effectively raised the whole question of privatization of higher education. The struggle is continuing. A second struggle is of the hospital employees of Delhi (of Central Govt., Delhi Govt. and NDMC) against privatization and non-filling of posts, under the banner of Joint Action Committee (JAC). Both struggles have their weaknesses, their ups and downs, but they involved large sections – over 7,000 teachers and 70,000 health employees.

In the case of DUTA, the UGC issued a circular stating 35% reduction in posts and scrapping of unfilled posts. It also issued instructions that some earlier decisions pertaining to increasing working hours of college teachers be implemented. Subsequently, the UGC publicly backtracked saying that the first circular was applicable only for karamcharis. However, the second instruction will anyway result, if implemented, in knocking off the need for all the temporary teachers currently employed against permanent posts (which UGC is yet to give permission to fill). It is clearly obvious that the whole process fits in well with the WTO scheme for the privatization and thus MNCization of higher education.

The DUTA launched its struggle with a well attended dharna at UGC. It held a one day strike and then launched a seven-days strike. All the actions evoked tremendous response from the teaching community, including the virtually total seven day strike. Teachers turned up in large numbers to take part in marches and dharnas in pouring rain. Very positive steps were taken up by general teachers– one was to take up a special campaign to explain the struggle to the students by using small meetings and pamphlets and urging them to join the fight. This attempt to reach out to the students was a welcome one; it made the fight against privatization the focus of the struggle and helped to pre-empt the usual administration attempt to play off the struggle of any one section as directed against another’s interests (in this case, teachers vs. students). There were severe debates in the DUTA over the step after the seven-days strike, as they had almost succeeded in forcing a meeting of the Academic Council by it.  Finally a form of protest dharna at VC office was adopted. There is furthur talk of an indefinite hunger strike which means the leadership has plans to set limits on the agitation. A political feature is that the CPM dominated DUTA leadership does not target the WTO at all in speeches and pamphlets.

The JAC of Hospital Employees launched a struggle on a charter, which had two issues which actually pushed the struggle – demand to stop slashing of Patient Care Allowance on days of leave and demand to fill up all vacant posts (effectively a demand against privatization). There was also a demand to stop privatization – especially pertinent to NDMC dispensaries which are on the verge of being handed over. Several other hospitals face the prospect of contract workers taking over the safai sector, with no retrenchment, but no fresh appointments.

The struggle began with a three-days three-hours per day strike in early August. This was highly successful. Next a two-days six-hours per day strike was held, along with a demonstration at Nirman Bhawan. Though police virtually barricaded Nirman Bhawan (seat of the Health Minister of GOI) over 1100 workers assembled at Jantar Mantar and held a demonstration. A one day token strike was declared for 5th September, 2002.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had delivered a judgement restraining all sections of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) from any strike or even demonstration within 500 meters of the campus. This judgement, on the basis of a PIL, had effectively curbed some movements building there. On the basis of another PIL, the High Court extended its judgement to the JAC movement, effectively banning the strike. On the evening of 4th August, in accordance with the suggestion mooted in the order, ESMA was clamped in Delhi with regard to the hospital employees strike.

The JAC leadership gave a call to continue with the strike action, but in view of the problem that the 500 metres order would cause, they declared that workers would gather for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar. While it was not unnatural that there may be some apprehension following the court order, strike evoked uneven response. Govt. broadcast the ESMA imposition repeatedly over the media. Some years earlier the strike of the Safdarjung Aspatal Karamchari Sangharsh Union (affiliated to IFTU) had continued till settlement of demands despite ESMA declaration and arrests. However in the JAC strike, due to some general fear among workers about ESMA and probably some apprehension among some leaders too, as well as the short time invested in preparation, there was a partial strike in Delhi and a demonstration of around 500 workers at Jantar Mantar. Many workers simply stayed away from workplace and demonstration both.

In Safdarjung Hospital, the Union leaders undertook an extensive campaign to educate workers about the court order and the need to fight the same.

The health employee need to build upon the gains, review the problems and carry the struggle forward. There is need also for the civil liberties movement and all people’s movements to tackle this question including such misuse of PILs. Initially meant as a form of drawing the attention of courts towards the attacks by the state on sections, persons or person unempowered and who had no finances to take legal recourse, now the PILs form the ubiquitous basis for court interventions to gag struggles and to throw all constitutional rights (to organize, to raise demands, to struggle under unions) into the dustbin. When the whole country needs to be ruled by the arsenal of POTA, ESMA and court orders versus constitutional rights and the customary law of the land, what does it tell about the affairs of the state?

In the lawyers of Delhi too, there is ferment regarding the recent comments of the Supreme Court regarding “unnecessary strikes” by lawyers. The context is the long strike by lawyers of Tamilnadu and Pondichery against the modifications in the Civil Courts Act and the proposed changes in Advocates Act – all WTO dictated changes. These lawyers sat on a day’s dharna in Delhi and the Delhi Bar Council has approved a day-long strike by Delhi lawyers along with lawyers all over India on 18th September, 2002.