Datta Samant refused to take an ideological stand

Economic and Political Weekly, one of India's most respected magazines, published an analysis, 'The Datta Samant Phenomenon' by Sandip Pendse, some years back. This excerpt from that analysis reveals the core of Samant's militancy:

Datta Samant has been the most talked of, enigmatic and controversial trade union leader in Maharashtra in the past few years. Working class activity in Bombay has come to be equated with the ventures of Datta Samant. His involvement in long drawn out struggles, the militant following he commands and the bloody inter-union rivalries he has been associated with provide ideal ingredients for sensational news items. The struggles of the workers in the post-Emergency period in Maharashtra have by and large been portrayed as the struggles of Datta Samant.

On July 30, 1980, during a fortnight when every organisation was organising demonstrations in Bombay, Samant led the largest of the turnouts, called the 'long march'. The minister for labour stated in the assembly on August 5, 1980, that Samant was involved in 26 work stoppages out of 87 in the state (as on August 4, 1980), representing, 16,401 out of the 27,322 affected workers.

On August 10, 1980, Samant was arrested in connection with the murder of two persons of Crompton and Greaves. On August 18, 1980, several thousand workers defied prohibitory orders to organise a protest rally against his arrest. Upon his release on bail, at a press conference on August 29, he hailed the chief minister's efforts to settle long-standing labour disputes in the state. By the middle of September, most work stoppages that he was involved in were resolved (on the chief minister's terms) giving rise to rumours about a political deal between the chief minister and Samant.

Samant continues to be in the news, as controversial and enigmatic as ever. The intensity of the reactions he evokes is striking. His name signifies hope for workers and terror for managements. Adored by workers, he is hated and maligned by managements -- both sections being equally vehement and illogical.

Datta Samant is said to have entered the trade union field in 1964. He has been a prominent part of it since 1972. The phase he did really represent was, however, the post-Emergency phase. He symbolised the mood and struggles of the workers most authentically after March 1977.

Datta Samant burst upon the Bombay trade union scene with the famous Godrej incident of 1972. Till then he was one of many trade unionists, engaged as he was in organising stone quarry workers. Well known, respected and admired by the quarry workers and slum-dwellers in principally Ghatkopar (a northeastern suburb of Bombay lying in the industrial belt), Samant was essentially a helpful medical practitioner-social worker with a local area as his sphere of influence. Though a member of the Congress (he had shifted over during the 1971 Indira Gandhi wave) he was not considered a primarily political person. He became noteworthy almost overnight with the Godrej incident.

In a dramatic confrontation with the Shiv Sena, the established force in the Godrej factories, a major riot broke out resulting in the death of (among others) a police officer. Datta Samant was arrested and denied bail. The responsibility for the violence was sought to be pinned on Samant and his followers.

With the accompanying publicity, Datta Samant became a trade union hero almost overnight. After his release, he began a campaign for expanding his trade union base. Workers looking for a leader capable of challenging and established unions began to flock to him. His trade union activities have hence had a feature of inter-union rivalries woven into them from the very beginning. In an extremely short time, he became a force to reckon with in the Bombay trade union field.

Two features stood out clearly even in this early phase. Firstly, in spite of his militancy and workerist orientation, Datta Samant was reluctant to participate in broader, united struggles and refused to take any ideological stand. (In fact, he consistently ignored the role of the unity committe mainly led by communists in supporting the Godrej workers. He was to repeat this attitude later in 1979 in ignoring the trade unions which supported the lcoked out Premier Automobile workers. Further, he made the very same unions targets of attack). Secondly, though under attack from a Congress government, he remained a member of the Congress party and part of its trade union structures (so long as they did not threaten his interests directly).

Kind courtesy, Economic and Political Weekly