 |
| PROFESSOR ABDUL BARI (1892- 28 MARCH 1947) |
.jpg) |
KRISHNA BALLABH SAHAY
(31 DECEMBER 1898- 3 JUNE 1974) |
On 13th October 1939, Mr Saiyid
Mohiuddin Ahmad, hon’ble member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, moved an
adjournment motion seeking the attention of the House towards the serious
situation in Jamshedpur on account of a labour strike. Simultaneously another
adjournment motion was moved by Mohammad Yunus, also on the same ground,
citing the 28th September incident in Jamshedpur. This was published
in the ‘The Searchlight’ in its 30th September 1939
edition- a newspaper owned by Mohammad Yunus. Both the motions questioned the
role of Professor Abdul Bari, the noted trade union leader. Interestingly, Professor
Bari was also the Deputy Speaker of the House from 1937to 39 when the Congress
Ministry was in power.
It may be pertinent to mention here that Professor
Abdul Bari had played an active role in uniting the worker section of Bihar,
Bengal and Orissa for the freedom struggle movement in 1921, 1922 and 1942. A
post-graduate in the Arts stream from Patna, he was greatly influenced by Mahatma
Gandhi during the latter’s visit to Patna in 1917. He was an active member
of the Non-Cooperation movement in 1920.
On 31st December 1922, the Gaya session of Congress decided
to oppose Council entry as provided in the Government of India Act, 1919
(popularly known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms). But Motilal Nehru
and Chittranjan Das decided in favour of Council entry and they formed
the Congress Khilafat Swaraj Party on the very same day in a
meeting held on the premises of Raja of Tekari Estate who was Motilal Nehru’s
client. At the state level, the leaders met at Patna on the 26th of February 1923 and formed a nucleus of this new party as per the decisions of
the central leadership. Narayan Prasad of Chhapra was elected President
of Bihar Congress-Khilafat Swaraj
Party. Professor Abdul Bari was elected Secretary, while K. B. Sahay and Harnandan
Sahay of Chhapra were elected Assistant Secretaries. This was the first
time K. B. Sahay came in touch with Professor Bari and almost immediately they
developed a close bond that remained intact lifelong. The Bihar branch of the
Swarajya Party met again at Gaya on the 9th of May 1923 and set up a
new executive for the work in this province. Dr Arunjay Sahay Verma was
elected President and K. B. Sahay and Professor Abdul Bari became Secretaries.
Professor Abdul Bari went on to become the Vice-Chairman
of the Bihar Labour Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr Rajendra
Prasad. The Report submitted by this august
body in 1940 constituted the first authentic document on the labour situation
in Bihar in general and at Jamshedpur in particular.
Besides this, Professor Bari’s political interest
and the vision to bring about labour welfare effectively saw him undertake many
other crucial roles in his lifetime. With the
appearance of Prof. Abdul Bari on the scene in 1936, the movement took deep
roots. Till now the labour movement was divided into regional lines- viz the
Odiya group, the Adibashi group etc and was thus not united. A psychological
thrust was given to the movement when Professor Abdul Bari changed the name of
the Labour Association to "Tata Workers' Union". The unity and
maturity that Professor Bari brought about among the TISCO workers were so
strong that they survived all political onslaughts with perfect confidence.
Under his dynamic leadership, the Union launched its struggle for a thorough
revision of the wage structure, introduction of the incentive bonus scheme,
etc. Fighting the cause of the poor and the downtrodden was a common
personality trait of these two leaders- K. B. Sahay advocated the cause of
peasants, and Abdul Bari advocated the cause of the labours.
Let’s go back to the adjournment motion moved by Mr Saiyid Mohiuddin
Ahmad. On 9th October 1939, the then Sub-divisional Officer of
Jamshedpur had promulgated Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to control
the law and order situation arising out of clashes among labours owing
allegiance to different unions after a labour strike in TISCO. Mr Saiyid
Mohiuddin questioned the authority of the Sub-divisional Officer to impose
Section 144 and wanted the House to discuss the conduct of the officer and pass
necessary directives. He was supported by Mohammad Yunus who waved the copy of
‘The Searchlight’ to seek an adjournment motion from the Speaker.
The Speaker desperately sought a response from the treasury bench.
The Hon’ble the Speaker: ‘What
have Government to say?’
It was at this stage Krishna Ballabh Sahay, the Parliamentary
Secretary, intervened on behalf of the Government and defended the action of
the SDO, Jamshedpur and also justified Professor Abdul Bari’s role in labour
strike- ‘We know the order that the Sub-divisional Officer promulgated on
the 9th instant was the issue of a notice under Section 144 of the
Cr. P.C. Now, Sir, this order under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. is a judicial
order and it is an order which is appealable. Sir, if my friend showed what the
Police had done probably my friend would have been within limits. Sir, it
appears my friend has transgressed the limit of discussion in this House. On
these grounds, Sir, I think the motion ought not to be admitted.’
Mr Saiyid Mohiuddin Ahmad (intervening)-‘Sir,
one gentleman, who is supposed to be the leader of the workers in question,-
Professor Abdul Bari- prevents the workers from going back to their work’.
Mr Krishna Ballabh Sahay: Sir,
after hearing my hon’ble friend, Mr Mohiuddin, I do not see my way to change
the opinion that I expressed that his motion does not appear to me to be
admissible. Mr Mohiuddin is an astute lawyer, but I must say that on this
occasion he has given his case away by raising the two points- namely that
there has been deterioration in the situation in Jamshedpur and secondly, that
Mr Bari is not a proper person to lead the labour movement in Jamshedpur. Sir,
as regards the deterioration in the situation, since he has raised that point,
I would like to say that my friend has failed to point out what connection it
has with the Government, and, secondly, that the deterioration is not a matter
of recent occurrence. If there has been deterioration, it must have commenced
several months back. My friend has also
not been able to tell the House what deterioration in the labour situation has
to do with Government. Therefore, it does not come within the rules for the admissibility
of the adjournment motion.
Secondly, Sir, my friend has said a lot about Professor Abdul
Bari regarding his fitness as a labour leader. Opinion differs, but I can say
that Professor Bari has brought in healthy leadership in Jamshedpur which was
lacking badly. Professor Bari has nothing to do with the Government. He is
certainly the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, but he does not form part of the
Government. If Mr Mohiuddin will refer to the Assembly proceedings, he
will find that in reply to a question I said that the Deputy Speaker is not a
part of the Government and Professor Abdul Bari is not responsible for any of the
actions of the Government. Therefore, his action cannot come under discussion
and the Government cannot be blamed for what Professor Bari might be doing.
So far as Professor Bari being a favourite of the Government, my reply is that
at least people in Chhotanagpur say that Mr Mohiuddin is also a blue boy of the
Congress Government’.
At this juncture the then Advocate-General arrived in the House
and Mr Mohiuddin jumped in exclamation to see him- ‘Sir, May I look up to him
to correct Mr K. B. Sahay? An order under Section 144 of Cr. P.C. is essentially
an executive order’.
But the Advocate General’s opinion went contrary to the
interpretation of a lawyer of Mr S. Mohiuddin’s stature and it also vindicated
the stand of K. B. Sahay. The Advocate General informed the House that ‘it has
been held by the Hon’ble High Court in 1928 in the case of Govind Marwari of
Banka that order passed under Section 144 is a judicial order. It is an order
passed for emergency’.
The clarification from the Advocate-General diluted the plea for
an adjournment motion. The Speaker who was waiting for a valid argument
accepted the clarification of the Advocate General and held that ‘the Chair
finds that the motion is not free from vagueness, it is not definite in the
sense contemplated by the rules. Nor has the responsibility of the Government
alleged by the hon’ble member been definitely stated. Under the circumstances,
I do not see my way to rule this motion also in order.’
The above incident is a fine example of K. B. Sahay’s intelligence
that was better than the best of lawyers and was comparable to those of an
Advocate-General in matters of law and its interpretation. Bihar never got a
better Parliamentary Secretary who was so thorough with his subject. It may be
pertinent to mention here that the leadership of Professor Abdul Bari was
questioned by his Muslim brethren of the Muslim League and he was defended by K.
B. Sahay whose argument was above the petty considerations of caste and
religion. Such camaraderie among freedom fighters cutting across caste, creed
and religion has become a thing of the past. This was the ‘SECULARISM’
that Congress professed and of which leaders like K. B. Sahay were the
flag-bearers in the best of Parliamentary traditions. Those who mock the
definition of ‘secularism’ need to learn a lesson or two from the
conduct of K. B. Sahay and his ardent friend and political associate Professor
Abdul Bari. Commitment to the creed of secularism was a common characteristic of
these two leaders.
To conclude the story we go back to the outcome of the labour
strike in Jamshedpur. After a prolonged struggle for a decade and repeated
strike threats in 1945 and 1946, an Agreement was signed in February 1948 by
the Union and the Management which not only secured higher wages and better
working conditions but significantly stipulated the formation of joint
committees with equal representation to ensure better understanding and
settlement of disputes by negotiations. But, before the advent of this new era
of conciliation in place of conflict, our beloved leader and great patriot,
Prof. Bari, died under tragic circumstances on 28th March 1947. In 1946 he
became the President of the Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee. On a fateful
day, he was on his way to Patna from Jamshedpur on Mahatma Gandhi’s request to
control the situation there. Unfortunately, he was shot dead by a Gurkha
constable near the Fatuah Railway crossing on a mistaken notion. The conspiracy
theory was also not ruled out and it was alleged that he was eliminated to
weaken the voice of the labours. K. B. Sahay also died an unnatural death in a controversial
motor car accident and the theory of conspiracy even in this case was not ruled
out. This was another similarity in the life and death of these two eminent
leaders.
Mahatma Gandhi visited Professor
Bari’s native place in Koelwar to pay homage to this great soul. He called him ‘the
Bahadur Faqir’ (the fiery hermit) This is the same Koelwar which was
the native place of Krishna Ballabh Sahay’s ancestors also before his father
moved to Sheikhpura in Patna where K. B. Sahay was born. Interestingly,
Professor Bari’s father Qurbaan Ali also left Koelwar and moved to Kinsua in
Jehanabad which happens to be the birthplace of Abdul Bari. The famous railroad
bridge on the river Sone at Koelwar that connects Arrah with Patna is named
after Professor Bari.
(Courtesy: (i) Bihar Assembly Debates 1937-1939,
(ii) Lost Muslim Heritage of Bihar (iii) The Politics of the Labour Movement: An Essay on Differential
Aspirations- Dilip Simeon (iv) Abdul Bari- Wikipedia (v) Tata Worker Union pays
tribute to Professor Abdul Bari-Read it India (vi) Official website of Tata
Worker’s Union)
.jpg)
.jpg)