Aakriti case exposes UP govt’s repressive mindset

The Allahabad High Court’s relief to Aakriti Chaudhary, a Delhi University history graduate and activist, is a victory for civil rights and, concomitantly, a blow to the saffron establishment. The 25-year-old Chaudhary was taken into custody under the National Security Act (NSA) on charges of instigating a mob that indulged in violence during the Noida workers’ agitation on April 13. More than 40,000 factory workers in the industrial town adjacent to the national capital were protesting for higher wages and better working conditions.

There were incidents of arson, stone-pelting, and an altercation with the police. This was not the first time such protests by trade unions resulted in such incidents, but invoking the NSA, which is a harsh law, against the organisers was executive overreach. Worse, the High Court bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev found that the detention was based on a story “concocted” by the state. This is a damning indictment, underlining the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government’s disregard for both due process and human rights. The HC didn’t just give the authorities a tongue-lashing but also went on to direct the state to deduct Rs five lakh from the salary of Noida District

Magistrate Medha Rupam and give it to Aakriti.

The Yogi Adityanath government unnecessarily suffered this embarrassment, for there was no reason to come down on the organisers and agitators. Violence should be penalised, but not peaceful protests. Even the arson and stone-pelting were not of such scale to warrant excessively coercive action. They were demanding higher minimum wages; the trigger was the Haryana government’s decision to hike the minimum pay. UP is indeed emerging as an industrial hub, having reportedly attracted investment worth Rs 50 lakh crore in the last nine years under Yogi; projects worth over Rs 15 lakh crore have already moved to the implementation stage through four ground-breaking ceremonies.

These projects are projected to generate about 60 lakh jobs. Therefore, the state government’s zeal to ward off militant trade unionism in Noida, a prominent business centre, is understandable; but this zeal should not have degenerated into downright repression. Industrial development is predicated not just on the satisfaction of industrialists but also of workers. Development and progress are not zero-sum games, in which one can gain only at the expense of the other; the pie keeps growing, and so does the share of all stakeholders, though unevenly. The role of the State is to ensure that none of the stakeholders suffers injustice in any form. Businesspersons are important, but so also are their employees.

A healthy industrial ecosystem thus requires a fair balance between the interests of employers and workers. Governments must create conditions that encourage investment while simultaneously safeguarding labour rights, ensuring timely and adequate wages, and providing safe working environments. Suppressing legitimate demands may bear the appearance of industrial peace, but it cannot produce durable prosperity. On the contrary, workers who feel unheard or exploited are more likely to lose faith in

institutions and resort to confrontation. Constructive dialogue, collective bargaining, and lawful mechanisms for resolving industrial disputes are therefore essential. The State must act as a judicious arbiter and not as an instrument of either capital or labour. And it should certainly not victimise those who champion workers’ cause.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Hans India