Worker or Fisher

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(from Vocabulary of Commons, article 35)

by K P Sasi

The concept of class and community among the coastal commons in Kerala

History of all existing societies hitherto, is the history of class struggles’, wrote Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto in 1858. Most of Marx’s writings reflected this class analysis. The class struggle according to Marx was a conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat was defined as a section which sells their labour power to the owners of means of production, for their survival.

Marx has certainly inspired many great thinkers, revolutionaries and numerous people’s movements all over the world. The quality of his critique of capital and the analysis on surplus value can never be replaced by any. The inspiration initiated by Marx has infected a large section of activists in the communist parties and outside the party system in India. However, many activists within the people’s movements are today finding it difficult to take the words of Marx in the 19th century in their original form in today’s context in India. They feel that the conflicts of caste, gender, sexuality, Adivasis, fisher folk, environment, nationality, race, colour, communalism and many other conflicts pose serious challenges apart from class for any realistic social analysis. It is also felt that these conflicts cannot be reduced to class analysis, though there may be a dimension of class in most of these issues.

The fundamental question in this debate is: Is it just the working class struggle which is designed to make history or do Dalits, women, Adivasis, fisher folks, blacks, sexuality minorities, nationality struggles and anticommunal struggles have a role in creating history? The second significant theoretical question among the concerned activists is: In a society like India where people are facing conflicts of multiple identities and multiple oppression systems, what common political analysis can be used to link all the marginalised sections together? At a time when most of the struggles have started projecting their own analytical tools to understand society, is there a possibility of using an analysis based on one contradiction to understand rest of the contradictions in history?

Working class and the Left parties

It is interesting that no communist party in India has a programme for a working-class led socialist revolution. The Communist Party of India (CPI) calls for a National Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI(M), calls for a People’s Democratic Revolution and the naxalites call for a New Democratic Revolution. It is a moot question how many in this country know the difference between these three revolutions and the difference in the character of the Indian state after these three revolutions. There are reasons to presume that very few within the party system really believe in the concept of revolution itself. However, the intelligentsia within the Left parties and outside still use class analysis to look at history as well as the contemporary situation. But, when it comes to elections, both the Left and the Right parties find caste, community and religion more important than class. There is no doubt that class is one of the most fundamental contradictions. But this analysis has been disturbing many other analytical interventions of other marginalised sections.

The Communist movement in Kerala historically did not focus much on the rights of the Adivasis or fishing community or any other communities related to commons. The only possible reason could be the limitations of the class analysis. It was only during 1970s that the fishing community was getting known as fish workers. Perhaps, the rights of the communities related to commons need a totally fresh outlook on class analysis.

If the Left had a proper understanding on the concept of development and the commons, perhaps there was a major chance of them to be celebrated as the defenders of the marginalised in this country. Unfortunately, most of them were driven by a notion that capitalist development facilitated working class movement in many ways. Technically speaking, it could be argued that this notion is true to a large extent. Otherwise, how do we analyse the working class organisations in Plachimada supporting the multinational giant Coca Cola, when the local Adivasis, Dalits and farmers were on a stiff battle against the company? How do we understand the organisations of the working class supporting Birla, when the local villagers and activists all over Kerala were struggling for the rights of the commons of the affected villagers? How do we see the support of the trade union movements for the infamous Silent Valley Project? The list goes on! Significantly, in all these cases, the struggle for the commons surpassed the strength of the organised working class.

If the organised Left had an understanding on the commons, perhaps serious historical blunders like Nandigram and Singur might not have happened. Instead of fighting for the marginalised, they would not have been forced to defend Tatas or Salim Company—a multinational corporation infamous for their role in the killings of thousands of Communists in Indonesia. The organised church often took a few centuries to understand reality in history. The Left parties however seem to be much better. In a recent statement, Prakash Karat, the General Secretary of the CPI(M) said that the left parties are still living in the 1940s!

Class, community and coastal commons in Kerala

The fisher folk in Kerala lived as a community for generations near the coast, depending on the sea for their survival. They do not sell their labour power as per the definition of proletariat by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. The traditional fisher folk, which happens to be the largest section involved in fishing, believe in sharing their catch. Thus, instead of labour, they sell their products of labour like Adivasis selling forest produce. In fact, the relationship of the fisher folk with the sea is similar to the relationship between Adivasis and forests. In the case of fisheries in Kerala, the traditional fisher folk own their means of production also—ie: the net, boat and the engine. The person who owns the net gets an additional share of the catch and similarly additional shares are there for other areas of means of production. There is no question of appropriation of surplus value by the owners of means of production or sale of labour power. There is a small section of fisher people who are wage labourers in trawlers or purse seiners. From the definition of Marx, technically speaking, they are the only working class. However, the people’s movement to protect the commons is led by the Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (the Kerala independent fish workers federation, KSMTF) which works with the majority of the traditional fishing community and it comprises of men who go to the sea, women who sell fish and old men and children who indirectly help the process from the shore and teenagers who are yet to start working.

Traditionally, the fishing community was called ‘Mukkuva’ or ‘Araya’ community in Kerala. Though there was a sense of community in both these terms, there was also value attached to these terms. There was a clear stigma or prejudice from the caste ridden Kerala society to these words. The term ‘matsya thozhilali’ or ‘fish worker’ came obviously with the influence of Marxism as well as liberation theology which was a strong social and ideological current in Kerala during the 1980s. Union activists in the fisheries sector feel that the transition of identity to the term ‘fish worker’ has provided more respect. Such a respect is certainly due to the long history of working class struggles in Kerala. The Adivasis in Jharkhand enjoy better respect in being called by the term ‘Adivasi’ than in other parts of India because of the history of Adivasi struggle in Jharkhand. But it is clear that the power of collective bargaining of the working class in Kerala has helped the status of the fishing community.

In English, the term used for a long time was ‘fishermen’. The National Fish Workers’ Forum was known as ‘National Fishermen’s Forum’ for a long time. It required a debate and pressure from outside as well as from inside the organisation to change its name. But it appears that the term ‘fish worker’ is also incomplete and limits the identity of the community. In the activities related to fishing, the entire community is involved. The relationship of the fishing community with the sea is very similar to the relationship of the Adivasis with the forests. Both depend upon nature for their survival and both are bound by community laws irrespective of divisions of class or religion. In that sense the relationship of the rights of the commons in the coast is very similar to that in the forest. Some international analysts have described the traditional fishing communities as sea tribes. At the same time, some middle class activists fear that if the community identity is utilised politically, the social activism in the fisheries sector can become communal. But this argument may not hold in reality, considering the fact that the Christian, Hindu and Muslim fisher folk have similar spirituality and culture in their relationship to the commons. ‘Mother Sea’ is the common goddess for all among the community irrespective of their religion. The unifying factors of spirituality, tradition, culture and wisdom which unite the fisher folk have more political strength than the divisions of organised religions. The vast heritage of wisdom from the experiences with the commons unite the fisher folk as a community. While the organised institutions of the mainstream have tried to divide the community, it is unfortunate that activists have still not been able to make use of the cultural and spiritual common grounds effectively to unite the fishing community effectively against the large scale invasion of the commons today.

Liberation theology and the struggle of the fishing community

Many priests and nuns were quite committed to the struggle of the fisher folk during the 1980s in Kerala. Many were inspired by liberation theologians like Sebastian Kappen and the liberation theology movement in Latin America. It may be interesting to analyse what went wrong with the relationship between liberation theology movement and the fisher folk’s struggle in Kerala. The participation of the priests and nuns had a powerful impact not just among the fisher folk but also among the middle class in Kerala during the 1980s. Today, their involvement has more or less vanished. It is therefore time to analyse the positive and negative aspects of such participation in any people’s movement related to commons.

Perhaps one of the reasons for such a decline of participation was that there was a genuine confusion about priorities, due to their commitment to the fisher folk as well as to the church. While the concept of liberation theology stressed liberation of the poor, some of its torch bearers in practice were not very clear on a central question: ‘Whether to liberate the church or to liberate the people first’. The power of the position for many within the church was a delicate matter. The committed missionary zeal for the oppressed also restricted the possibilities of playing a supportive role to the leaders of the fishing community, rather than directly representing the community themselves in the struggle for the rights of the coastal commons. While this unarticulated confusion remained for many, the organised church could effectively handle the radicalisation of the clergy over a period of time.

The organised church has been the largest bureaucracy in the world, which has handled internal dissent effectively throughout history, much better than even some of the nation states. This included both suppression of dissent as well as appropriation of dissent. While almost all the radical clergy who entered the struggle favoured ‘political action’ for their direction more than the usual ‘charitable action’ of the church groups, perhaps because of their own Christian sense of ‘sacrifice’ for the poor or because of the public attention of the ‘heroic’ involvement of the clergy, deep inside, the political action itself became a charity for the poor. This experience is also real for many middle class activists who indulge in similar committed activism among the communities related to commons, without realising that ultimately they are not the real representatives of the community.

Struggles for commons: People’s movements outside the working class framework

Today, most of the struggles which challenge the system in a major way remain outside the analytical notion of ‘class’. Among these struggles, the struggles of the local communities for the right to commons are playing a historic role. These struggles are for the right to forests, land, rivers, lakes, sea and the hills. The organisations of the working class, the trade unions have more or less ceased to play a revolutionary role and limit their actions to specific immediate economic gains. Though there are many exceptions to this observation, any serious student of political history in India can tell that the working class today is not prepared for any revolution. At the same time, significant struggles on the commons are taking place. The Adivasis, fisher folk, small and traditional farmers and Dalits are on major struggles against an aggressive invasion of the commons, by the State as well as corporations. These invasions are backed with an international agenda, supported by agencies like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Laws are being changed without sufficient national debate or even debate in the parliament to suit the interests of the corporations to control the commons. The stiff resistance of the local people for their right to resources are confronted heavily by police repression, mafia or by manipulation. However, some struggles have been successful despite heavy odds, inspiring many other people’s movements on the road to liberate the commons.

The struggle for the regulation of trawlers and purse-seiners

For more than three decades, the fisher people’s movement has survived in Kerala—a state where struggles outside political party system were not tolerated. KSMTF led significant struggles on the right to commons in Kerala. The fishing community in Kerala also can claim many success stories related to commons.

One of the most significant struggles of the fishing community in recent history has been the struggle to regulate trawlers and purse-seiners. The fishing community argued that the trawlers rake the seabed, destroyed fish eggs and larvae and thus threatened their livelihood. The scientific community retaliated to this notion saying that there was no ‘scientific evidence’ for the destruction of fish eggs and larvae. The struggle against trawlers started originally in Goa during the nineteen seventies, led by leaders like Matanhy Saldanha. The struggle in Kerala became intense during the early nineteen eighties, led by many dedicated priests and nuns inspired by liberation theology.

The struggle for the regulation of trawlers and purse-seiners however was successful to a great extent. The state government implemented the ban on these technologies for 45 days every year during the monsoon season, which happens to be the breeding season for many varieties of fish, especially for prawns. The scientific community which initially argued that trawlers do not destroy fish eggs and larvae, finally had to accept the logic of the fishing community. The real working class in the sea, i.e. the labour force of trawlers and purse-seiners, were opposed to the ban and their positions were similar to the capitalists, the owners of their boats.

Fisher women’s struggle for the right to sell fish

Fisher women play an active role in the fisheries sector. Though they play a number of roles connected with fisheries, their main role in Kerala, especially southern Kerala, is in selling the fish. Though this activity is also being defined as ‘labour’, in terms of class relations it comes under small trade. The commons of the fisher women are not related to the coast. They also express a right over the fish markets in the city. While the small traders and hawkers in Thiruvananthapuram city were getting removed forcefully by the authorities, bowing down to the interests of the interests of the large traders, the fisher women put up a stiff battle against their displacement from the fish markets. This struggle can also said to be successful to a large extent.

Climate change and the coastal commons

It is common scientific understanding today that the sea levels are rising due to climate change. Sea walls are built on around two thirds of the 590 kilometre coastal line of Kerala. Most of the sea walls are already eaten by the sea and therefore they cannot even be seen. The stones dropped by the government need to be searched for under the sand. This process has only helped the corruption of the state bureaucracy and the contractors. In most of the places, the fisher people complain against the sea walls since they are a direct hindrance to their fishing activities. In spite of these constructions, the houses damaged by the invasion of the sea are increasing every monsoon. There is an increasing number of climate refugees on the coast.

The traditional prediction models of the community acquired through generations of community wisdom are affected today. The traditional fishing community depends on their daily catches for survival based on the calculations of their wisdom moulded by thousands of years. These calculations of collective wisdom of the community are being upset today. There was a traditional knowledge about when to fish, where to fish and what to fish in which season. The indicators that form the basis of these predictions are destroyed because of the changes in wind, sea currents and changes in the temperature of the sea. The slightest change in the sea temperature affects many fish varieties. Rains do not come when they are supposed to. When it does not rain, there is drought and when it rains, there are floods. Fish species are either vanishing or changing their habitat.

Though the fishing communities are the first to be hit among the victims of climate change, they are not represented in any of the national or international discussions of climate change. It needs an active role of supportive groups in India and abroad to generate proper representation for the climate refugees in India. The contribution of the traditional fishing community to carbon emissions is minimum. However, the community is being victimised for somebody else’s emissions.

Sometimes, simple solutions are made complex by middle class intellectual interests. The struggle for the commons was active all over India during the last three decades. The demands of the local communities affected by the state and corporate invasions on the commons were mainly three: socially and environmentally sustainable energy, sustainable industry and sustainable agriculture. This is the only ultimate solution to the problem of climate change.

Cancellation of licenses for the foreign vessels

Unlike the problem posed by small trawlers and purse-seiners owned by Indian capital, the large investment of foreign vessels have become a much bigger threat to the coastal commons. KSMTF and the National Fish Workers Federation (NFF) organised massive agitations against the decision of the Government of India (GoI) to grant permission to foreign trawlers to fish in Indian waters. Thousands of fisher folk participated in the protests. GoI responded to this by appointing the Murari Commission to study the issue. Revoking the licences issued to foreign fishing vessels was one among the 21 recommendations of this commission. Though this was an achievement in securing the rights of the fishing community on the commons, the recommendations are not implemented till today. The destruction by the foreign vessels is severe and the rights of the fishing community over the sea is disrupted beyond imagination.

Struggle against sand mining and ‘reclamation’

The sea is eroding the coastline not just due to climate change. In some of the places where sand mining is active, it has come inside for more than two kilometres. The combination of climate change and sand mining pose a much bigger threat to the community. Houses, roads, shops, coconut trees and the common spaces of the community are being taken away by the sea. However, the struggle against sand mining is also active in Kerala and in some places, the local communities could also stop sand mining.

The main problem of the commons lie in the fact that both the state and the corporations believe that they can do anything with the commons so long as profits are acquired. A proposal to ‘reclaim’ the sea on an area of 5000 hectares from the sea off the Veli-Thumba stretch of the coast in Thiruvananthapuram, was resisted by the fishing community in Kerala on environmental and social grounds. The state government had to back out in the end. This struggle is seen as a major achievement of the fishing community and the right to commons in southern Kerala in the recent period.

The struggle on CRZ/CZM and the coastal commons

The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ) 1991 in India was to a certain extent a legal space to restrict the invasion of capital on the coastal commons. Though the CRZ did not articulate the rights of community on the commons fully, there were different restrictions on the developmental activities in the coast. While the activists could use this notification to prevent some of these invasions in different parts of the country, thousands of violations on this notification continued. The violators were never caught under the law. Instead, this notification was diluted several times due to pressure from the industrial and tourism lobby till the Dr. M.S. Swaminathan committee was appointed to restructure the notification completely as Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Notification, which denied the rights of the fishing community in many ways.

The fishing community protested against the recommendations of the committee throughout the coastal belt in India and even burnt the report publicly in Thiruvananthapuram. KSMTF which spearheaded the struggle in Kerala even pressurised the Government of Kerala to take a stand against the CZM Notification. As a result of struggles in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and other places, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) initiated a public consultation on this issue in many places. Though the public representing the commons strongly articulated their case against the official move in all the consultations, the opinions of the community are still not taken into account. The move today is to initiate a new CRZ Notification with minor adjustments, preventing the rights of the community. The pressure on GoI to facilitate the invasion of global and national capital on the coastal commons through foreign vessels, tourism and other industries, is going on. On the other side, the struggle of the fishing community to protect the commons in Kerala is getting intensified.

Other struggles

These are only some of the struggles on the coastal commons in Kerala. There are others like the invasion by the tourism industry, real estate and hazardous industries. Ultimately, all pollution ends up in the sea and the fishing communities have to bear the brunt. It has come to a stage that the struggle for protecting the coastal commons has become multiple since the invasion on the sea and the coast is taking place through multiple means. It certainly requires a much wider network to preserve and protect the coastal commons and the fishing community. In the end, if the commons are not protected, the victims are not just the local communities but the entire humanity.

Ultimately, all the struggles in the coastal Kerala can be summed up in one major classification: the struggle to protect the sea and the coast. Before the term ‘commons’ became popular in India, activists used the term ‘natural resource’ to express the rights of the fishing community and Adivasis. But neither the fisher folk nor the Adivasis perceive nature as a ‘resource’ though they are dependent on nature for their survival. The spirituality towards nature limits the possibility of depleting ecology for their ‘private profits’. Nature is thus a ‘source of life’ for these communities and not a ‘resource’.

Like the Adivasis, the fishing community knows that if the commons are not protected, they will not live long. Their millennia old wisdom tells them that the resources of the ocean are not endless and therefore they have to be dealt with care. The main challenge is how to make the state and corporations listen to this wisdom of the fishing community. But how will they understand, when they do not understand the language or idiom? How will they, who are steeped in commercial interests and utilitarianism, recognise this wisdom when it is encoded in a different paradigm—a paradigm of the sacredness of the source of life upon which the existence of all species on this planet depend upon? But understand they must, for the very survival of the human race depends on it.