Resist when even salt is taxed

Add caption

Dear friends and comrades,

          March is the month of the historic Dandi March.

          When Salt was taxed and Indians were prohibited from making or selling salt because the British Government laid monopoly to those activities and a heavy tax was levied on Salt, Gandhi decided to launch a civil disobedience movement by breaking the law.  He led a march to Dandi which was called the famous Dandi march. 

Initially when the suggestion was made by Gandhi, the Congress Working Committee had its own doubts.  Jawarhalal Nehru and Vallabhai Patel were not very confident about the success of the action plan.  (Gandhi, Gopalkrishna. "The Great Dandi March — eighty years after", The Hindu, 5 April 1930)

The British establishment too was not disturbed by these plans of resistance against the salt tax. The Viceroy himself, Lord Irwin, did not take the threat of a salt protest seriously, writing to London, "At present the prospect of a salt campaign does not keep me awake at night." (Letter to London on 20 February 1930. Ackerman, p. 84.)

But that pinch of salt, shook the empire. The destiny of the nation changed on that date.

The reasons were elementary which even great minds did not understand before the event.  It was a symbolic protest.  But, people’s participation in massive scale, did not leave it as merely symbolic.  It showcased to the world, the displeasure of the Indian peoples to the ruling clan.

Why this history now?

When the AIEC of our Association met at Nagpur last month, we had the serious issue of how to focus the attention of the Board and Government to our problems.  Stagnation is one of the most denigrating issues which has not been addressed by the Board for decades.  For any solution suggested by us (including legendary predecessors), they had a problem.  When issues were taken to Court, the decisions were either not implemented or the implementation was done in such a manner that it was ensured that real relief did not happen. 

The worst sufferers have been the present day Superintendents of Central Excise/GST.  Though they have been taking the entire brunt of work load and associated stress in the field right from their days as Inspectors, 75% of them are not ensured of even a second promotion in their career.  When as on date persons could become Superintendents even on completion of the probation period of 2 years, there are those who reached the cadre of Inspector (either by promotion or Direct Recruitment) 30 to 35 years ago, and are still continuing only as Superintendents.  Our estimate is that there are 7200 plus persons (out of the working strength of around 12000) who have completed 25 years from the date of becoming Inspectors. 

The Cadre Restructuring Proposal which was circulated to us only after we put pressure, clearly indicated that this fundamental issue was not going to be addressed in this Cadre Restructuring also.  The AIEC was most exercised on this issue. The faint hope was the assurance of the new Member (Admn) and Chairman.  But the AIEC was not able to forget the past history of betrayals to this cadre.

The meeting therefore decided to make the issue of compulsory use of mobile phones of the Superintendents for official work a point to show our ‘symbolic protest’.

The administrative higher ups in the Board or the Ministry have no moral or legal authority to demand use of our personal mobile phones for official work.  Definitely not these higher ups who believe that they have the first (read exclusive) claim on even the cars, contingents and space (whether official or residential) made available for official purposes, to enable discharge of official duties.  It is this very mentality that has also led them to believe that they alone have the first and last claim for proper timely promotions.  To the rest of the staff, like our unfortunate community, we will get liberal doses of ‘gyan’ that we should be happy for our bread, if not butter, that we should not compare ourselves with others, that we should do our duty and not expect returns, or that historical mistakes cannot be corrected.

The fundamental principle that has been running this Board is that by giving some personal benefits to some people, or by promising or allowing an impression of a promise of some personal benefits, they can afford to get absolute control over the entire cadre. 

When possibilities of throwing crumbs and showing the carrot get reduced, they take to the stick.  Threats like 56 J come in handy – even adverse entries in the APAR are not required for such arbitrary exercise of powers. 

Still further, when those below 50 years of age could not be threatened with the 56 J stick, they have to resort once again to age old, redundant, uniform.

They suddenly start preaching that Uniform is required for maintaining discipline – as if they imply that those without uniform are entitled to be indisciplined. 

They suddenly ask why people are not ‘proud’ to wear Uniform.  They are intelligent enough not to observe that their question itself has the answer – that if it were a matter of real pride, people would have unhesitatingly worn it. 

Let alone that GST does not have any prescription or necessity for a ‘Uniform’, legally there is no prescription even for the presently-in-vogue so called ‘Uniform’, after introduction of the BEM, and thereby it has become an officially condoned ‘impersonation of the Police’. 

Yet with all innocence (and impunity), it is maintained /insisted as if it is legal and moral.  The real intention is to instil the mentality of ‘slavery’ by forcing upon the entire work force, an attire of ‘their choice’.  Subjugation can be total, only if the spirit is stifled. 

Thus, it was increasingly becoming clear in the minds of the cadre that the administrators have not been wanting to find out methods of solving our issues, but only wanted to suppress any semblance of dissent - to the step motherly treatment meted out to the Group B Cadres of Central Excise and GST.  The deliberate ‘creation’ of a so called rival group in the name of this Association, itself was only a ploy in that direction.

The AIEC therefore found that a call to withdraw our personal mobiles from being demanded as a matter of right for execution of official works, was necessary to show our moral indignation. 

We have repeatedly brought the requirement of supply of Smart Phones to all Superintendents to the notice of the Board.    First when Smart Phones were required for Physical Verification of units; Then, when SPARROW was introduced; Again when DIN became mandatory.  We have also shown how CBDT has equipped its officers with mobile phones SIM cards, recharge reimbursement, etc, down below upto the level of Inspectors, even almost a decade ago.

Members had been urging upon the Association to give a call for immediate withdrawal – mostly because at the field level WhatsApp groups were being formed as a matter of right and instructions issued through the groups, at all times of the day – and night.  But considering that the issue had been brought to the notice of the Member (Admn) [who has later taken over as Chariman], and that he had assured to look into it, it was decided by the AIEC that we should give some advance notice before members withdraw the ‘facility’.

The notice has been served on the Board. Units also have served it on the local authorities.  Model draft letter has also been circulated to enable members to give them to their immediate supervisory authorities - withdrawing the facility of allowing their personal mobile phones for official work from 1st of March 2020.  ALL MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THE SAID LETTERS AND ENSURE THAT ANY OFFICIAL WORK REQUIRING USE OF SMART PHONES (like generating DIN) MAY IMMEDIATELY BE TRANSFERRED/SUBMITTED TO THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICERS TO ENABLE THEM TO ACT ON THEM, SO THAT REVENUE IS NOT LOST. We shall resume these official duties on being supplied with official Smart Phones, SIM Cards, reimbursements, etc.

Let us clearly reclaim our personal liberty and say NO to being taken for granted.  Let the message go clearly that WE ARE NOT HAPPY.

Participation of Members alone makes any programme a success.  The most important points where participation requires to be ensured are in the field – the Ranges, Customs Formations, the DRI, DGGI, etc. 

This ‘perfectly legal strike’, is going to decide the fate of this cadre.  If any member fails to respond to this call, it clearly shows that the member is prepared to compromise on ‘personal dignity’ and also forfeits any right to expect that the administration or for that matter the Association also, shall get him any of his dues – respect included.

Therefore friends and comrades, let us take a pinch of the salt – to redeem our dignity and self respect in this department.  Only then we can expect other demands to be even properly heard.

With fraternal greetings,

R. Manimohan,

Secretary General