12 SOCIAL SCIENTIST any step which would strike at the roots of the system. For them, anti-imperialist politics was taboo and revolutionary politics still worse. Yet these leaders were in favour of forming a central labour union, Baptista (a barrister) himself was the chairman of the reception committee for the first session of the AITUG, which was presided over by Lala Lajpat Rai, a confirmed Left nationalist of the day. In the light of this, it is difficult to account for the formation of AITUC in 1920. Most probably the following factors account for it: Intense labour unrest at all the industrial centres of India, creating an objective basis for starting trade unions seriously; desire of a section of labour leaders (mainly belonging to the moderate group) to represent Indian labour in the different official bodies, particularly in the newly formed ILO, through such unions; hope of bringing pressure on the government through international organisations like I L 0; to pass pro-labour legislations with a view to defending the interests of labour; to lead working class struggles through consitutional means. The role of the ILO, which insisted on having unofficial labour representatives on its body, must also have had its influence. This condition could not be fufilled unless some sort of a centralised labour union was formed which would act as the mouthpiece of Indian labour and elect its own representatives to the ILO. In the absence of further data, it is difficult to conclude that the Indian working class itself was seriously feeling the need to form a central labour union like the AITUC. The leading personalities responsible for the founding of AITUC comprised philanthropists, moderates, and Left nationalists. Their views regarding the role of trade union movement vis-a-vis capital were basically identical, though their political views were different. This contradiction among the founder-leaders of AITUC was to presist throughout the subsequent history of this body and bring about disastrous consequences later on. 1 V B Karnik, Indian Tiade Unions (1966), p 42. 2 Sukomal Sen, Working Class of India (1977), p 131. ^ J S Mathur, Indian Working Class Movement (1964), p 21. 4 Burnett-Hurst, Labour and Housing in Bombay (1925), p 136. s V B Karnik Op.cit., p 85. 6 Ibid., p 85. 7 Sukomal Sen, Op.cit.y p 154. 8 Burnett- Hurst, Op.cit., p 102.