United Masses of India (2-day Nationwide Strike) India is a country where mass is distributed, if not divided, but policing

is centralized. Both are not corresponding to each other. Unification is considered to be a distant dream for Indian masses. Many sociologists studied the society as one mass. E.B. Reuter opined that Men live in a community in virtue of the things which they have in common; the communication is the way in which they come to possess things in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community or a society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledgea common understanding. F.H. Giddings is of the opinion that from the moment when the individual becomes intellectually aware of his kind (or kinds) he begins to pick and choose his familiars. He is acutely conscious of likes and dislikes, and develops countless prejudices. On the whole he likes best those fellowmen whose ways are his ways, whose foibles are his foibles, whose vices are his vices, whose virtues are his virtues, whose tastes are his tastes, and whose beliefs are his beliefs. His consorting becomes a preferential association, and this is the beginning of society in distinction from the herd. However, Karl Marx in Dass Capital and in Theses on Feuerbach argues that every society is composed of two antagonistic classes; one who are the owners of means of production and utilize surplus value, and the second the owners of Labour Power only, which the sell to the owner of means of productions. However, later on, other Marxian thinkers, keeping in view rising number of self-employed, service providers constituting middle class termed them as Petite Bourgeois , thus justified third class within society, acting as buffer. Peter Saunders in Social Class and Stratification disagreed with Karl Marx on the classification made by him. He opined that the fundamental social cleavages are structured not around class relations of ownership and non-ownership but according to him social cleavage depends upon many factors like castes, religion etc. He also gave an idea of another strata i.e. underclass formed by some of these people who do not regularly participate in the formal economy. Though Marx say them as reserve army of labour or capitalisms surplus population. As such, almost all thinkers other than Karl Marx are somehow not supporting he ambitions of Karl Marx and sentiments of Communists to the effect that two antagonistic classes may clash to bring out a socioeconomic change. They largely depend upon the idea of social cleavage on the basis of numerous factors and also on buffer appears to be created by middle class, not analyzed in depth. In any case, I am always of the opinion that despite every kind of micro classification, economic forces have the capacity to unite all sub-strata, in given circumstances. Realty of stratification and antagonism comes to fore when economic conditions of particular sort exist. Classification on the basis of social factors like castes, religion etc. become inoperative at that time and there remains two classes and they are always in antagonism.

Recently, trade unions of different sectors called nationwide two days strike and it was so much successful that no sector, no office was functioning. The Government/employer tried to restrain workers from going to strike by threatening to impose a sort penalty i.e. no work-no pay. Surprisingly, even this threat could not deter the workers from going to strike. This is the most cherished and most wanted effort of the working class against discriminatory economic policies of the Governments. This recent event once again reinvigorated theory of Karl Marx. Workers are the flag bearers of the revolution and they have proved. They are united in the event of necessity. Underclass or the classes based on castes, religion, domicile, language etc. have become irrelevant in the present scenario. And in my opinion, this is the great achievement for the India as a United Country and is a matter of proud.