During the first session of the Legislative Assembly after the 1952 elections beginning on June 21 that year, the Congress government introduced the West Bengal Salaries and Wages Bill 1952 which was intended not to hike the pay packets of legislators or government officials but that of ministers, ministers of state, deputy ministers, not to forget the Chief minister himself.

Needless to say, the Opposition had lots to say against the Bill. There was simply no justification in hiking the salaries of ministers when the food crisis was at its peak, children were going without milk and people were dying on the streets. This move deserved condemnation.

Dr Roy’s Bill envisaged an enviable rise in his own salary from the then Rs 1250 per month to a steep Rs 2400; add to this, his residential rent and his total emoluments stood at Rs 2650. Also, the chief minister was entitled to a second official residence for which the State Treasury would have to pay Rs 250 per month. In all, this amounted to more than doubling the chief minister's salary!

Earlier, a state minister used to get a salary of Rs 1200 per month; with the new Bill, this went up to Rs. 2100. There was a similar proportionate rise proposed in the salaries of ministers of state, deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Charuchandra Bhandari opposed the Bill and said that public opinion be sought on it.

Manikuntala Sen said, "I am not sure how close the proponents of this Bill are with the people. But if they had even some idea of the general public feeling and the strong condemnation that this Bill has evoked in Bengal, then they would have been forced to withdraw it. But it’s quite pointless to talk about public opinion to these people who choose to stay in ivory towers; they have never gone to the people, instead choosing to run away from them during the elections."

Even as the debate on this Bill was on in the chamber inside, word came that a huge procession had arrived on the Assembly premises, just outside the gates. From inside, we could hear their slogan, "We want food, shelter and clothing; we want to live decent lives."

I drew the Speaker’s attention and said that the processionists would like to hand over a memorandum to the chief minister. I also said that it was the chief minister’s duty to face them. Dr Roy, true to style, evaded meeting them but agreed to talk to a representative deputation.

Alongwith some other Opposition members, I met the processionists and put forward our views. They dispersed slowly and peacefully.

The Opposition members tried to stall the Bill through parliamentary procedures. Countless amendments were proposed and voting was recorded on each of them. The government had thought that it would be able to rush the Bill through on the opening day itself; finally, it was passed on June 27 with a voting pattern of 139-75.

On July 1, the law minister, S. K. Bose, introduced a draconian Bill. It was called the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Bill 1952. Proposing the Bill, he said that since 1950, violence had increased manifold in the state and industrial peace was being jeopardised. It was for this reason that tribunals were being necessitated to facilitate speedy justice.

We reckoned that this Bill would be dangerous. The intention was clear; the target was obviously the growing labour movement which was fast spreading its influence among the farmers and the middle class. The Opposition leadership decided to fight the Bill with all its might.

We knew that the Congress government would be able to push through the Bill by the strength of the majority it enjoyed. But the passage of the Bill was not the final word; we wanted it to be delayed and brought amendments to all clauses and sought voting on each of them.

I said in the Assembly, "We know that this Bill has not been introduced to be used against dacoits and murderers but the farmer-labourers and the middle class. They will be put behind bars without a proper trial or a jury. We must understand that such a Bill can be presented only by a corrupt dictatorial and bureaucratic government. We in the Opposition shall not take part in the voting process since that would mean legalising and accepting the norms of the jungle."

On July 10, 1952, this notorious and draconian Bill was passed with a majority of 138-64 votes. Before the final voting, I _ representing my party as well as the entire Opposition _ strongly said that our agitation against this law would continue.

During the session, thousands of people used to come in processions almost daily to the Assembly to press for various demands on the food, labour, refugee and other immediate issues. We in the Opposition used to meet them and raise these matters in the House.

Shaken by this mass upsurge, the Congress government clamped Section 144 on the Assembly premises every morning. The processionists were routinely stopped at Esplanade East; as soon as we were informed, we immediately met them there. This happened daily.

We were always keen to maintain our links with the mass movements that were continuously taking shape outside the portals of the Assembly. It was our endeavour to take issues to the people, involve them in our work, criticise the malfunctioning of the Congress government and raise the voice of protest whenever we found injustice. It would not be an exaggeration to say that we were successful.