New Delhi: The escalation of union government on a series of contentious clauses in the recently formulated farm laws has only reinforced the perception that the Center led by Narendra Modi prefers agitation to consultation.
In recent years, the ruling BJP’s non-consultative approach has precipitated multiple upheavals. However, he has been quite successful in using these as opportunities to polarize opinion and consolidate his grassroots, supporters and defenders of the fence by investing his political energy and monetary power.
In that sense, the unanimous rejection of the government’s proposal to reconsider the farm laws by ideologically competing farmers’ unions marks a watershed moment in Modi’s six-year term as prime minister.
Modi’s Achilles heel?
The response of the BJP machinery to the farmers’ protests has only been uncertain so far. The union government, on the other hand, has only been unsure about how to deal with the protest. Baffled by a sustained and organized campaign and protest against the laws, government officials and ministers have shown their willingness to negotiate with farmers. But at the same time, the BJP, its supporters and docile media platforms have tried to smear the farmers movement initially by labeling them as “Khalistanis”, and now the projection has “Naxal influence”.
File photo of Punjabi farmers protesting against agricultural bills. Photo: PTI / Archives
Farmers unions, on the other hand, have not cared about what they see as “BJP propaganda.” They have already conveyed to the Center that they will settle for nothing less than a total repeal of the laws, and have even threatened to intensify their agitation in the coming days.
All of this just means that the saffron party has struggled to polarize the political narrative around farmers’ protests in its favor. The BJP has not had much trouble spinning past such upheavals, which arose out of the Center’s visibly undemocratic attitude, within its Hindutva policy.
Unsurprisingly, he painted, albeit without any evidence, the Muslim leadership in the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the National Registry of Citizens and the National Registry of Population as “anti-national. “Similarly, protests against a hastily implemented Goods and Services Tax (GST) were also reported to the public by the BJP as having vested political interests.
Such was the level of government unilateralism that one can easily find a lower-level bureaucracy complaining about the difficulties in implementing the ever-changing rules. Furthermore, the impending protests against the sudden revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status were silenced by brute force. There are multiple examples, small and large, where the union government before making decisions with far-reaching implications has not kept important stakeholders informed.
It is precisely for this reason that farmers’ associations have been reluctant to view the Center’s guarantees in a positive light. By presenting three very controversial farm laws with no bills for discussion, then discussing the final bill discreetly during the peak of the Coronavirus pandemic, and then finally sweeping the approval of laws in Parliament, the Center has left no room to put farmers on its side.
Furthermore, the BJP has attempted to smear the farmers’ movement for having vested political interests, but it has not worked in their favor to the extent that it did in previous upheavals. The farmers movement cuts across castes, classes, religious identities, and has garnered both national and international support. The BJP, as a result, has only had trouble easily classifying the move as one or the other.
Deep mistrust of the government
The determined rejection of the farmers, despite the guarantees of the Center, has indicated a deep mistrust of the government. In fact, most unions said The wire that the Center’s guarantees are more to play and divide the movement rather than reconsider its supposedly “pro-business” approach. And that is why the Center’s proposal has been unanimously rejected.
On the other hand, this mistrust in itself has caused a significant part of the farmers’ unions to come together to show their solidarity with some of the earlier agitations and democratic movements that the BJP machinery had described as “anti-national” or “urban naxal. “. directed, ”but which they believe has been the result of the similar“ authoritarian ”attitude of the Modi government.
Police make a humane barricade to prevent various farmer organizations protesting against three new agricultural laws from marching towards New Delhi, in Hisar, on November 25, 2020. Photo: PTI
Indeed, the largest farmers union among the 32 such associations that are leading the farmers’ agitation, BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan), feels that it is time for all democratic forces to come together and that the movement must be as inclusive as possible without losing the primacy of its original demands.
Since a section of the farmers’ unions has made this broader democratic call to show, and also seek, the support of other protest groups, a significant number of commentators feel that this may dilute the original character of the movement.
However, the farmers’ unions do not think so. While only some unions may have openly supported political prisoners and other unrest, others who have not said so openly also believe that the Center is “authoritarian”, and would agree that the Modi-led government.
It is precisely because of this union of organizations in ideological competition that the agitation of the farmers has had a visible impact. Any peasant leader camping on the borders of Delhi would tell you that they are not bothered by these criticisms, as they have been consistent in their demands and have come a long way prepared. “The government has been trying to smear us, and it will do so in the future” is a constant refrain among peasant leaders.
Furthermore, commentators seem to be unaware that protest movements are fundamentally based on emotion. Anyone with a modicum of familiarity with protest movements would know that protests are not homogeneous, and most of them arise out of deep emotional distress when stakeholders are pushed against the wall. Organizational movements are definitely not like contesting elections in which political parties strategize in each and every electoral district according to their demographic composition, caste calculations, and candidates’ ability to win. These factors rarely impact the progress of protest movements.
Indeed, organized unrest often becomes a common platform for different groups, identities, and individuals, who have often competed with each other, both ideologically and otherwise. The ongoing farmers’ movement against supposedly business-friendly farm laws has become an example of how organizations across the ideological spectrum, from left to right, have come together to resist what all of them commonly see as the biggest. Modi government strike in the state. -protected agricultural system.
“Modi ji had said it would double the farmers’ income. He said he will implement [M.S.] Swaminathan commission report. Occurred? Why should we believe him? ”Said a farmer. The wire on the border of Tikri.
“Our lands are under attack. We will die saving them, ”said another.
“Even if we have to sit here [Delhi border] until 2024, we will not give in. It’s a fight for justice, ”said another middle-aged farmer.
“I came back from New Zealand to support my family members in the protest. We cannot allow corporations to control our land, ”said a young man on the Tikri border.
“Apni kamaai, apni zameen (Our income, our land), ”read a sign at a farmers’ camp.
“Aaj zameen, kal insaan (Today is our land attacked, tomorrow it will be us) ”, said a farmer from Patiala. The wire.
“We are farmers. Don’t call us terrorists, ”read a sign addressed to“ Godi media ”.
Emotional responses permeate the air on the borders of Delhi. The more you meet people there, the more you hear those outbursts of deep anger against the government.
However, the movement is not without strategy. The fact that so many farmer groups, all active in different regions with different social contexts, were able to find a common agenda in the movement and have largely stuck to that middle ground, reflects its effectiveness. The BJP will have to deal with this emotional unity in the peasant movement before using another trick to destroy it.
.
