The opposition ought to not have forgotten that they had gone hunger strike inside the premises of Parliament on the day the three laws were passed through voice votes. It would be futile to expect from a government that was determined to establish the hegemony of the political power over the peoples’ power.

Often the question is asked why is Modi reluctant to accede to the demands of the farmers of repealing the three laws, even after the farmers have been on satyagraha for two months? He has even not bothered to talk to the satyagrahis. The answer is simple; Modi having talk with the agitating farmers would add to the political strength of the peoples’ power, which he does not intend to do. He has been resorting to populist mode of governance by involving his ministers to talk to them. It is again the part of the neo-liberal machination; it would send the message that the government was willing to talk but the farmers were unnecessarily adamant. This appeals to the vast mass of the Indian middle class irrespective of the fact whether they reside in India or belong to the category of Indian diaspora. Modi needs to create an illusion.

With opposition staying away the government will get the approval of the Parliament. As the President’s statement is prepared by the government, it would eventually get the constitutional sanctity. The BJP would forcefully reiterate that the legislations are “not an assault on the rights of the States and violate the federal spirit of the Constitution” as is being made out by some political parties andante national forces. The charges that laws were “brought without any consultations” and “lacked parliamentary scrutiny and national consensus” would turn infructuous.

The people who indulged in violence at Red Fort were certainly not misguided or fringe elements. The history is replete of incidents in which such people were used to suppress the pro people movement and uprising across the world. Holding any lenient view for such people will be inflicting massive injustice to the 157 farmers who lost their lives during the last two months of the movement. It cannot be denied that the conspiracy was executed with precision under the watch full eyes of the Delhi police.

Not only Indian even the global fraternity is aware of the murky handling of the Delhi riots by the Delhi police in February last year. . The reports of the human rights organisations and even international agencies have outright blamed the Delhi Police for not taking any action against the criminals and vigilantes who unleashed terror.

The same thing happened on January 26 in Delhi. The Modi government which has been impatiently awaiting to break the unity of the farmers and ensure failure of the movement resorted to this immoral design. Only a day ahead it had claimed to have finalised the route to be taken by the tractors. But as it now transpires that there was no police at the border of Delhi near Red Fort to guide the tractors. The tractors deviated from the routes and made their way along the Ring Road to the Red Fort. The conspirators led rest of the tractors according to the script.

FIRs have been filed against almost all the farmer leaders under multiple IPC sections. Shocking indeed they have been charged sec 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (punishment for rioting) and 353 (assault/criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty). The action against the farmer leaders came as Delhi Police alleged that several of them made inflammatory speeches and were involved in the violence. It is really a tough job to find out correlation between the inflammatory speech and attempt to murder. The police has asked these leaders to surrender. It simply amounts to police forcing them to accept the crime they did not commit. This is purely a political exercise to break the moral of the farmer leaders and make them retreat, dissociate from the movement. The most astonishing has been the police has asked them to surrender their passports.

One can only hope that better senses prevail on them and they should refrain from pursuing this policy. This will make the going tough for the government. Already the senior leader Rakesh Tikait has refused to surrender avowing; “I will not surrender. Let them kill me. I am sitting at Dharna place in Gazhipur”.

He said; “BJP wants to create a different scenario. Call details of those responsible for Red Fort incident should be procured. Deep Sindhu connection should come before country. SC committee should investigate. We’ll continue our sit-in protest and will not vacate site till talks with government are held. Administration has removed basic facilities including water & electricity supply.”

The government machination to break the movement and divide the farmers’ unions make it explicit that Modi government has turned insecure. It hope to survive depends on the crushing the peoples’ power and their upsurge. The Independent India did not this nature of peoples’ protest where lakhs of people hit the streets to protest. While the home minister has no time to meet the farmers, he went to two hospitals to see the policemen who received injuries. The message is loud and clear. The government is dependent on its security forces than the common people. He observed “We are proud of their courage and bravery”.

That the government is fully dependent on police action is manifest in the order of the Ghaziabad District Magistrate Ajay Shankar Pandey who told the protestors camping at the UP Gate at Delhi border to vacate the spot by midnight of January 28 or the administration will remove them. This place has by and large has been peaceful and Tikait is positioned here. He told “There has been no violence on the Ghazipur border. Despite this, the government is adopting a repressive policy. It is the face of the Uttar Pradesh government”.

In the perception of the government it has apparently got an upper hand is manifest in the assertion of the ministers; “the government can resume talks with farmer unions only after its offers are accepted. They have lost the moral authority and also the opportunity. Now, we have to see whether they accept that offer or they come with a counter proposal”.(IPA Service)