So far Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been behaving like a person unconcerned of the movement and the plight of the protesters. His minions were entrusted with the task to talk to the farmers. But farmers’ leaders exposing his design and contradicting his political machinations, Modi appears to be losing the grip on the situation. Farmers have started replying to Modi in his own political language and this has made the situation really tough for him.

It is no more a secret that Modi government has been acting at the behest of some anti-farmer forces. In this backdrop the assertion of the farmer leader Rakesh Tikait is explicit; “business over hunger will not be allowed in the country. There will not be any business over hunger in the country. If hunger goes up, the price of crops will be decided accordingly. Those who wish to do business over hunger will be driven out of the country." Even a political leader will find it tough to make a statement of this nature.

Tikait further slammed the attempts to divide the ongoing movement of farmers on caste and religious lines. “This movement was first portrayed as Punjab’s issue, then Sikhs” then Jats, so on and so forth. The farmers of the country are united. There is no small farmer or big farmer. The movement belongs to all farmers,” he said.

The political stand of Modi has been simply strengthening the movement and inspiring the youths of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and UP to rally behind the protest. This increase in the support base underlines the wrong handling of the movement.

While trying to project his image of being the saviour of the farmers Modi quoted comment of the former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, which incidentally has been purely out of context. He even described the farmer protesters as andolan jivi, professional protesters, in his address on the floor of Rajya Sabha. He said these "parasites feast on every agitation".

To this remark Rakesh Tikait retorted, “Yes, this time it is the farmers’ community which has emerged and people are also supporting the farmers”. But more than this the main question that arises is; how will Modi describe the deaths of more than 200 farmers and suicide committed by nearly 24 farmers at the borders. Does Modi think that the farmers who sacrificed their lives were professional andolan jivi? It is really sad that Modi was casting aspersion on the farmers who sacrificed their lives.

At one level the agitation and the death of the farmers also underlines the fact that for the first time in the Independent India the farmers were exploring the political relevance to the problems faced by them. Modi said “do not spread confusion”. He was politically correct. But this at the same time raises question who is creating confusion? Confusion is manifest in Modi’s speech. He said; MSP was there, it is still in vogue and it would continue to be. If the MSP is a fact, what prevents him in providing it a legal character? Why is he stubborn on not to legalise it? The fact is the farmers have been for giving it a legal character as they were not getting the MSP.

Modi made three observations in Rajya Sabha. First, he quoted Dr Manmohan Singh’s statement to justify his action, second, he expressed his unawareness on why the farmers are agitating. The most important remark of Modi was to invite the farmers to resume the dialogue. How could Modi say that he is not aware of the reasons what propelled the agitation. His agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar has held 11 rounds of meeting and all the points according to him were discussed with the farmers. Obviously no one can believe that Tomar would not have briefed him of the outcome of the meeting.

In response to his remark the farmer leader Shiv Kumar Kakka, who is a senior member of the Samkyukta Kisan Morcha has already said they are ready for the next round of talks and the government should tell them the date and time of the meeting. Now the ball in the court of Modi. He should fix the date and instead of deputising his juniors, should discuss the issue directly with the farmers. Kakka has said; "We have never refused to hold talks with the government. Whenever it has called us for dialogue, we held discussions with Union ministers. We are ready for talks with them (government)". In the last round of talks, the government had even offered to suspend the laws for 12-18 months, but the farmer unions rejected it.

Modi read out a quote by former PM Manmohan Singh and said, "Manmohan ji is here, I'd read out his quote. Those taking a U-Turn (farm laws) will perhaps agree with him. "There are other rigidities because of marketing regime set up in 1930s which prevent our farmers from selling their produce where they get highest rate of return......It is our intention to remove all those handicaps which come in the way of India realising its vast potential at one large common market".

No doubt Dr Singh had favoured a reform. But he did not force it. His government did not bring the bill. He was waiting for the correct opportunity. But Modi enacted the law. The three laws cannot be described as a step towards reforms. These were meant to deprive the farmers and turn them paupers. Dr Singh certainly did not intend to turn then beggars and allow the big corporate houses to grab their lands.

Modi should have also narrated how the UPA government withdrew its ordinance on MSP. A senior RLD leader pointed out; “Sharad Pawar-ji was the (Agriculture) minister and the FRP ordinance came when Parliament was not in session. On November 19, we brought 25,000-30,000 farmers (from western UP) to New Delhi. Even BJP leaders, including (LK) Advani-ji, were invited at our rally. “Within 3-4 hours of the farmers sitting at Jantar Mantar, the government announced replacing the ordinance with a Bill that effectively undid the law.” It implied that UPA government did not make it an ego issue, as was Modi doing now.

Observation of Modi in Rajya Sabha simply strengthens the belief that he has turned defensive. He is scared of the farmers’ agitation acquiring a political dimension and dynamics. The manner in which the Modi government reacted to three tweets from foreign celebrities simply endorses it. Singer Rihanna, Greta Thunberg, American lawyer Meenakshi Harris (niece of Kamala Harris), Oscar-winning actor Susan Sarandon and others tweeted to draw the world’s attention towards farmers.

Unfortunately through his ill-thought action Jaishankar internationalised the issue else none would have taken note of the tweets. The desperation even got reflected in the remarks of Modi; “new FDI (Foreign Destructive Ideology) has emerged in the country and we need to be more aware to save the country from such ideology". It is worth mentioning that till a couple of days back the ministers and BJP leaders were accusing the Sikh farmer leaders of being propped by Khalistanis.

Now he has come to realise the importance of Sikh community and the farmers and has tried to amend his approach. Modi stressed; "This is a community that has done so much for the nation. The country takes pride in the contribution of Sikhs, but some people are trying to defame them. The words and blessings of the Guru Sahibs are precious. The language used by some for them will not benefit the country". It is a known fact that his own party men and even ministers have launched insinuation campaign against Sikh farmers. He would have acted like an statesman by calling the names of his party men and openly castigating them in the house. It would have sent a strong message.

One important development that took place on Sunday ought to be brought into focus. This was for the first time two Shankaracharyas said the Centre should not have taken a “one-sided” decision on the new farm laws without discussions with the farmers, one of them adding that the NDA government’s habitual unilateralism was a “bad sign for democracy”. Shankaracharyas said “The government took a one-sided decision on every issue, including the (2016) demonetisation and the farm laws. It’s a bad sign for democracy”.

Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati of Govardhan Peeth, Puri, said: “The government shouldn’t have taken a one-sided decision on the farm laws. The farmers should have been taken into confidence.” Nishchalanand, also held that the farmers understand the new farm laws thoroughly before making them an issue. “We hope they will understand the laws. It’s not good to hold a dharna for so long without food and water,” he said.

What is worse is the BJP and its government are planning to raise the issue of nationalism for giving the agitation a bad name. Coining the word FDI (Foreign Destructive Ideology) is the part of the strategy. However some senior BJP leaders are opposed to this machination. They cite the alienation of the BJP leaders in Haryana, Rajasthan and UP. A situation like social boycott of the BJP leaders are sharp surfacing in these two states. The BJP leaders spend their time sitting at their homes. They do not dare to come out of their homes.
(IPA Service)