Modi could be as misleading on farm laws as logic of demonitisation as anti-terrorism weapon

 

Modi could be as misleading on farm laws as  logic of demonitisation  as anti-terrorism weapon

 

Jagtar Singh

Ground Zero

In the latest such shocking incident, at least twenty-two security personnel were killed in a bloody confrontation with the Naxalites in Chhatisgarh. The number of casualties on the other side are stated to be twelve, including a woman.

This perhaps is the case of the highest number of the security personnel killed since the Pulwama bomb attack on the convey in Jammu and Kashmir that changed the narrative in the run up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

One of the differences now is that the Pakistan factor is missing in Chhatisgarh. Of course, the Assembly elections are being held in several states.

The Chhatisgarh incident cannot in any way be linked to the struggle for existence by the farmers that has spread across several states after having been triggered in Punjab that historically is a turbulent zone. But then the two narratives are linked at entirely a different level. It is a different matter that the militancy in India’s tribal belt too is closely linked to preservation of the way of life.

One has to recall the shocker that was delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the late evening of November 8, 2016 that was the demonitisation. That action wrecked the economy. The jolt to the economy by Covid might not have been so severe in case demonitisation had not hit the economy earlier. India is the country whose economy suffered such double shocker.

Modi and his ministers have been going about arguing in favour of the three farm laws saying these were for the welfare of the farmers. The Modi government continues to maintain that the farmers have been misled. India has not witnessed such a massive and peaceful struggle since the partition in 1947.

Modi might be as wrong in case of the farmers as his arguments fell flat in favour of demonitisation.

The farm laws have been adopted during Covid and without discussion. The government first promulgated ordinance, the route that is resorted to only in case of emergency. There was no such emergency in this case. These ordinances were later ratified in Parliament through method that has raised several questions.

Modi announced on November 8, 2016 that demonitisation was the weapon to confront corruption, black money, fake notes and terrorism.

The Chhatisgarh tragedy has happened after nearly five years after demonitisation that was to counter terrorism.

India continues to confront militancy.

Corruption continues to be as rampant as earlier.

The arguments for demonitisation have fallen flat and this exactly what is important so far the defence of the farm laws  by the government goes.

It is the divisive politics that sustains the BJP in elections, not the performance.

The farm struggle, however, is purely a socio-economic issue that might hit the basic structure of the rural society.

The pro-government economists have repeatedly written that the number of farmers depending on this sector has to be reduced for higher growth of the GDP. This is the logic of the laws rooted in market forces.

The Modi government has opted for the confrontational path to deal with the farm struggle with the suspension of the dialogue.

The latest attack is the decision to make direct payment to the farmers for procured crops. There should be no middleman but these laws would replace one set of middlemen with the corporate middlemen who would dictate terms with the consumers too.

The basic issue here is the fallacy of advocacy of demonitisation earlier by Modi and the same line of assertion in case of the farm laws.

Like the demonitisation, the farm laws too would hit the economy.

After Pulwama, the Chhatisgarh attack is another example of failure of demonitisation to contain terrorism and that exactly is the issue.

The Modi government must withdraw these laws at the earliest and chalk out the reform agenda in consultation with the stakeholders, in this case the farmers.