#FarmReforms
#FarmBills
Who Is Protesting and Why?
Reforms have proved controversial. In Sept, BBC wondered whether they were a “death warrant” for farmers.
Some worry whether reforms might lead to the end of wholesale markets and guaranteed
Farmers might go from the local monopsonies of APMCs to the national oligopoly of Amazon-like behemoths.
Other crops do not qualify, nor do fruits and vegetables.
This was higher than the market price, but a hefty chunk of the support price ends up in the hands of middlemen through various fees and charges.
As a result, farmers in 25 of India’s 28 states and all eight union territories have not taken to the streets.
As per this farmer leader, open and competitive markets, instead of a top-down command-and-control agricultural economy, served farmer interests better.
In fact, it wants to go much further.
It wants the government to remove the ban on the export of onions and threatened to pelt BJP MPs with onion bulbs if the government fails to do so.
Not all farmers are protesting. Protests are largely confined to Punjab, Haryana and Jat strongholds in western Uttar Pradesh.
It elects 38 out of 543 MPs in the Lok Sabha, but its proximity to the capital gives it disproportionate power.
Home to Green Revolution, it has benefited from massive govt spending for decades
Irrigation subsidies account for another $190 per year. Punjab, Haryana and western UP benefit from other subsidies as well.
Some of their family members are part of the Indian diaspora in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US and elsewhere.
Some of them continue to be absentee landlords.
As a result, a narrative has emerged in the English-speaking press that is not entirely unbiased.
Some attacked the police, destroyed public property and flew flags on the Mughal-built Red Fort from where prime ministers address the nation.
This caused outrage and weakened the movement.
He broke down in tears and threatened to hang himself if the BJP government did not repeal its reforms.
Per the Indian press, Rakesh Tikait is a former policeman with assets worth 80 crore rupees ($11 million), a significant sum for a farmer in India.
They form part of the almost feudal elite that has dominated the APMCs and the rural economy for decades.
Winners of old sys and desperate not to lose what they have.
More from India
Many are upset at the bus attacks & Red Fort events during #FarmersProtest.
But have you paused to think what has brought about this situation? While magnifying impulsive actions by some protesters, do you miss to see State's systematic violence and erosion of rule of law?
If you are a believer in Constitution and legitimate processes, then the manner in which the Centre pushed the #FarmLaws & handled the #FarmersProstests should leave you distressed.
First, Centre brings these laws as Ordinances on subjects which are apparently in state list, through a colorable use of concurrent list. Principle of federalism negated, at least in spirit, if not in letter.
Then, bills are passed in Parliament without effective discussions.
No one can say for sure if the bills were actually passed in vote in Rajya Sabha. The whole process was brazenly dubious. The live telecast was stopped amid protests. Really shameful events.
So, lawful processes to address dissent undermined.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmLaws
Then some farm groups approach the Supreme Court raising some pertinent questions on constitutionality. Instead of considering legality, court ventures into political thicket by attempting mediation, that too with a hand-picked committee having only members supporting #FarmLaws .
But have you paused to think what has brought about this situation? While magnifying impulsive actions by some protesters, do you miss to see State's systematic violence and erosion of rule of law?
How it started: How it's going: pic.twitter.com/bwkqp3uYQu
— Manu Sebastian (@manuvichar) January 26, 2021
If you are a believer in Constitution and legitimate processes, then the manner in which the Centre pushed the #FarmLaws & handled the #FarmersProstests should leave you distressed.
First, Centre brings these laws as Ordinances on subjects which are apparently in state list, through a colorable use of concurrent list. Principle of federalism negated, at least in spirit, if not in letter.
Then, bills are passed in Parliament without effective discussions.
No one can say for sure if the bills were actually passed in vote in Rajya Sabha. The whole process was brazenly dubious. The live telecast was stopped amid protests. Really shameful events.
So, lawful processes to address dissent undermined.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmLaws
Then some farm groups approach the Supreme Court raising some pertinent questions on constitutionality. Instead of considering legality, court ventures into political thicket by attempting mediation, that too with a hand-picked committee having only members supporting #FarmLaws .
Hindutva does not belong to Modi nor his party, it belongs to the people as a unifying, decolonial ideology similar to pan-Africanism or Yugoslavism.
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Modi's "Hindutva".
— Onye Nkuzi (@cchukudebelu) February 2, 2021
I know many of my Indian followers will come at me, angrily - but let me just say this out.
I'm not sure it is a great model for democracy in a diverse, multi-cultural developing nation.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
