The 11-web page order of the Supreme Court on the bunch of petitions it was hearing on the farm laws substantiates in complete measure the skepticism of the protesting farmers and their organisations about this method.
Is the order truly “a huge blow to the Government”, “a major setback to the Government” as described by most of the media? The comments produced by the apex court on the 1st day of hearing surely developed such an impression. For instance, the court told the government’s leading judicial officers: “We are extremely disappointed in the way you are handling the situation…you made a law without enough consultation, resulting in a strike. Many states are up in rebellion against you…you say you are negotiating, talking, What talks? What is going on..?” Unusually sturdy comments from the court which more than validated the criticisms by the farmers that they have been not consulted. But have been these initial comments of the court reflected in the actual orders passed a day later?
The Supreme Court orders have to be observed in the context of the actual demand of the kisan struggle for repeal of the laws and the adamant stand of the government against such withdrawal and for minor cosmetic adjustments. Eight rounds of negotiations have failed. But whilst the government faces a public backlash, which includes uncomfortable inquiries from its personal allies, assistance for the farmers is expanding.
In such a circumstance, what are the principal points of the Supreme Court order?
One of the principal operational points of the order which has been the concentrate of media reporting is that implementation of the 3 farm laws has been stayed till “further orders.” When implementation of particularly unjust laws is stayed by a court, it is certainly a very good point. But it has to be additional examined no matter whether the keep is conditional and if so, what are the circumstances and who will it advantage.
The keep is not linked to additional hearings of any of the substantive concerns raised in the petitions or by the farmers in struggle. The keep is linked to the setting up of an “expert committee” and the duration of the keep is timebound till its suggestions are received (a deadline has been set of two months soon after the committee’s 1st meeting). Point 8 of the order especially hyperlinks the formation of the committee with the keep: “the negotiations between the farmers bodies and the Government have not yielded any result so far. Therefore the constitution of a committee of experts… to negotiate… may create a congenial atmosphere. We are also of the view that a stay of implementation…may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers…and encourage them to come to negotiations with faith and confidence.”
None of the petitioners had asked for a committee. The representatives of lakhs of farmers who are protesting across the nation against the law had on the contrary produced it clear that they have been opposed to the formation of such an professional committee as it would “only delay and divert” concerns which concerned government policy relating to farmer interests. The government had not asked for the committee either, at least not publicly, but was speedy to accept it when the Supreme Court recommended it.
The Supreme Court, in spite of the public statements of the farmers, went ahead and set up the committee on its personal initiative. Thus, whilst it had rightly criticized the government for not consulting the farmers, its personal action in setting up a committee was performed with no consultation with the farmers.
The orders go even additional. It is produced mandatory for farmers to seem ahead of the committee and join the deliberations. In Point 14, it is stated, “The representatives of all the farmers’ bodies, whether they are holding a protest or not and whether they support or oppose the laws shall participate in the deliberations of the Committee and put forth their view points. The Committee shall, upon hearing the Government as well as the representatives of the farmers’ bodies, and other stakeholders, submit a Report before this Court…”
The use of the words “all” or “shall” leave no space for selection. In other words, farmers in struggle are saddled with an professional committee they had not asked for and have to seem ahead of it no matter whether they want to or not. The time framework for the committee also tends to make fairly clear the life of the keep on implementation of the farm laws. The committee has to give its suggestions inside two months. Give or take yet another month for the court hearings and the inevitability of the court accepting the suggestions of its personal appointed committee, the keep will finish, either way in a maximum of about 3 months.
But then comes the true whammy. Who are the members of the committee to whom the apex court has provided such powers? Were any of them related with the seminal work and complete suggestions produced by the Swaminathan Commission? Have any of them even remotely studied the adverse influence of so-referred to as reform policies top to farmer suicides? Is there something in their experience which can be deemed sensitive to the issues of farmers? The selection of the Supreme Court is 4 gentlemen who have been vocal, aggressive, constant supporters of the farm laws, deadly opposed to public procurement, minimum assistance costs or certainly any type of market place regulation. A committee which is supposed to bring self-confidence amongst farmers has not even 1 member whose views have not been diametrically opposed to the issues getting expressed by farmers. They are the pillars of the policies getting pushed by the government and opposed by the farmers. Who recommended their names to the court? Did the court not run an independant verify on their suitability? There is no subtlety right here, not even a fig leaf of neutrality as far as their opinions on farmer concerns are concerned.
In Point 15, the conclusion of the order, the court expresses its method to the ongoing protest. It states “while we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this extraordinary order of stay will convince farmers bodies to convince their members to get back…” There are two points to be noted right here. The use of the word “may” not “shall” implies that the method of the court may perhaps modify towards “not stifling” the protest and secondly, the court expects that this “interim” keep is sufficient for the farmers to pack up and go household.
Thus the court has produced it clear that in its opinion, a short-term keep of a couple of months, even although it is linked to the conclusions of a committee of identified supporters of the pretty farm laws getting opposed by the farmers, in whose deliberations the farmers have to necessarily participate is extraordinary sufficient to finish the farmers protest. If something is extraordinary, it is this assumption of the court!
For the farmers, the price tag of the keep on implementation of the farm laws is certainly pretty higher.
There are other concerns in the order which raise additional doubts and apprehensions.
It is identified that this government perceives all protest or dissent as an anti-national conspiracy. We have observed how victims of violence develop into the accused in this perverted understanding of a government which has excelled in formenting divisions and hatred. In this wholly secular protest of farmers, the Modi Government and BJP leaders have utilized the most outrageous and novel terms of abuse against the farmers from calling them agents of Pakistan and China to getting Khalistanis to getting picnickers enjoying chicken biryani to getting purveyors of bird flu to getting looters and thieves…the list is endless. As the saying goes, such absurd charges would be laughed out of court.
But in this Supreme Court order, the branding of the movement identified its echo in Point 6 of the order. An accusation by 1 of the pro-government petitioners that the farmers’ movement has been “infiltrated” and funded by a banned pro-Khalistani organisation was promptly supported by the Attorney General. Even although the court lauded the peaceful nature of the protest, it identified this accusation significant sufficient to merit a mention in its order. The government has been asked to file an affidavit with the facts. We know what occurred in the Bhima Koregaon case, the anti-CAA protests, which have been branded anti-national and identified critics of the government have been arrested below draconian laws. Already a lot of circumstances have been filed against the farmers and their leaders. The implications of Point 6 of the court order could turn ominous provided the intolerance of the government to the protests.
The court expressed concern about the plight of the farmers, the deaths and suicides. It asked why ladies and senior citizens are aspect of the protest. Perhaps the court is unaware that a huge percentage of the female population in India is straight involved in agricultural operations – ladies as farmers hold up more than half of the sky more than rural India. So if there are laws brought which have a devastating influence on farmers, ladies will be as impacted, enraged, as committed to struggle, if not more, than their male counterparts. Patriarchal notions, cultures and practices deny ladies independant agency in choices they take. Women are in the struggle braving the cold and all the hardships of their personal volition and selection, not due to the fact they have been asked to by guys. They can’t be told to leave the protest due to the fact they are ladies, in the name of concern more than their wellness.
In the course of the hearing, there have been comments produced by government lawyers which have been straight lies aimed at misleading the court. For instance, it was stated that the protests have been confined to 1 or two states when it is identified that each day thousands of farmers across the nation are protesting the farm laws in their respective states. It was also stated that the laws have been strongly welcomed in southern states like Kerala when it is public information that the State Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution asking the central government to withdraw the laws reflecting the people’s demand in the state. Surely there should really be some requirements of accountability for these officers.
Finally, it is the farmers and they alone who will choose their next course of action. They deserve our complete assistance and solidarity. But we as citizens should really be clear about the orders of the Supreme Court and who they advantage.
Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed inside this write-up are the private opinions of the author. The information and opinions appearing in the write-up do not reflect the views of and does not assume any duty or liability for the similar.