Democracy in India has tried to redeem itself through the farmers’ movement. It has tried to course-correct from the unfortunate path it took in the last few years. There were and are serious concerns in a large section of society about the survival of democracy in the country with the ideological onslaught of Hindutva and the pursuance of brazen authoritarianism in the state structure, and whether the culture of debate and audacity of dissent will live to see another day; that discourse might now feel infused with optimism. The Prime Minister, in his address to the nation last week, declared that the three farm laws which were once acclaimed as revolutionary and were to improve the farmers’ lot will be repealed.
It is a major climbdown for the ruling party. The tenacity of the farmers who braved extreme weather hazards and the bone-chilling fear of the pandemic, finally paid off. Parliament will now officially withdraw those black laws. But the movement is still on, farmers are insistent that the minimum selling price (MSP) should be legalised. Whether that is to be granted by the government is only of academic importance.
Major win for farmers
The movement has gained a major victory that will go down in history as the biggest victory second only to the defeat of Indira Gandhi for imposing the Emergency. That was the first time, when democracy in India had looked fragile and vulnerable, and India had realised how a strong leader with an authoritarian streak could easily subvert the entire system. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of a quintessential democrat, but his daughter was made of a different mettle.
Hiding behind her own insecurities, she concocted the story of a ‘foreign-hand’ and fictionalised a democratic movement known as the JP movement as a threat to the young nation. She weaved the narrative that she had imposed Emergency to save democracy. But her bluff was called, and she, as well as her son, lost their elections. That was the first time that democracy redeemed itself. But this time the threat is more vigorous, the conspiracy is deeper, the ideology is more dangerous and the rulers are more ruthless. Therefore, the occasion is more solemn.
How it came about
If the JP movement was led by a legend who was charismatic, with an impeccable past and respected even by the ruling dispensation and by Indira Gandhi, the farmers’ movement on the other hand is faceless, devoid of any charisma; there is no one leader but a cluster of leaders with diverse ideologies. In the beginning, these leaders were considered to be of no consequence, many did not have a following outside their districts and there were bitter fights between the different organisations involved and they were only united by the cause -- their opposition to the three farm laws, which in their wisdom was detrimental for the farmers. But a platform of more than 40 organisations was created, rules were laid, and they vowed that anyone defying them would be thrown out.
There were internal skirmishes, there was heartburn, but the differences never stretched to the point of hampering the unity and organisational cohesion. It was a remarkable feat by any stretch of imagination. The government failed to break them and finally, the powerful Prime Minister who prides himself on never changing a decision once taken, had to bow down.
It is said that Gandhi defeated the British empire because he appropriated the basic ethos of Christianity i.e., compassion, held up a mirror to them, showed them their true face, played with their civilisational guilt, and proved them to be dwarfs in their religious milieu. Gandhi spoke their language. And those whose mission was to civilise other traditions found themselves more barbaric than the barbarians. The Britishers had not expected this reversal of the civilisational debate where the civiliser needed to be civilised. This Gandhian technique in a different sense was used by the farmers’ movement.
Master communicator
Modi is a master of communication. He does not believe in complex narratives and nuanced debates; in his scheme of things there is no grey and the reality is either black or white. He loves to atomise complicated formulae, shreds them into the simplest arguments which are so simple that the common man inhales them like oxygen. His line is so clear that if you are with him, you are a patriot and if not, then you’re anti-national. There is nothing in between. Farmers used the same formula. They were neither interested in any nuanced debate about the legality of the laws nor about their usability. The laws were simply not acceptable and had to be withdrawn.
When the Supreme Court wanted them to discuss the constitutionality of the laws, the farmers said, “Thank you, but we are not questioning if the laws are legal or not”. When the court declared the laws would be suspended for a year-and-a-half, the farmers were not satisfied and when the SC formed a committee to discuss the laws, the farmers said they wouldn’t appear before the committee. Any other organisation and movement would have been crushed under the weight of the SC’s aura, would have been subjected to legal scrutiny and constitutional moral pressures but not theirs. Their demand was simple -- repeal the black laws. Period.
Stumped at his own game
The simplicity of the argument was so uncomplicated that the Modi government did not know how to deal with it. If the farmers were not willing to discuss and debate the merit or the demerit of the laws, then the possibility of a compromise or middle ground was lost. Which meant either the laws stayed or were repealed. The farmers knew that if the laws stayed then they were not going to withdraw the movement but would continue their agitation. And only if the laws were repealed could a solution be found. It was the typical Modi way - either this way or that, but no midway. With its own technique staring back at it, the Modi government found itself in a bind. The ball was in its court, and the matter was left to the government to decide. This proved so effective that finally the government blinked. Like the Britishers, Modi found himself stumped at his own game.
It is a remarkable achievement for a democratic movement in the country. At a time when Gandhi is being demonised by the worshipers of Nathuram Godse, when violence has become the normal recourse to resolve any conflict, when state power is used to crush the democratic spirit, when citizens’ rights are hijacked by the quasi-judicial apparatus and when the state pronounces civil society as the enemy of the establishment that must be killed then the victorious assertion of non-violence is a redeemer.
The message is simple. Gandhian technique is still more potent than the total might of the state and its ideology. Cunningness has its limitations. There is still hope for India. Everything is still not lost. What is needed is purity of discipline, tenacity of soul and conviction of steel.
The writer is author of Hindu Rashtra and Editor, of SatyaHindi.com
