I remember talking to my local greengrocer when the farmer protest was at its peak.
“The farmers whom I know back home are
confused and scared, they do not understand if this change will benefit or
destroy them after hearing many conflicting views from various sources. Local
government officials also are not entirely clear, they claim that it will
benefit the farmers but are clueless about specifics. I hope they clear the
confusion soon else the wave of discontent will spread.” said he in dismay.
This man wasn’t some far-left loon or
an agenda-driven member of the compulsive contrarian coterie, he is a
supporter of the government and an admirer of PM Modi. He wasn’t opposed to the
ideas, he was just confused so were the farmers he knew.
While there have been copious
criticism of the contents of the bills and the manner in which they were passed
and eventually repealed.
There has been little focus on how the
government failed to drive the narrative, despite manpower, budget, time, and
an emphatic majority in the Lok Sabha.
The cause for this confusion can be
traced right from the very beginning, it was doubtlessly exploited by vested interests.
Irrespective of the merits of the farm
bill, the manner in which they were introduced, promoted, and passed in
parliament was severely flawed.
When sweeping changes of this
magnitude are to be brought in, it is essential that they begin with consultations
on the ground with the people impacted and then rise to the upper echelons of
government.
The government did the exact opposite.
The bills were passed in Lutyens’s Delhi and then communicated to the people it
actually affected.
The three bills were passed in
the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in September 2020 via voice vote. There were no
debates or discussions allowed. Some opposition leaders held protests near
parliament but the government was steadfast on its decision.
A debate would have been a chance to
debunk all the myths and falsehoods to be dealt with in parliament, instead,
the government allowed the falsehoods and paranoia to spread out and trickle
down in an indiscriminate manner.
It also gave them an occasion to claim
there was something sinister about the bills which is why the government rushed
them through, add to that the prevailing bogus 'Mod is selling the country to
Adani-Ambani' narrative and you have the perfect disaster.
The timing was also seriously flawed.
Most parts of the nation were still
under lockdown. In addition to the financial losses, there is also
the psychological trauma and suffocation of being confined to restricted spaces
and wearing masks while stepping out.
The life-altering changes owing to the
lockdown were considerable and one that has never been before.
To force another set of major
changes at such a time was always going to be very tough.
The fact that the farmers were not
informed and educated about this in advance not only created chaos and
confusion but created fertile ground that allowed vested political interests to
take advantage of the situation.
The government allowed the anti-farm
bill narrative to travel around the world much before the government
narrative could lace up its boots.
Attempts to reach out and negotiate
were never going to change things.
It is human nature to believe the
worst instead of the best, clearly, that is what happened.
There are those who say that the
opposition was just from Punjab, Haryana, and sections of Uttar Pradesh and
most farmers were pleased with the new changes, but the fact that the
government decided to repeal them back proves that these players managed to win
the narrative and there was discontent on the ground.
To conduct protests is a fundamental
right in a democracy, but protest cannot be allowed to be a nuisance to the
citizenry for prolonged periods of time. The government allowed them to block
roads, uproot telephone poles, and even allowed the desecration of the Red Fort
on Republic Day.
In a democracy, there is no shame in
admitting mistakes and rolling back changes. It is also commendable the PM
himself decided to personally inform the nation about the repeal, instead of
doing it via a press release.
What is surprising is that after
remaining steadfast for a year, this wasn't a partial withdrawal or a slight
compromise, it was a total repeal.
As the US President played Harrison
Ford in the film Air Force One while informing his Vice
President that they cannot give in to the demands of terrorists says “If you
give a mouse a cookie, it's going to demand a glass of milk.”
As expected, there has not been a
conciliatory tone by the opposition or protesters, they have not thanked the PM
or pledged to work for the welfare of the farmers. They are in fact taking a
victory lap and celebrating this as a victory of the mob over democracy. The ‘leader’
of the protests has refused to vacate the occupied area. Anti-government conspiracy
theorists are claiming that the bills will be brought in again after the elections.
The repeal will also embolden various
mobs, they have sensed weakness. All they need to do is block highways for
prolonged periods of time and the government will capitulate. This empowers the
lawless elements and defeats democracy.
However, it is nothing short of
astonishing that some of the finest communicators and strategists who won
elections in a landslide were unable to conceive, plan and execute a strategy
to promote and eventually implement the laws that were, by all means, essential
reforms.
Perhaps the difference is elections
can be won by winning a section of seats across the nation while for reforms to
be passed they needed to win over an entire people.
It is also a shame that after a year
of protests that caused a loss of 3500 crores per day, deaths, violence, inconvenience to the
citizenry, anarchy, and chaos the law had to be repealed, making all those
sacrifices a total waste.
This was a masterclass on how not to
pass reforms of such as scale and how not to react to lawlessness.
But once again, this situation would
never have arisen had the government consulted all stakeholders at very early
stages.
Perhaps the inertia to change would
have been discovered at early stages and these changes would have not been
implemented on such a large scale across the nation.
There would be no loss to the
citizenry, no loss of political face, and no rage from supporters who were
invested in these changes and see this as a weakness.
The only hope is that lessons will be
learned while attempting future reforms.
Comments
Post a Comment