A committee is only as good as its members. It is no secret that the farmers’ organisations were apprehensive about the composition of a committee appointed by the court. The process by which the court arrived at these four names left a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. The same court that chided the government for passing the farm laws without consulting the farmers adopted an even less transparent process to decide upon this committee.
consented to. Reuters
IN rejecting the Supreme Court-appointed expert committee to mediate between farmers and the Narendra Modi government, the farmers’ organisations have not only wisely sidestepped a possible trap, but have also reaffirmed a basic principle of democratic accountability and responsible governance.
Let there be no confusion about it. The expert committee appointed by the SC is not meant to advise the court on technical matters of agricultural marketing or on the implications of the disputed agricultural laws. The order of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the committee is to facilitate negotiations between the government and farmers’ organisations: “The negotiations between the farmers’ bodies and the government have not yielded any result so far. Therefore, we are of the view that the constitution of a committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of the farmers.”
The court goes on to specify that the committee has been “constituted for the purpose of listening to the grievances of the farmers relating to the farm laws and the views of the government and to make recommendations.” Presumably, the committee will try to find a middle ground and advise the government on how the laws should be tweaked in a way so as to satisfy both the government and the protesting farmers.
That is precisely why the farmers’ organisations had resisted, right from the beginning, the idea of any such committee. They have objected to being forced into binding mediation, questioned the instrument of a committee and suspected the composition of such a committee. On all three counts, their assessment has been proven right.
First of all, the farmers have been suspicious of being pushed into mediation that they never asked for or consented to. They have never said no to negotiations with the government. Sure, the talks with the government have been frustrating. The Modi government has been intransigent. Yet, that is the only site for negotiations in a democracy. In the last instance, elected representatives are there to speak to the people. They are accountable to the people and to the farmers. The courts are there to adjudicate between right and wrong, legal and illegal. The courts are not there to engage in give and take, which is part of any negotiation. That is why the courts are responsible to the Constitution and not accountable to the people. That is the logic of democratic governance. Any attempt to shift the site of negotiation from the government to the judiciary amounts to overturning this basic democratic logic.
The government’s keenness to shift this ‘headache’ and the Supreme Court’s alacrity to take over have strengthened the resistance of the farmers. It needs to be underlined that the protesting farmers did not approach the court. Nor did the government, at least not on paper. The initial petitioners were third parties who wanted the court to evict the farmers from their protest site. The other set of petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the three laws and wanted these scrapped. None of the petitioners prayed for mediation from the court. Yet, from day one, that is what the court was interested in. The court dismissed, and rightly so, the pleas asking for eviction of the protesting farmers. It recognised, again rightly so, the democratic rights of the farmers to engage in a peaceful protest. As for the pleas, regarding the constitutional validity of the three laws, the court put this on the back burner, saying that it will consider these at an appropriate time.
The Supreme Court could have expedited this process by setting a time frame within which it will decide upon the constitutional validity of these three laws. That would have been most appropriate. But it chose not to do so. Instead, the court chose to focus on a third issue beyond what was asked for by any party and beyond its legal remit. Farmers’ organisations were smart enough to resist this move from the beginning.
Dushyant Dave and the other three lawyers representing just eight out of 400-plus farmers’ organisations involved in this protest were wise to keep away from the court’s deliberations on this issue.
Someone might ask: Forget the technicalities, but what’s wrong in the top court stepping in to resolve a deadlock? Well, that is possible, provided the Supreme Court were to enjoy moral authority over and above its legal and constitutional powers. Such moral authority is commanded, not demanded.
Chandigarh, January 13
Retired honorary commissioned officers of Army, Navy and Air Force, under the banner of the National Federation of Defence Honorary Commissioned Officers, have objected to the Centre’s decision to freeze 18-month DA and DR for armed forces personnel, veterans, and other staff, citing Covid-19. — TNS
Farmers have been sending dry ration and other essential items to four langar stalls set up in Karnal district. Sayeed Ahmed
rveen Arora
Tribune News Service
Karnal, January 13
Driven by the spirit of benevolence, farmers from the district have been contributing to langar stalls that have come up on the NH-44 and those at the Delhi border. It is a manner of opposing the “black” laws, they say.
Farmers have been sending dry ration and other essential items to the four langar stalls in the district. One is located near Oasis Tourist Complex, while another one is near the National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources. There are two langar stalls at the Bastara toll plaza.
Darar village resident Deepak Waraich, who is hosting langar near the tourist complex, said: “Initially, only four villages — Darar, Salaru, Kurali and Ramba — contributed to the langar. As the movement gained ground, more villages started contributing. People support the ‘langar sewa’ as per their capacity. Some contribute food items and milk, while some give money.”
Spirit of Benevolence
Initially, only four villages contributed to the langar. As the movement gained ground, more villages started contributing. Some contribute food items and milk, while some give money. —Deepak Waraich, Darar village resident
Salaru resident Gurinder Singh, who is volunteering at a langar stall, said: “Volunteers serve food round the clock to everyone passing by. Rice, dal, mix vegetable, chapati, and tea are served every day, while ‘jalebi’ and ‘kadhi’ are served on alternate days.”
It is not about food alone. Some persons have been distributing medicines for free. Rajat Khanna, the owner of a local pharmacy store, has set up a stall of medicines on the NH-44. “All kind of general medicines are given to farmers in need. Doctors have also volunteered,” he said.
The help also pours in from farmers on their way to the Delhi border. Farmers going to the Delhi border leave some food items at the langar stalls.
Deepender Deswal
Tribune News Service
Hisar, January 13
The number of women protesters from Haryana continue to swell at the Delhi borders, where farmers from Punjab and other states have been camping for more than a month demanding the repeal of the three farm laws. The unprecedented participation of Haryanvi women has come as a shot in the arm for the agitation.
Saroj Devi, a farmer who drove a tractor to reach the dharna site from Khatkar village, said, “The profession of farming is not defined by gender. Our fields don’t produce crops differently if tended by women and men. Many men and women from Punjab are protesting. Why should we sit at home?”
“We were inspired by women from Punjab, who halted for a night in Haryana villages on their way to the Delhi border,” she added.
Why sit at home?
The profession of farming is not defined by gender. Our fields don’t produce crops differently if tended by women and men. Many men as well as women from Punjab are protesting. Why should we sit at home? —Saroj Devi, Khatkar village resident
Women from Khatkar, Pokhri Kheri, Baroda, Sangatpura, Barodi and Jangh Kalan Jangh Khurd had cooked meal for nearly 20,000 farmers from Punjab during their halt last month. They also played host to women farmers from Punjab.
Sikkim Sheokand, a resident of Safa Kheri village, said Haryanvi women were quick in composing folk songs in accordance with events.
In this case, they could be heard singing songs like “Ambani ke gahne dhare tha e bebe”, “paati se jaan” and “hum tractor leke aaye Delhi ke beech”, she said, adding that one of their self-made lyrics, “Dhokhe me bharat lootya e bebe, vadyan ki jhooth (Bharat is being betrayed by false promises o sister)” was much appreciated by one and all.
She added that they had long juggled the demands of field and family, making sure both were tended to, and now hundreds of women from Haryana as well as Punjab had added another dimension to their busy lives — the protest sites at the Delhi borders.
“We were impressed by the determination of women from Punjab. We, too, decided to take out time from our daily routine at home and fields and form jathas to reach the dharna site on tractor-trailers,” said another woman from Haryana.
Phool Kumar, a khap leader, said, “The presence of women points towards their awakening. Apparently, they are inspired by women from Punjab,” he said, adding when women worked shoulder to shoulder with men in fields, why should they hesitate from joining the protest.
Fatehgarh Sahib, January 13
Lawyers of District Bar Association, Fatehgarh Sahib, led by former Bar president Amardeep Singh Dharni, today burnt the copies of three farm laws in the district court complex today and raised slogans against the central government.
Dharni said they celebrated Lohri by burning the copies of the farm laws to express solidarity with the protesting farmers. On the Supreme Court’s judgment, he said the apex court should not act as mediator and maintain its dignity. He said farmers had already rejected the committee formed by the Supreme Court as all members were pro-farm laws. He said the Union government was using all options to derail the farmer’s peaceful agitation and lawyers would continue to support the cause of farmers.
Meanwhile, AAP volunteers led by Narinder Singh Tiwana burnt the copies of the farm laws and termed these laws anti-farmers and pro-corporates. He also criticised the formation of a four-member committee by the SC, alleging the Modi government managed its members on the panel. He said AAP would participate in tractor rallies on Republic Day. Party workers of SAD(A) also burnt the copies of farm lawsand raised slogans against the Modi government.
Dal Khalsa activists burn copies of the central farm laws in Amritsar on Wednesday. Vishal Kumar
Our Correspondent
Ludhiana/Abohar, January 13
Protesting farmers owing allegiance to different farm organisations burnt copies of new agriculture laws and held demonstrations at many places in the state on Lohri as a mark of protest against the legislations.
In Ludhiana, activists of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (Lakhowal) celebrated Lohri by burning copies of the central farm laws at Kohara. They asserted that they were all set to take out a tractor march in Delhi on Republic Day and make their intention known to Centre that the agitation would continue till the farm laws were scrapped.
BKU general secretary Harinder Singh Lakhowal said it was perhaps for the first time in history that farmers were observing ‘black Lohri’ in protest against the anti-farmer policies of the BJP-led central government.
“It is also for the first time that farmers have been sitting on a peaceful protest around the national capital for the past over 50 days in freezing conditions in a momentous show of unity against the highhandedness of the Centre. All along, the Narendra Modi government has been watching the situation like a mute spectator even after several farmers have lost their lives during the course of agitation,” said Lakhowal.
He said the indifferent attitude of the central government had been evident from its adamant stand in all the meetings held between the farmer unions and central ministers. He added that the government was just buying time to tire out the protesting farmers and it had no intention of accepting their demand for the rollback of agriculture laws.
Asserting that the decision of taking out a tractor march in Delhi on Republic Day was final and non-negotiable, Lakhowal claimed there was unprecedented response to the call given by the agitating farmers’ bodies to their fraternity to reach Delhi with tractors in large numbers.
Meanwhile, in Abohar, farmers burnt effigies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, corporate houses and actor Kangana Ranaut and copies of the three central agriculture laws.
The protesters assembled at Shaheed Chowk outside Sadar Bazar, raised slogans against the central government, some big corporates and actor Kangana Raut and then burnt copies of the three farm laws, besides the effigies that carried pictures of Modi and others. Farmers said more batches would leave for the Delhi border soon to join the agitation.
They said it was condemnable that actors were casting aspersions on the peaceful movement even when they didn’t know about farming or the bad effect of farm laws.
Abhishek Singhvi. File photo
New Delhi, January 13
The Congress on Wednesday accused the government of misleading the country and the Supreme Court by claiming that pre-legislative consultations were held prior to the passage of the three farm laws and claimed this amounted to contempt of court.
Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi at a press conference alleged that the government changed its stand from “having no information” on pre-legislative consultations to suddenly claiming the laws were a result of two decades of deliberations.
He said while the government has now claimed two-decades of consultations, in response to an RTI on the issue on December 22, 2020, it was stated that “this CPIO does not hold any record in this matter”.
“This is a serious example of the Central government misleading the apex court and misrepresenting the people of India. The passage of legislations is an act of deception and defrauding,” he alleged.
“It is thus clear that there are serious attempts at prevarication, distortion, misrepresentation and misleading the nation, the apex court and all relevant stakeholders, apart from indulging in blatantly contumacious conduct. Not even perfunctory, much less any meaningful pre legislative consultation was attempted, much less done by the Modi government,” he also alleged.
Singhvi said the government has stated in its affidavit in the Supreme Court that the laws were made after 20 long years of deliberations with the states, whereas there were no consultations and the laws “were rammed through in Parliament”.
The Centre said it is filing this affidavit “to remove deliberate wrong perception created by non-farmer elements present at the protest site and using media and social media and to apprise this Court with true facts”.
As part of the consultation process, the Centre cited in its affidavit the Guru Committee in 2000, the Model Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act in 2003, the Empowered Committee of some state ministers in 2013, the Working Group on agricultural production in 2010 and another Model law in 2017.
“However, these evil laws were rammed down the throat of Parliament and all discussion, analysis and interaction was guillotined in the temple of democracy,” Singhvi alleged.
He said it is thus clear that the government has attempted to “fool” all the people of India all the time by practising “falsehoods on stilts” and it has not even spared the court.
“Can discussions held 20 years ago by some committee qualify as pre legislative consultation for laws passed in 2020,” he asked.
“Aware of their legislative incompetence in the matter, past governments have sufficed to draft model laws leaving the choice to states. These model laws are way different from the black farm laws rammed down Parliament’s throat last September,” Singhvi said. — PTI
Vibha Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 13
The Supreme Court’s order on the formation of a committee and farmers’ reaction to it has “not only exposed trust deficit between the government and farmers but also limitation of judiciary’s role in arbitration,” say some agriculture experts.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the implementation of the three contentious farm laws and set up a four-member committee to hear various stakeholders’ views. While farmer’ unions and ‘jathebandis’ rejected the order, the ruling BJP said it will abide by the ruling.
While BJP leaders say that people need to understand that “law making will be done by the Parliament and not the people on the street”, Prof Sudhir Panwar, an agriculture expert, says after months-long stand-off between the two sides the SC was expected to resolve the issue by deciding on the Constitutionality of the three laws.
“The issue was whether the laws are Constitutional or not. After both sides exhausted all options and when the Government failed to resolve the crisis, the Supreme Court came forward in the role of arbitrator through formation of a committee.”
“However, the decision of farmers to continue the agitation is indicative of deficit of trust between farmers and the Government on one side and farmers and the proposed committee on another side. Things are exactly where they were when the agitation started while farmers are still on Delhi’ borders,” says Panwar.
While the popular perception is that the verdict has “given the Narendra Modi government elbow room out of a difficult situation”, apparently the government also believes “what it has not been able to convey to the people, the unyielding stance adopted by the unions will now do that”.
So far as the BJP is concerned party spokesperson Sudesh Verma says the government did not want the laws to be put on the hold but the highest authority in the country, the Supreme Court, wanted time to decide and everyone needs to respect that.
“The SC has taken a humanitarian point of view. The government did not want laws to be put on the hold, because many traders have signed contracts with farmers. We will abide by the SC’ order, however, the larger issue people need to understand is law making will be done by the Parliament and not the people on the street,” Verma added.
Regarding objections on names in the committee, party leader RP Singh said they have not been recommended by the BJP or the government. “The names have been decided by the SC. It is clear those sitting on the agitation do not want to change the laws, they just want to show the government in poor light,” he says.
Farmers protest at the Singhu border on Tuesday. Tribune photo
Ravi S Singh
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 12
Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar and Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala met Union Home Minister Amit Shah today and apprised him of the law and order situation in the state in the context of the farmers’ protest against the three farm laws and upcoming Republic Day.
After the meeting, Khattar said smooth conduct of Republic Day celebrations, which was a national festival, was the top priority and the issue figured in the meeting with Shah.
Sources said Shah asked Khattar and Dushyant to step up security and vigil and take no chances. “Unfortunately, one of the epicentres of the agitation is Haryana and it borders Delhi,” Khattar said.
He said the Supreme Court had taken up the farm laws for consideration and had constituted a committee to seek the views of farmers.
He said that in the light of the apex court stepping in, farmers should return to their homes. “Now, our farmer brothers should go back home,” he said.
Responding to a specific question, he said withdrawal of police cases registered during the farmers’ protest was in the police domain. “The government has no role in it. It is for the police to investigate and take a call on the matter,” he said.
In reply to another question, he said there was political stability in Haryana. There was no basis in media speculations, he added, implying that the BJP-JJP government in the state was stable.
He said this in reference to speculations that some JJP MlAs were very unhappy with the farm laws, casting doubts over the longevity of the coalition government.
State BJP chief Om Prakash Dhankar, state JJP president Nishan Singh and state Education Minister Kanwar Pal Gujjar also attended the meeting, which lasted about an hour and 45 minutes.
Earlier, Dushyant held a meeting with his party MLAs, lasting more than two and a half hours, and sought their views on measures that could improve farming prospects in the state.
Harnessing of technology in farming, thrust on drip irrigation than on open canal system, crop diversification and marketing of agricultural produce were among the suggestions that were put forth by the JJP MLAs. Efforts to make farmers aware of the government’s welfare schemes were also among the suggestions.
JJP MLA Davinder Babli said the legislators were of the view that the three laws had dented the image of the JJP and Haryana Government. They expressed the view that opposition parties had spread canards against the recent farm laws and were stoking passions among the farmers.
They were of the view that the issue of farm laws, farmers’ protest and related matters were now under the consideration of the Supreme Court. They expressed the hope that the imbroglio would end soon following the Supreme Court’s intervention.
