Patiala, January 11

Coming out in support of protesting farmers, US-based NRI and social worker Darshan Singh Dhaliwal has sent many trailers of dry ration to Delhi borders.

Hailing from Patiala, Singh said farmers needed the support to continue the ongoing protest against the farm laws. “Every time, people of Punjab face a problem, we have always come out in support. This time also, we have sent dry ration for farmers protesting at Delhi borders,” Dhaliwal said. He said he himself would be protesting at Delhi borders along with the farmers. Meanwhile, Akali Dal leaders said they had erected waterproof tents for the farmers so that they did not face any problems during the protest. — TNS

Nothing is gained any longer from weighing the rights and wrongs of the farm laws; it is time for a breakthrough. The losses to Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and private and government enterprises like the railways are mounting day by painful day. Punjab Government officials claim that the state could have incurred a loss of Rs 4,500 crore during the ongoing agitation. The loss of lives (60, according to certain accounts) among the agitators in the coldest months of this particularly harsh winter; the three who have committed suicide; and those elderly who brave the elements are all pointers to the human suffering involved in the agitation. Equally miserable are those whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted due to the blockade. Thursday’s tractor march on the Kundli- Manesar-Palwal Expressway forewarnsof Delhi being cut off from Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, parts of Himachal Pradesh and western Uttar Pradesh. This is a crisis and the government is badly mistaken if it plans to wear the farmers out. That is no plan.

The meeting of Baba Lakha Singh of Nanaksar Gurdwara with Agriculture Minister Narendra Tomar is a welcome move. The Baba says he has been serving the protesters langar at the Delhi border and knew the fellow priest from Karnal of the Nanaksar sect, who took his life to express solidarity with the farmers. The BJP’s Kisan Morcha seeking out the Akal Takht Jathedar, its religious symbolism notwithstanding, is a promising signal because the Centre ought to pause and let the state governments decide whether they want to notify the farm laws and implement them. Agriculture is a state subject and it should remain so. The Centre has a responsibility to give direction and to push the nation towards prosperity by framing model laws on state subjects; but then it should leave it to the people, particularly the state governments, to accept, modify or even reject the proposals.

A well-intentioned proposal will surely get the people’s acceptance in due course of time. Meanwhile, good governance is all about finding solutions, however intractable the situation is. Let there be governance.

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 12

A Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde on Monday took up petitions challenging the validity of the three farm laws and those seeking removal of agitating farmers from Delhi roads.

Attorney General KK Venugopal tells the top court that farmers’ organisations had rejected various offers made by the government.

The CJI said, “We are extremely disappointed the way government is handling the issue. Last four times you said negotiations are on. What negotiations are you talking about?”

“If you have some sense of responsibility, and if you say you will withhold the implementation of laws, we will form committee to decide. We don’t see why there should be an insistence that the laws must be implemented at any cost.”

“Our intention is clear. We want an amicable solution to the problem. That is why we asked you last time, why don’t you keep the laws on hold? But you keep asking for time. We are not on the merits of the law. We are not on repeal. This is a very delicate situation.”

The CJI said it will not help the government to say that the previous government started it. “We don’t know if you are part of the problem or solution,” said the CJI.

The CJI pointed out that “we don’t have any single petition before us saying that the laws are good.” He said if the laws are beneficial, let the vast majority of country tell the committee (to be set up by SC).

Whether you have faith or not, we are the Supreme Court of India.

The CJI proposed to form a committee and if government did not do so they will stay the implementation of the farm Acts.

“Whether you have faith or not, we are the Supreme Court of India. We will do our job,” asserted the CJI, after a lawyer said, “We have full faith in you.”

The CJI said: “We will stay implementation of the laws.”

“We want to make it clear we are not stifling the protest.  You can carry on with the protest.  But the question is whether the protest should be held at the same site.”

Attorney General KK Venugopal opposed the stay. He cited judgments to contend that there was no violation of fundamental rights or lack of legislative competence. Venugopal asserted that farmers of other states had not joined the protests.

Senior advocate Harish Salve said the government had agreed on minimum support price.

Venugopal cited bursting of crackers and ensuing Republic day celebrations to caution about potential violence from farmers.

The CJI said it was for the police to deal with the situation not the court. Courts cannot restrain peaceful protest. They cited Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraga.

The CJI said: “We want to ensure no violence or blood bath in the streets. If somebody breaks the law you take action. The court would not break any violence.”

As Venugopal vehemently opposed any stay, CJI Bobde said, “We are still thinking. It’s equally effective if we stay the implementation of the law without staying the law.”

However, Venugopal said, “It’s the same thing.”

“We can always a stay a legitimate executive action under a law,” insisted the CJI.

“Who shall be held responsible for any bloodshed?” asked the CJI, asserting that the court had a bounden duty to protect citizens lives and properties guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Salve, representing a Delhi-resident, said the court should have an assurance from farmers’ unions that they would go to the committee if the farm law was stayed.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing farmers’ unions, said he needed to take instructions as there were 400 farmers’ bodies involved in the agitation.

Salve cautioned the court against the possibility of protests getting scaled up to demand repeal of the laws following stay on their implementation.

Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing a South Indian farmers’ body, demanded implementation of the three farm laws.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for some farmers’ unions. He said: “The unions had appointed a committee of four lawyers, which had Dushyant Dave, Prashant Bhushan, HS Phoolka and me. All of us will go back and consult unions and take a stand on this.”

“If not cold, farmers are in danger of covid. If we stay the law, there is no need for farmers to be at the site, said the CJI, citing the ensuing Republic Day.

He asked senior advocate HS Phoolka and other lawyers to persuade them to go back. “At some time, we might say in the order that old people and women need not be there in the protests.”

The top court said it’s contemplating to request former CJI RM Lodha to head the committee proposed by it.

The CJI said the court will pass appropriate orders on Tuesday and hinted at the staying of implementation of the three farm laws.

Attorney General KK Venugopal wondered, “When they (farmers) go before the committee, will it be their only demand that the laws must be repealed? If they are not prepared to tell their exact grievances, the committee will not be useful.”

Solicitor General said, “Kindly remove the impression that we didn’t do enough. We gave our best. But the farmers groups have been non-cooperative during talks.”

The high motivation levels of the Army personnel despite harsh and challenging service conditions came shining through at a recent seminar by a leading think tank. However, the deliberations and recommendations regarding the prevailing stress levels need serious consideration. The observation that ‘more than half of the Army seems to be under severe stress… due to operational and non-operational reasons’ calls for a carefully-thought-out policy intervention and remedial measures. A shift in strategy is all the more necessary because the various stress management steps implemented during the past 15 years have apparently not been able to achieve the desired results.

The cause-and-effect list includes the prolonged exposure to counter-terrorism environment, non-combat-related reasons, inadequacies in the quality of leadership, overburdened commitments, inadequate resources and frequent dislocation. A more supportive and responsive organisational and administrative climate has been advocated. Stress prevention and management, it has been pointed out, have to be treated as a leadership role. An insightful suggestion is making government agencies and the society at large more sensitive to the peculiar service conditions and the ethos of the soldiers.

The issues that need to be addressed on priority, according to experts, are those related to the quality of command and man-management that affect the morale, motivation, honour and dignity of Army personnel. Aspirational concerns, better support facilities for self and family, delay or denial of leave, unreasonable restrictions, lack of recreational facilities, conflict with seniors as well as subordinates, health problems, delay in crediting of financial claims and poor quality of rations — the catalogue may be long, but solutions have to be found and changes implemented. As aptly articulated, prolonged exposure to excessive stress has serious adverse effects on the health and efficiency of soldiers and combat units. Be it the Army or other armed forces, of paramount importance is improving and maximising institutional arrangements to deal with personnel under stress; from counselling to motivating to showing empathy.

The Supreme Court has rightly taken the Centre to task for its mishandling of the farmers’ agitation, which began in the last week of November and has shown no sign of abatement so far despite the severe cold and the loss of 60-odd lives. ‘Extremely disappointed’ — these words sum up the court’s reaction to the way the negotiations between the government and the farmer leaders over the contentious farm laws have progressed. The government’s dilly-dallying, aimed at wearing out the protesters, has cut no ice with the CJI-led Bench, which is keen on constituting a committee to break the deadlock.

In a scathing observation made in August last year, the apex court, while hearing a plea regarding the Tablighi Jamaat congregation, had said that governments did not act till the courts directed them to do so. A similar script is being played out now, with the Centre stubbornly sticking to its guns over the agriculture-related Acts and promising, at best, some amendments. What’s worse, the government has tried to pass off the stir as being Punjab-centric, whereas farmers from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and other states have also been vocal in opposing the laws. The vandalism witnessed on Sunday at Kaimla village in Karnal district, where Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar was scheduled to hold a kisan mahapanchayat but had to cancel it, unfortunately shows that the discontent is manifesting itself in violent ways and how quickly things can spin out of control.

Invoking Gandhi’s satyagraha, the court has reaffirmed the citizens’ right to stage a peaceful protest, even as it has expressed concern over the prolonged presence of agitators, especially the vulnerable elderly, at Delhi’s borders. It is hoped that the court’s welcome intervention will rouse the government to be part of the solution rather than of the problem. The Centre can no longer hide behind the fig leaf of the ‘potential benefits’ of the new laws. Its strategy of forcing the states to toe the line has backfired. The government has to learn to ‘let go’, starting with deferment of the implementation of the Acts.