The government has been attempting to break the farmer’s movement through muscle power and now court intervention by using coronavirus writes ARUN SRIVASTAVA.
———–
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which so far has been the most effective instrument for a dissenter to register his aversion to consent, is ironically used by the supporters of the Modi government to criminalise the dissenters and urge the judiciary to punish them on the grounds that they have been working against the nation and creating hindrance in society.
A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday seeking the removal of protestors from the Delhi borders. The petitioner was Rishabh Sharma, a law student from Delhi who was so pained at the miseries of the Delhites that he moved court seeking directions for the authority concerned to open the Delhi borders.
The PIL stated that it is necessary to remove the gathering as it is blocking the roads for all emergency/medical services that are required to be supplied within Delhi to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Besides, it said that several patients frequently travel to Delhi from different states for treatment in government hospitals.
A similar request was made to the Supreme Court in the Shaheen Bagh case as well. By the time, SC ruled on the validity of the protest, the Delhi Police had evicted the protestors in the pretext of lockdown.
The petition, filed by advocate Om Prakash Parihar, had mentioned that it is “necessary to remove the gathering” as the protest is posing hurdles for accessing emergency medical services needed to curb the spread of COVID-19 and to attend to patients in need of medical attention.
The PIL stated that it is necessary to remove the gathering as it is blocking the roads for all emergency/medical services that are required to be supplied within Delhi to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
The plea further stated that the lives of lakhs of people protesting at Delhi borders is at immediate threat “since the virus is very contagious and if by chance this coronavirus disease takes the shape of community spread, it will cause a havoc in the country.”
It is worth mentioning that even after the forceful eviction of agitating women at Shaheen Bagh, the Modi government and the Kejriwal government completely failed to check the coronavirus spike.
What was most troubling in the entire game played at that time was that the apex court allowed itself to be used for vested interests. The court issued many guidelines that both governments failed to implement.
At this time, too, the lawyer has argued that a majority of the protestors are elderly people who are vulnerable to the disease, once again playing the corona card to imply that the spread of the deadly virus meant that it was in the citizens’ best interest to completely avoid such mass gatherings to protest the farm laws.
This PIL is being used by the BJP and its supporters to remove the farmers from the Delhi-NCR borders. With the government refusing to concede to their demands, they have made their intentions of further intensifying their agitation clear.
At this time, too, the lawyer has argued that a majority of the protestors are elderly people who are vulnerable to the disease, once again playing the corona card to imply that the spread of the deadly virus meant that it was in the citizens’ best interest to completely avoid such mass gatherings to protest the farm laws.
In this backdrop, the government is finding it a tough proposition to physically evict them and the best course of action for it is judicial intervention and order. It is to be taken note of that thousands of local residents near the borders are feedings lakhs of farmers. They would certainly not have taken up this noble cause if they had any reservations against the protestors.
The plea demands that the protesters be shifted to some other place and that the Delhi borders, which have been blocked due to the protests, be reopened. It further states that social distancing and mask wearing protocol must be implemented among the protest groups.
In fact, the Union government had already tried to entrap them by offering to hold their protest at a park inside Delhi. However, the farmers had refused to be laid in the trap, believing that the government’s intentions were dishonest.
That the petitioner is biased against the agitators is clear from how the PIL has been drafted; “Though the Police has allotted a dedicated place for the protestors to protest peacefully, but the protestors are not shifting/moving to the allotted place and in order to create trouble for the commuters they have blocked the borders. Furthermore, owing to their large number of protestors, the police is not able to control such a large gathering”. The fact of the matter is that not a single untoward incident or case of violence has been reported in eleven days of agitation.
It is unfortunate that democracies have failed to understand a dissenter in any manner except as a criminal in recent times. It is saddening that it has developed a habit of listening to the voice of consent and branding one of dissent as nothing but a crime and a threat to the government.
It is unclear how the Supreme Court will deal with the matter come time to address it, but, it must ask the Modi government why it has not made any serious attempts to resolve the crisis. Why has it resorted to delaying tactics? Whose interest has it been trying to protect?
The government has presented the agitators as dissenters and the BJP and its supporters have branded the farmers anti-national, invoking legal action against them since they have refused to consent to the new laws. It is unfortunate that democracies have failed to understand a dissenter in any manner except as a criminal in recent times. It is saddening that it has developed a habit of listening to the voice of consent and branding one of dissent as nothing but a crime and a threat to the government.
People usually do not come out to the streets to protest. It is only after all other options are exhausted, as has been in the case with the farmers. They have been protesting against the three laws for the last four months to no avail as they did not have the ear of the Modi government who described the movement as Punjab-centric.
But what should the people do when the native government starts behaving like an alien colonial ruler? Do they consent to be humiliated, assaulted, and punished?
The administration has been testing their patience and perseverance by refusing to agree.
Ironically, it is argued that dissent in a self-rule is not suited. Dissent is to be used against the colonial rule. But what should the people do when the native government starts behaving like an alien colonial ruler? Do they consent to be humiliated, assaulted, and punished?
Narendra Modi has been humiliating and whipping the farmers to save the interests of his corporate friends in this case. This is evident from the failure of his ministers who are engaged in negotiations with the farmers to commit.
The farmers have called for a Bharat Bandh on December 8 which has garnered the support of all the leading opposition political parties. The NDA government must find an amicable solution to the farmers’ demands at the proposed meeting on December 9 if it has any care for the rural economy of the country at this time of crisis. Any other course to break the farmers’ movement, either through BJP muscle power or through Court intervention, will be disastrous for the future of India. (IPA)
(Arun Srivastava is a senior journalist. Views are personal.)
