Farmers have put up a ‘Republican’ spectacle to counter a Govt which feeds on spectacles  

They have offered the Republic a grand spectacle. A truly Republican spectacle. At a time when the ruling dispensation has made spectacles its natural medium to communicate benedictions to ‘subjects’, farmers –with their langars, their tractor rallies and their natural verve and candour have put up a spectacle of their own to give voice to their angst. Their counter spectacle has been spectacular enough to threaten the official spectacle designed to dictate to the subjects their destiny in a new vista. A nation, listlessly awaiting a formal end to its first Republic, has out of the blue been presented with the blueprint of a second Republic by its farmers.

Is it a mere coincidence that farmers of Punjab, who were once made to shoulder the responsibility of experimenting with machines, chemical fertilisersand high yielding varieties of seeds to bring in the Green Revolution so that the whole country could become self-reliant in food, have completely rejected the new laws which stand at the logical end of the neo-liberal reforms?

They had after all accepted most of the liberal paraphernalia of agrarian changes; and yet when it came to take this final step, which the State argued would make them prosperous beyond their own imagination, they chose to protest and demanded repeal of the laws. Why is that they, unlike their counterparts in other regions who seem to be happy with their caste and communal, temple and cow politics, chose to give their lives to denying a ‘presumptive development’. The answer to this puzzle lies not in the peasantry’s willingness for sacrifice but their understanding of the nature of the Indian State today and their own historic location.

Farmers from Punjab and Haryana have made what these states are today. A large number of them are descendants of refugees, who were displaced from their ancestral land. Their movement today acquires historic significance when one sees how a communal regime has been trying to harvest victimhood among Hindu peasants in Bengal. Farmers in Punjab and Haryana on the other hand have revived secular memories from pre-Partition days.

This memory is redolent of the colonial state and its harsh policies. The exorbitantly high taxes in Canal colonies, that is, in 1907-08 or support to the corrupt Mahants in Gurdwaras (1920-1925) are part of this historical memory. The peasantry fought with discipline and valour and the Jathas created legends in fighting non-violent battles for justice. Indeed, the colonial regime was less brutal, taking back the harsh taxes following farmers’ agitations led by people like Ajeet Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai among others. Memories of such a legacy shape the current engagement in two ways: it invited everyone to try and understand the nature of the Indian state at the moment, and second, the nature of their own engagement with the state.

The most critical component of the movement, for itself and for Indians, has been its ability to articulate the nature of the contemporary Indian state and its paternalist façade. Riding on the anti-corruption movement and a communal agenda, the Indian State today resembles an ideological state. ‘Paternalism’ or ‘I am doing this for your own good’ (and ‘you belong to the nation’) has been its leitmotif to legitimise all its acts.

Rooted in their own sense of history of the soil, of which they were also the makers to a great extent, farmers have refused to blindly subscribe to such claims. Thus, farm laws were scrutinised and were found by them to be wanting. These were found to be leading them towards one more partition: a parting with their land in the future. This understanding has helped them pierce the cloak of paternalism and expose the Indian state.

This paternalism needed to be contested. And this is where the living memories of fighting the British colonial claims of Paternalism, ‘Sarkar Mai Baap’ came back to provide intellectual sustenance. It has historically been shown that those who had no critique of colonialism sooner or later themselves started behaving like the colonial rulers. The ruling regime today were never anti-colonial. Farmers of the frontier states were inevitably the first to faceboth enemies and friends, and recognise them as well. Thus, while the current regime did not find it problematic to resemble colonial rulers, farmers dredged their memory to find the resolve to fight back. The movement emerging from such memories has organised itself on the template of universal justice for their land.

Three features of the movement, stemming from the social vision of generations, need to be commended, namely non-violence, insistence on justice and harmony. These values have provided a sense of discipline and a higher moral position to the farmers today, a position which Gandhiji’s movement had once acquired.

Leaders and participants in this movement, unlike political rallies in contemporary India, have exhibited a deep-seated understanding of the issues related to the new farm laws, their connection with the larger economy and politics, and the nature of the political forces againstwhom they are agitating. This has brought a sense of unity and purpose among all, and also mutual respect and trust among leaders and the led. This poses a threat to any force inimical to democratic training for the future generation. This is why the ruling dispensationhas tried to float conspiracy theories about the movement being communal, separatist or subversive and refuses to see it as political. It tried to scare the political parties from joining the movement. Dulled political imagination due to increasingly being limited to electoral politics has prevented several otherwise democratic political parties from synchronising their own acts with the movement.

While political parties like Congress have articulated the communal nature of the state, it has not been successful in providing any counter narrative. The farmers, on the other hand, by hollowing out the ‘benevolent paternalist’ garb of the ruling dispensation, are increasingly giving democracy back to people and Parliament. Members of Parliament now need to introspect on how they could pass a flawed Bill which people have rejected.

The farmers have also shredded the tall claims by people in power to be the arbiter of people’s lives, choices, and destinies. They have helped people dispel the fear of the unjust, the untruth and the communal. Gandhi did exactly that against the British might and its force. The farmers now have helped the citizen see that the emperor has no clothes, and that they should have the courage to say it out aloud.

(The author is a historian and Associate Professor at the Centre for Media Studies at JNU. Views expressed are personal.)