Jai Jawaan, Jai Kisaan? Exploring IITGN's Opinions and Outlook on Farmers' Issues in India

Awaam conducted an informal, anonymous survey to understand the student body's opinions and reactions towards the farmer’s issues and presently a year-old ongoing protests against the farm laws being brought by the government. The survey had a total of 28 respondents, which is quite lower than expected, pointing towards that there might be a feeling of ignorance or lack of interest among the community members towards the ongoing situation. The present situation raises several questions regarding the protests. Are the laws beneficial to the farmers? How are farmers perceived in the media? How can the standoff between the farmers and the government be resolved? Here's what students of IITGN had to say.

General Summary

Several of the respondents did not think Farmer’s issues were well represented in government (53%) and media (50%). This highlights the historic underrepresentation of agricultural issues and problems in mainstream discourse. Though agriculture forms the backbone of the economy, employing more than half of India's population, the coverage of farmers in India is highly stereotyped and one-sided.

A Majority of the respondents were also in favour of the laws being repealed or amended, although respondents were divided on who the laws would benefit with approximately 40% of the sample saying it would only help the corporate groups, whereas 35% of the sample believed it would help corporate groups and farmers both. This implies that the central government has been ineffective in communicating with both the public and the farmers. The failure of multiple rounds of negotiation and the recent Lakhimpur Kheri violence shows a mistrust between the government and the general public.

Respondents who thought the protests were politically motivated were bigger in number. They thought this despite agreeing that the laws are not completely beneficial. The difference between a politically motivated protests and protests having political implications seems to be very blurred. Majority of the respondents agreed that the protests were localised to certain regions. This could be reflective of the media coverage of the protests. Although respondents believed that stubble burning is a major source of pollution, they did not think farmers should be penalised for it. This indicates that respondents recognise that farmers do not willingly resort to stubble burning, and thus do not wish to punish farmers for a flaw in the system. Majority respondents also believed that dialogue was the most important tool in solving the deadlock

Politics: When Did It Become a Bad Word?

Shreya Kapoor

Our survey revealed that a majority of the respondents believed that the protests were politically motivated, despite agreeing that the three farm laws are not beneficial to the farming community. When seen with the other responses, it appears that the difference between politically motivated protests and protests having political implications is lost on the larger community.

A lot of this has to do with the framing of debates around protests in the media. Headlines that use a blanket “politics heats up” to describe the discourse around issues primes us to think of politics as a dirty word. Claiming something is being politicised is becoming a convenient way of delegitimizing certain issues. However, the fact is that politics is not a bad word- the way it is carried out can be menacing and cruel, but in itself, the concept of politics is essential to our existence. What we eat, where we live, where we are born, what we aspire to be, who we love- every aspect of our life is governed by the larger political, social, and economic context.

So in that sense, every protest has political implications, because our existence is political. But a protest or narrative can indeed be politically motivated. If it attempts to disengage and distract citizens from local issues, or provoke them against constitutional values, if it tries to play up one issue to suppress another issue, if it revolves around petty struggles for power- then an issue is indeed politically motivated, in the negative connotation. To portray this with an example- protests around the CAA and NRC, around the three farm laws, the Opposition questioning the government’s stand on China’s incursion, the protests on the Pegasus snooping scandal, demonstrations around rise in fuel prices, inflation, unemployment, rape, educational fees, non-payment of salaries to ASHA workers, teachers, doctors, etc can all be considered as protests that obviously have a political impact. Politically motivated protests and discourses on the other hand would exploiting the suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, cracking down on civic activists because they hold contrary opinions, fuelling propaganda around interfaith love marriages, spreading misinformation that leads to moblynchings, and internal party struggles for certain posts.

The essence of democracy lies in politicians, whether they are in government or in the opposition, raising issues that affect the people of the nation, state, or constituency they represent. They are called people’s representatives for a reason! The very reason political parties exist is to raise issues that the government ignores or suppresses. Democracy does not just refer to the electoral process of contesting and winning elections- that is what we call an electoral autocracy. Politics is not just about debating who is going to be the next Chief Minister or Prime Minister, but debates on all aspects of a country’s governance. The Indian Constitution guarantees its citizens these rights- the right to freely assemble without arms, the right to form unions, the right to move freely throughout the country, the right to freedom of speech and expression. Delegitimising this right over and over again by framing it as ‘politically motivated’ amounts to curbing dissent. It weakens democracy, and strengthens autocratic tendencies. This probably explains why the V-Dem report 2021 now classifies India as an electoral autocracy.

What did IITGN say about Regaining the Farmers’ Trust?

Sayan

The open-ended responses from the respondents were also interesting. The crowd was mostly divided among two broad groups - the majority advocating for the continuation of effective dialogue between the farmers and the government and a significant minority advocating the use of force to dissolve the protests. The crowd strongly upheld that the negotiations and dialogue should be continued between the two stakeholders. This may be an effective way to solve the issue as there are certain demands by the farmers which they want to be guaranteed by the government - and consultation with the farmers in an appropriate manner might be a way out.

One of the respondents tried to explain why the farmers are not ready to accept the laws- the same changes were implemented in the state of Bihar and it impacted the farmers negatively. Responses also brought up the matter of transparency in how the bills were framed and passed. It was seen on live television how the bills were passed from the houses among ruckus and disorder with a voice vote; it must be understood that these visuals create a sense of fear and distrust among the stakeholders- why would a government rush the bills without having proper discussions and debates if it held as good intentions as it claims? Many responses suggested repealing the laws temporarily or permanently, and redrafting them in consultation with the stakeholders and the state governments.

With recent events at Lakhimpur-Kheri, the death toll of the farmers protest is something that we must also keep in mind - the centre has said it has no record on the fatalities, but according to a report on July 24, 2021 the Punjab government has said that there have been more than 200 fatalities. The Samyukta Kisan Morcha has reported more than 400 deaths during the tenure. It is now over a year and the protests along with the loss are not coming to an end. The government should take effective measures so there are no more losses of lives and efficiently take steps to settle the matter.

Media is the fourth pillar of a democracy. As India has always celebrated its tag of the “World’s largest democracy”, there is a huge duty on the shoulders of the people representing journalism in this nation. Journalists are modern day messengers of anything happening in the remote corner of the nation, to inform people all over the world. Their information must be unbiased, authentic and sourced from ground reports rather than only sitting in the studio and quoting government or ruling party sources just to increase their reach and advertising profits. Present day news channels focus more upon what makes sensational headlines rather than real content, and us citizens, having very few options to choose from, have to feed upon the same. Similarly during the farmers protests, numerous media outlets have tagged the protestors as ‘Khalistanis’ and ‘unsocial elements’. This is outright unhealthy and immature reporting, just to catch attention and stir unnecessary fear among the viewers; and also causes the main stakeholders to slowly but surely lose trust upon the media. The quality and bar of journalism must be raised in order to save the daylight murder of this healthy society taking place. With responsible and on ground journalism, the media can bridge the gap between the stakeholders, common masses and the government which would be eventually good for all since there is a huge communication gap between the subjects.