Never before in the history of the Republic of India had the Republic Day witnessed such untoward incidents as on January 26, 2021. Nobody in his senses would support the violence unleashed by some mischievous elements that has, alas, cast a shadow on the peaceful farmers’ agitation. 

However, the way the ugly episode is being used to suppress the agitation and forcefully drive away the protesters from the Delhi border suggests something sinister. Was there something more than met the eye in the violence and the resultant campaign against the agitation?

The farmers’ agitation is presumed to be two months old. No, it is older than that as it began in Punjab immediately after the three agriculture-related laws were enacted. It was two months ago that thousands of farmers from Punjab, Haryana, UP and Rajasthan marched to the national Capital. Representatives of farmers from other states also joined the agitation.

The Haryana and the Central governments tried to block their entry into Delhi by using water cannons and brute force at their command. They failed to dissuade the farmers from moving to the Capital.

Finally, the farmers were reluctantly allowed to stay on the border. The authorities hoped against hope that once the winter became stronger, they would return to their villages. 

That is exactly what happened in the case of the BJP councillors in Delhi, who sat on dharna in front of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s house demanding a huge payment to the municipal corporations which were unable to pay salaries to their teachers. The CM did not pay much attention to the dharna right at his gate.

After a few days, they quietly left the CM’s gate, as they could not face the harshness of the winter. To give the devil its due, they were candid enough to admit the reason for ending the dharna. In the case of the farmers, they stayed put there, braving the chilly weather.

During the two months of their dharna, nearly “170” farmers died as they were not physically strong enough to withstand the temperature that plummeted to near-zero levels from mid-December to mid-January.

Of course, the ruling establishment did everything possible to denigrate the farmers, calling them Khalistanis, Naxals, anarchists etc but they continued to lead the agitation in as peaceful a manner as Mahatma Gandhi used to advise his Satyagrahis, first, in South Africa and, later, in India.

The images of elderly farmers sharing their tea and snacks with policemen appeared in the media, both old and new, giving a good impression about them. During the 11 rounds of talks the farmers had with the government representatives, they had only one demand to make — withdraw the three farm laws.

Incidentally, the laws were first introduced as ordinances. The power to promulgate ordinances is vested in the government only to meet emergency situations. The government had to admit that there was no such emergency when it agreed to put on hold all the three laws for one and a half years.

It was an open admission by the government that the heavens would not have fallen if the farmers’ demand was fully met. Alas, its false prestige prevented it from conceding their only demand. Needless to say, it did not show the government in a good light when thousands of farmers had to brave the cold. The people all over the country were really moved by the acts of self-sacrifice by the farmers and their leaders.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has never been tired of visiting foreign countries and hugging leaders like former US President Donald Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping, should have called the farmers for talks and showed statesmanship to end it amicably.

Instead, he delegated the responsibility to persons, who did not have the political or administrative mandate to take extraordinary decisions to meet extraordinary situations.

In criminology, there is one rule of thumb. An incident of crime can, in most cases, be explained from the answer to the question, who benefited from it. Did the farmers, who were on strike, benefit from the violence and the hoisting of the Sikh flag at the Red Fort? 

No, they did not. Rather, they have suffered and will continue to suffer from the unseemly acts.

To blame the farmers solely for the violence is not proper. There were agent provocateurs at work who wanted to derail the agitation. One name that surfaces is that of Deep Sandhu, a bit actor-turned-political-activist-turned-busybody who could even pose with Prime Minister Modi and other BJP leaders.

I have seen a video showing the farmers forcing him to run away from the dharna area. How did he manage to remain unchallenged till he hoisted two flags, one of the farmers and the Nishan Sahib, and allowed his supporters to stand on the ramparts of the Red Front as if they were victors? Why were the police lenient to them? Does not the incident show that the intelligence machinery of the Delhi Police failed miserably to gauge the mood of those who masqueraded as farmers? They were out to create trouble.

The police have filed cases even against journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai of India Today TV and Vinod Jose of Caravan because they allegedly tweeted about the death of a farmer. Actually, he died in a tractor accident and not because of police firing. But what about those who liberally used the social media to spread the false report that Khalistani flags were hoisted on the Red Fort. Were any cases lodged against them?

The Khalistani flag and the Nishan Sahib are like chalk and cheese. One is political, the other is religious. Khalistan exists only in the minds of some who live abroad. The Sikhs of Punjab have no use for that slogan. 

Be that as it may, the Nishan Sahib was hoisted on the Red Fort, of course, not in the spot reserved for the national flag, but elsewhere when the Badal-led Shiromani Akali Dal defeated the Congress-backed Akali Dal in the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee less than a decade ago.

There is some history behind the hoisting of the flag. The Sikhs had occupied the Red Fort once in history but they did not claim to rule the nation. It was in recognition of this that the Nishan Sahib was hoisted at that time. Nobody, including those in the BJP, which was an ally of the Akali Dal objected to the hoisting of the flag.

While the use of religious symbols in the farmers’ agitation was totally uncalled for, the farmers, if at all they can be called so, are not the only ones to blame. On the same day, the tableau of Uttar Pradesh that was showcased during the Republic Day parade depicted the Ram temple being constructed at Ayodhya.

The spot where the temple is coming up is where the centuries-old Babri Masjid stood. The temple is being built, not by the UP Government, but by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), though the foundation stone for it was laid by Narendra Modi. Why should its model become the tableau of the state?

On the same day, the initial steps were taken for the construction of a mosque at the five-acre plot allotted by the government, as per the Supreme Court order. What the Muslims plan to construct is not just a mosque but a hospital and a multi-purpose centre. 

Will the state be showcasing the mosque in the next year’s tableau? What’s more, Union Cabinet ministers watching the   colourful parade from the VIP enclosure stood up and applauded, as the tableau passed by. Nobody was surprised when the tableau won the first prize for the best among the tableaux. I hope some of my readers would excuse me for believing that it was the least imaginative tableau.

What the “farmers” did at the Red Fort reminded the people about what the karsevaks did at Ayodhya in 1992. LK Advani, who orchestrated the whole Ayodhya agitation, said later about what happened on that day: “"I have maintained that it was the saddest day of my life. The organisation which had planned the movement should have anticipated the people's impatience. Everyone was shocked after what happened.”

Of course, nobody has so far understood what Advani actually meant by his statement. Was he remorseful? Did he believe that the masjid would remain intact after thousands of people were brought there? And some of them, especially from Mumbai, came prepared to tear down the structure.

There are many who point out that the farmers had breached their promise about the route selected for their tractor parade. They also reportedly breached their promise to the Delhi Police about the number of tractors which would be brought into New Delhi and the number of farmers on board such vehicles.

Come to think of it, the UP government led by Kalyan Singh of the BJP had made a solemn undertaking before the Supreme Court that it would not allow demolition of the Babri Masjid under any circumstances. Was the promise honoured? What was the kind of punishment given to Kalyan Singh? Were such laws as UAPA used against him? In fact, he was ordered to remain in the court till the judge left the court that day.

Of course, comparing the hoisting of the flag to the demolition of the masjid is odious. True, some policemen were injured when the “farmers” broke the roadblocks erected by the police. There was also confusion about the route allowed for the parade.

The fact of the matter is that when violence erupted, the leaders of the farmers immediately asked the tractor-borne farmers to return to the dharna site. How were the farmers treated afterwards? Water and electric supplies were stopped forcing some farmers to leave the place.

In fact, it appears that the government saw the violence as a godsend to forcibly end the agitation. That is why doubt exists whether the agent provocateurs about whom I mentioned earlier were really sponsored by those who support the government and see the farmers as a threat to their hegemony.

Even now it is not too late for the government to reach a settlement with the farmers. There is no prestige involved in it. The farmers of Punjab might have been more vociferous and militant than their counterparts elsewhere. That does not mean that the farmers elsewhere support the farm laws. 

They are certainly not convinced by the government’s argument that they are in the interest of the farmers who stand to gain.

In any case, it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the haste with which the government brought forward the laws was unwarranted. The Bills could have been debated more thoroughly in Parliament. If necessary, they could have even been referred to a parliamentary committee.

One and a half years is a long period for the government to abrogate the three laws, introduce new Bills taking into account the protest factors and enact laws that will have acceptance all over the country.

Without farmers and their produce, life is not possible. The farming sector provides the single largest number of jobs in the country. It is in the country’s long-term interests that the farmers lead a happy life. No one faces more challenges than a farmer as is underscored by the fact that thousands of them have committed suicide.

Give and take are of the essence in a democracy. The Narendra Modi government enjoys mass support, as is underscored by the results of state and by-elections. A strong government is better placed to make compromises than a weak-kneed one. 

Nobody will see Modi as a weak leader just because he conceded the demands of the farmers. If, instead, he uses brute force to suppress the farmers’ agitation, it will be a sad day in the history of the nation. The consequences of such an ill-advised step can’t even be visualised, given the price the nation paid during the period of violence in Punjab. May sanity prevail!

ajphilip@gmail.com