Modi Relents, Nation Wins
The sacrifice of more than 700 farmers has finally borne fruit. The Neo-British Corporation has succumbed to the farmers’ agitation that reminded the nation of the freedom struggle. Prime Minister Narendra Modi who not only announced that the three agricultural laws would be withdrawn has also apologized to the country for his failure to assess the farmers’ interests correctly. Even though it appears that the decision was taken with an eye on the elections, the victory of the farmers can be seen beyond this.
In a way, the government’s plight was similar to that of a monkey whose tail is stuck in the gap of the log. It has now rescued itself at the last minute even if it is on the pretext of elections. If the Supreme Court were to strike down the laws, it would not only have been a loss of face to the government but the government would have had to permanently face farmers’ opposition. Taking all this into consideration, the Prime Minister had to withdraw the farm laws. This is neither his gift nor alms. It is an instance of farmers reclaiming their rights by forcing the government to go down on its knees through a year-long sustained agitation in which more than 700 farmers lost their lives. The Prime Minister’s responsibility does not end with the withdrawal of the laws. He owes an answer to the nation about the sacrifice of the farmers. He owes an apology to the nation for his ministers calling farmers ‘terrorists’ or ‘khalistanis.’ The Prime Minister himself had insulted the farmers by berating them as andolanajivis (congenital agitators). Now by apologizing to the same farmers, the Prime Minister has subjected himself to ridicule.
Truth be told, the farmers agitation has not ended, it has only just started as the Prime Minister, along with the announcement to repeal the laws, has indicated that “I will modify the laws and come before you.” It is clear that his apology to the country is not for handing over the rights of the farmers to corporate forces but for his failure to cheat farmers through promulgation of the laws. “We failed to educate the farmers about the advantages of the laws. For this, we are seeking an apology”, is the actual meaning. Modi has also stated that we should move forward anew. This means that his attempt to impose the laws in a new form and in a new way would continue. By treating the farmers with contempt and in an insulting manner, the government has now realized the true strength and might of the farmers. Therefore, it will surely attempt to bring back the laws using other means and impose them on the farmers.
The Centre can try to use the state governments to achieve what it could not. Already, Karnataka has modified and implemented the Lad Reforms Act and the APMC Act. Unless it withdraws these, farmers cannot achieve total victory. Farmers should therefore not put a full stop to their agitations but prepare themselves to face the anti-farmers laws that the Centre is trying to impose through state governments. The farmers agitations unified people more effectively than the manner in which the anti-CAA protests unified the country breaking down barriers of caste and religion. If the farmers had not come together and unified themselves keeping aside caste and religion, the same farmers would have been divided and riots would have been triggered in North India. As riots are BJP’s electoral capital, RSS leaders feared that farmers protests would lead to farmers coming together by setting aside all differences. These farmers on the streets would have become a huge challenge at the time of elections in Uttar Pradesh and the seething rage of farmers that could have exploded during elections. Only when the government understood that the farmers would not leave the streets till the farm laws were repealed, the government came forward to withdraw them. Therefore, this is not a decision taken as part of election appeasement. The government got scared at the strength of the farmers and took the decision.
The farmers have shown the country that if the people are alert, it is possible to face and win over a government however arrogant those in power may be. When the government tried to distract the people by raking up Ram Mandir and Kashmir issues and started implementing anti-farm laws, Punjab farmers were the first to become alert and voice their opposition. No emotional tactics worked. Ironically, when farmers hit the streets for their rights, educated people and those who called themselves journalists joined hands with the government. But these democratic protests have shown that all forces had to eventually give in to the demands of the people. Now is the time to extend these protests to other sectors as well. The farmers protests should inspire people to fight against the government that is trying to sell the entire country to the corporate sector in phases. The New East India Company is before us wearing saffron garb and tilak. The enemy is wearing ‘our dress.’ By identifying these impersonators, the time has come for us to usher in the second freedom struggle and safeguard the sovereignty of the nation.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Husband has to equally participate in household chores as he is not marrying a maid: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said a husband has to equally participate in household chores like cooking, cleaning and washing as he is not marrying a maid but a life partner.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta which was hearing a petition filed by a man challenging an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The high court had set aside a trial court order granting divorce to the man on the ground of cruelty.
During the hearing before the apex court, the counsel appearing for the man said the mediation between the parties had failed.
He said the marriage between the parties took place in May 2017 and since 2019, the couple is separated.
ALSO READ: Four held for throwing non-veg food leftovers near temple
"I (man) want a divorce. The trial court granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty," the counsel said.
The bench asked what the cruelty was as alleged in the matter.
The counsel appearing for the man said the woman had indulged in improper behaviour and was not cooking food.
"You have to equally participate in all these. Cooking, cleaning, washing, everything. Today's times are different," Justice Nath observed, adding the high court was right that it might not be a ground for cruelty.
"You are not marrying a maid. You are marrying a life partner," Justice Mehta observed.
The bench was told that both of them were working in a government school.
"Call both parties physically. We would like to speak to them," the bench said.
It posted the matter for hearing on April 27 and asked both parties to remain present before it.
