There is something instinctively troubling about a group of people holding an elected government to ransom, as much as when a government turns against its own citizens in the name of law and order. Both point to a breakdown of the normal democratic process of give and take through debate and discussion. People have the right to protest. But if the protestors insist on an all-or-nothing approach, and if governments start putting spikes on arterial highways and building concrete walls alongside serried ranks of barricades, then representative democracy has slipped into more problematic territory.
The government has been less rigid now than it was on the new citizenship laws a year ago. However reluctantly, it has offered to hold in abeyance the new laws on agricultural marketing, till cool heads can discuss the points in dispute. But with the stand-off having acquired elements of international farce, the best course now would be to toss the issue back to Parliament, which is the right forum to debate new laws. The alternative is further escalation, which no one should want.
There is scope for finding middle ground. In many ways the new laws were overdue; indeed, the future of agricultural reform hinges on them. But when farmers worry that the laws might work against them in practice, their behaviour depends not on the “facts” presented but what they have come to believe. Calling them anti-national is not an answer.
Robert Shiller, the behavioural economist and Nobel laureate, published in 2019 a book titled Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral and Drive Major Economic Events. Shiller’s thesis is that while economists look at facts and data, it is the power of narrative that often influences people’s economic decisions. For instance, memories of the Great Depression encouraged people to save more in their later lives. The pandemic may have an equally long shelf-life in influencing future economic behaviour.
Also read: Time for Modi to play the elder statesman and repeal the farm laws
With that insight, consider the narratives swirling around the farmers’ agitation. The first is of toiling farmers who feed the nation, fighting to save their meagre but threatened livelihood. This story line strikes a sympathetic chord at home and overseas. As is typical in such populist moments (remember Brexit), “disconnected experts” who defend the new laws are disregarded.
The second narrative is one that has come to dog the government, namely that it is in hock to “stigmatised capital”. The farmers suspect that tycoons want to take over agricultural markets, first by offering better prices and then squeezing them once a monopsony has been established. The sense of unequal power, and of not having been consulted, feeds such conspiracy theories.
The government’s response is also two-fold. First, that the protest is by misguided farmers around Delhi, while their counterparts elsewhere are quiet. That’s partly true, but then much of the action in the French Revolution was centred on Paris. And it is the ruling party that has peddled the narrative that the establishing of the Delhi Sultanate meant 800 years of alien rule — though the Cheras and Chalukyas still ruled in the South. Delhi is symbolic, and this battle will not be won in Thanjavur, the Godavari delta, or some other granary.
The second, more serious accusation put out by the government is that the movement has been penetrated by separatist elements, even as journalists face seemingly coordinated accusations of sedition. This takes the debate away from the specifics of the farm laws to nationalist terrain, which is always the government’s preferred battleground. But cricketers tweeting for unity will not win the absurd battle against three young women overseas. So it is the government that now risks being portrayed as the intransigent party.
If it wants to regain the initiative, it must regain credibility, just as the Manmohan Singh government needed to do in 2011-12 on corruption. And not just with farmers but also with other sections of the citizenry who have come to believe that those ruling in Delhi no longer represent them. That means the government must look for broader acceptance of its laws even if it can enact them without difficulty, since it now controls both houses of Parliament. This larger national narrative is what needs addressing.
By Special Arrangement with Business Standard.
Also read: Angry farmers, khap support & a ‘warning’ to govt — snapshots from Tikait’s Jind mahapanchayat
In stead of writing paragraphs without saying any thing if the learned people were to write specific possible solutions it would help.
More so try and explain to Mr. Tikait the ” Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral and Drive Major Economic Events.” in place of a headline” Modi govt must build broader acceptance on farm laws” Say how…..
The article would be more constructive if there were to be a few specific points highlighted, which would at least make a beginning to dialogue beyond “KALE KANUN HATA DO”
Saying no to just about everything was good when there was money being made involving vested interest in just about everything.
Is it too much to expect a change?
Come on “experts”. Cricketer’s tweets can’t fix anything but Rihana’s can?
You don’t express any view on those tweets. Or is it that only “experts” and activists can a view on National matters?
Tolerance and intolerance works two-way and not one way. Is it that dissidence can’t be criticized?
Protests are a right. But exercising that right does not make the cause too right. If so, in a diverse country like India including 100s of political parties, a plethora of “experts” and a dime a dozen activists there will not be any progress. And taht is what is happening. Because of all this we are a laggard democracy.
And the true “We the People” have nothing to do about it.
Whose Nation is it anyway. Not of the “experts”, activists and opportunists, I suppose.
Childish knee-jerk reaction to a possibly ill-informed celebrity tweet and questioning the patriotism of everyone isn’t how such issues are resolved. There is a need for nuance, empathy, dialogue and lots of patience.
Sir I beg to differ to your thought process, If we stop listening to experts, activists and opportunists( which I shall replace with the correct word protestors) then whom shall we listen to yes men, govt economist and corporates. Also doesn’t this experts, activists, protesters not belong to we the people or those who support the govt are only part of this exclusive group.
When the govt rushed through the act in Parliament without much consultation then your description of laggard democracy is faulty as the not the laggard but democracy part was missing as regards to talking to all the stakeholders.
As regards to Dime of experts, we could equally argue for those experts who are supporting the act are even a smaller bunch most prominent being Ashok Gulati, a typical govt economist who has more interest in Post retirement benefits then then welfare of farmers
And finally the criticism of dissent and 100s of political parties thing. May be your bored with Arnab only talking about farm protest nowadays. But democracy is also about inclusivity. When the voices of stakeholders were not heard initially so there is bound to be noise now. I agree democracy is noisy, but then noisy means it is a healthy democracy.
Hence state ought to respect the views of them farming community for whom the act is intended
Absolutely right Krish. Thanks for your detailed response.
But pray who are really the experts?
And then, a myopic and political approach to any issue is self defeating. In a large country as India looking at any single factor in isolation is short sightedness; an entire orchestra needs to be put together to create a symphony.
Only an expert expert violinist, can’t create an orchestra. “Experts” work in silos.
Tail piece: And then, every violinist is not an expert on the instrument, even so he/she may pose as one.
Also,
Who is Arnab?
The chief beneficiaries of the corrupt agriculture ecosystem would never agree to give up their entitlement.
Even the economists and champion of farm laws and reforms are scared of Punjab farmers. Why not all the champions of reforms talk to the farmers on their own and make them understand the benefits of the farm laws. The admant farmers of a few states are being supported by the opposition to insult the present government.
talking about cricketers’ tweets, i recently noticed lot of trolling and protests about sachin tendulkar’s tweets.
it just proves one myth wrong. trolling is not the sole property of the extreme right and the extreme left is also claiming its ownership. look at the burning of his effigy in kerala.
so let us all agree – trolling is universal.
It has always been that way. Both hate each other. Both have a “my way or the highway approach”.