Greta Thunberg tweeted a “toolkit” for the farmers’ protests currently happening in India on Feb. 2. Thunberg is not the first prominent figure to have spoken out about the current protests. Her tweet came after Rihanna shared a CNN article on the Indian government cutting off the internet near protest sites with the caption, “why aren’t we talking about this?!” These tweets, however, had real-world implications for the activists on the ground, such as 21-year old Disha Ravi.
Pictured above: Farmers Protesting in India. Image courtesy of Ted Eytan.
By Madhavi Rao ’24
Staff Writer
In New Delhi, India’s 72nd Republic Day celebrations were underway, but in another part of the city, a group of farmers protested laws passed by the Indian government in September. This latest protest on Jan. 26 follows two months of peaceful demonstrations against three agricultural bills that have been widely received as harmful. The protest began when farmers on tractors broke away from the established Republic Day parade route and were met with harsh responses from the Delhi police.
Since the Dilli Chalo (“Let’s go to Delhi”) march in late November, Indian farmers have camped outside the border of the capital city in protest against what have come to be known as the farmer’s bills. These reforms will essentially strip away regulations on farmers’ produce, making them vulnerable to the low competing prices of the free market. The New York Times reported that these laws have been suspended until the government can conduct talks with the farmer unions that are calling for the abolition of these bills.
On Jan. 26, tens of thousands of the farmers who were camped outside of the Delhi border entered the city to take part in a planned Republic Day parade. According to the Indian publication The Hindu, the farmers were to drive down a predetermined parade route in tractors, as was agreed upon by the joint front of all protesting unions, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha. However, chaos ensued when some of the farmers deviated from these predetermined routes, though it is unclear whether or not this was intentional. Farmers on tractors who were not a part of the official parade broke down barricades at the city border and drove into Delhi as part of a demonstration, reported the BloombergQuint.
The protests reached a peak when some of the farmers managed to reach Red Fort in the older part of the capital. The police responded strongly against the farmers’ dissent as the farmers were met with lathi, or batons, charges, water cannons and tear gas. The day’s events also led to a ban of internet and mobile services across the city. These violent interactions with the police resulted in the death of one protester, Navreet Singh, reported CNN.
In response to Tuesday’s events, Assistant Professor of History Abhilash Medhi expressed his discomfort with the prevalent narrative. “The Delhi Police's reaction to the parade and subsequent reactions within the media appear to fit rather nicely with what Ranajit Guha called ‘the prose of counter-insurgency,’” he explained. “In [this prose], the violence of protesters is used, first, as a ruse for retributive violence and, second, to delegitimize the protesters’ legitimate demands in the public eye. To me, that is the more interesting aspect of what played out [on Tuesday].”
The blanket farmers union Samyukt Kisan Morcha denounced the protests, stating, “We also condemn and regret the undesirable and unacceptable events that have taken place today and dissociate ourselves from those indulging in such acts,” reported Al-Jazeera.
Prakruti Nikam ’22, an Indian student at Mount Holyoke, voiced her frustrations with the Indian media’s portrayal of the farmers’ protests. She said, “It’s very sad to see that the media in India have such polarized opinions since they have been forced to speak a certain way because of the government. They have repeatedly called the farmers’ protest[s] ‘violent’ and that is only to keep the Modi government happy.”
“The farmers just want to be heard and they are trying to make a living,” Nikam continued. “The Delhi police have a history of violence when it comes to curbing riots and protests,” Nikam concluded, referencing the similar treatment of protesters by the police during the demonstrations against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019.
On Saturday, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said in a statement to a meeting of legislative assembly leaders that the government’s proposal to suspend the farmer’s laws still stood. He said that the problem would only be resolved through dialogue with the government. As reported by The Hindu, Modi, reiterating a statement made by Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar, said, “We’ve not reached a consensus but we are giving you [farmers] the offer and you may go and deliberate.”
In response to Modi, Samyukt Kisan Morcha indicated that they are interested in holding talks with the government, but will stand by their demand that the bills be withdrawn, according to The Times of India.
“I do expect a change in the way this government negotiates with farmers going forward. I would be surprised to see any overtures before the budget,” Medhi explained, speaking of the central government’s potential decision to provide the country’s farmers with financial grants. “The government might see the budget as a convenient time to make some concessions. Quite how concrete any of those concessions are remains to be seen. Knowing this government and its history with budgets, the overwhelming desire would probably be to hide behind promises and big numbers.”
Courtesy of Flicker - Photograph by Bodo Tasche
By Madhavi Rao ’24
Staff Writer
On Sept. 29, 2020, Amnesty International announced that it would be ending its operations in India. The human rights organization withdrew from the country after the government froze its bank accounts on Sept. 10, 2020, effectively ending its work there. This came after what Amnesty International has cited as years of harassment by the Indian government. In response, the government turned to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act as justification for its actions, claiming that the organization’s foreign funding violated the law.
Executive Director of Amnesty International India Avinash Kumar stated, “The continuing crackdown on Amnesty International India over the last two years and the complete freezing of bank accounts is not accidental.” He claimed that the Indian government has been raiding Amnesty International’s offices for years and harassing the organization in an attempt to silence it, especially in reference to its work in reporting human rights abuses in the Delhi riots and the region formerly known as Jammu and Kashmir.
The Delhi riots, which started in December 2019, began after the passing of the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Protests against the CAA were met with violence, and the situation escalated into riots, where a majority of the brutality was targeted at Muslim communities.
Indian-administered Kashmir is the world’s most militarized zone, with 200,000 troops guarding 12 million civilians, as reported by Bloomberg. Kashmir is also the site of an excess of human rights violations, especially concerning dissent over the Indian administration. The tensions over the highly disputed territory were exacerbated by the change in Kashmir’s status from that of an autonomous region to a union territory on Aug. 5, 2019. This, coupled with telephone networks and internet access being cut off, increased concerns of human rights violations in the valley.
Assistant Professor of History Abhilash Medhi said, “As much as organizations like Amnesty International and Human Right[s] Watch are important in drawing attention to what’s happening in Kashmir, there are fairly robust domestic circuits of information as well. In the valley and outside, more and more, Kashmiris have been creative in using the media to get their message out. This is something we can draw hope from.”
According to The Hindu, statements condemning the Indian government’s actions have been released by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.K. Foreign Office, and the European Parliament. The Indian government responded to these allegations justifying their actions as an attempt to stop Amnesty International’s illegal funding from foreign investors.
In a statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Indian government blamed the organization’s continued violation of the FCRA. According to the MHA, “Amnesty’s failure to comply with local regulations does not entitle them to make comments on the democratic and plural character of India.”
The FCRA, created in 1976, aims to protect India’s democratic process from foreign influence by prohibiting external powers from funding operations in the country. It is now being used to target NGOs, such as Amnesty International, which was said to have received funding from foreign investors. However, in a statement responding to these allegations and the freezing of the organization’s accounts, Amnesty International reiterated that all their funding was raised domestically.
“The FCRA was put into place to limit foreign actors from meddling in domestic political affairs. But now it is used as a silencer of dissent,” Medhi said. “This in itself is telling of a larger project. Exceptions to laws, such as that of the FCRA, have been created in an effort to delegitimize these organizations and their work with human rights.”
Amnesty International is one in a line of many organizations whose operations have been terminated. More than 20 NGOs, including Greenpeace, Compass International and the Ford Foundation, are under fire from the government regarding the FCRA, according to The Hindu. Kumar said in a statement released by Amnesty International, “For a movement that has done nothing but raise its voices against injustice, this latest attack is akin to freezing dissent.”
Medhi said, “Their withdrawal from India is a worrying development. But it’s also part of a larger scheme. This process is occurring in slices, starting with NGOs and activists. What’s worrying is that if the current dispensation stays in power, this could happen to a huge chunk of the population.”
