प्रोफेसर प्रदीप माथुर का विश्लेषण

हालाँकि वक्फ (संशोधन) बिल, जिसे संसद के दोनों सदनों में पारित किया गया, मोदी सरकार के लिए तत्काल कोई खतरा उत्पन्न नहीं करता है, लेकिन यह निश्चित रूप से देश के राजनीतिक आकाश पर बीजेपी की प्रभुत्वता के अंत का संकेत देता है। बीजेपी नेतृत्व ने मुसलमान संगठनों और कांग्रेस नेतृत्व वाले विपक्षी दलों के विरोध के बावजूद इस विवादास्पद उपाय के लिए समर्थन जुटाने में सफलता प्राप्त की है, लेकिन यह जन मानस की मानसिकता को समझने में असफल रहा है, जो अंततः मायने रखती है। कारण यह है कि बीजेपी नेताओं को उस भारतीय मतदाता की चिंताओं, भय और खतरे की भावना का पता नहीं है, जो गरीब भारतीयों के अवचेतन मन में निहित हैं। आइए हम इस अवचेतन मन में झांकने की कोशिश करें।

आर्थिक उदारीकरण के पूर्व काल में भारत के प्रमुख अर्थशास्त्रियों में से एक प्रोफेसर एम.वी. माथुर थे। 1974 में चंडीगढ़ में एक सम्मेलन की अध्यक्षता करने के लिए आए हुए प्रोफेसर माथुर से एक युवा रिपोर्टर के रूप में, मुझे उनका साक्षात्कार करने का अवसर मिला। वह समय था जब हमारा देश हरित क्रांति से गुजर रहा था और 1960 के दशक के अंतिम भाग के निराशाजनक वर्षों के बाद, जब देश में अकाल और संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका से पीएल 480 की अपमानजनक स्थिति का सामना करना पड़ा था, हर जगह आर्थिक विकास और सामाजिक प्रगति की उम्मीदें फैली हुई थीं।

जैसे ही हमने विशेष साक्षात्कार शुरू किया, मैंने उनसे पूछा कि चूँकि हरित क्रांति बहुत सारा धन उत्पन्न कर रही थी, तो आपके अनुसार यह धन सबसे अच्छा कहाँ निवेश किया जाना चाहिए ताकि हमारे देश का समग्र विकास तेजी से हो सके। 

मैंने उम्मीद की थी कि यह प्रसिद्ध अर्थशास्त्री उद्योग और प्रौद्योगिकी परियोजनाओं के बारे में कहेंगे, क्योंकि यही वे क्षेत्र थे जिनमें पश्चिमी दुनिया, जो वैश्विक अर्थव्यवस्था पर हावी थी, नहीं चाहती थी कि हम निवेश करें। अपनी प्रभुत्वता बनाए रखने के लिए, वे चाहते थे कि भारत एक कृषि प्रधान अर्थव्यवस्था बना रहे और नेहरू को इस परत्ति से नाराज थे कि उन्होंने देश को औद्योगिकीकरण के रास्ते पर डाल दिया था। 

मेरे आश्चर्य के लिए, प्रोफेसर एम.वी. माथुर ने कहा कि देश में एक बड़ी आवास संकट है और हमें अपनी संसाधनों को समाज के सभी वर्गों के लिए आवास निर्माण की दिशा में लगाना चाहिए। आवास निर्माण उद्योगों जैसे सीमेंट, स्टील और सैनिटरी वेयर को बढ़ावा देगा, उन्होंने अपने तर्क का समर्थन करते हुए कहा। 

“यह तो ठीक है सर, लेकिन भारतीयों के पास स्वास्थ्य देखभाल, शिक्षा, परिवहन और एक अच्छा जीवन स्तर जैसे आवश्यकताओं के लिए पर्याप्त पैसा नहीं है, तो वे घर खरीदने के लिए पैसे कहाँ से लाएंगे?” मैंने पूछा।

जो बात इस अर्थशास्त्री ने कही, उसने मुझे और भी चौंका दिया। उन्होंने कहा कि भारतीयों के पास कुछ भी खरीदने के लिए पैसे नहीं हो सकते, लेकिन वे हमेशा दो चीजों के लिए संसाधन जुटा सकते हैं— घर खरीदने और शादी समारोह आयोजित करने के लिए। 

मैंने अपनी रिपोर्ट फाइल की, लेकिन जो उन्होंने कहा, उस पर सोचता रहा। मैंने चारों ओर देखा और अपने सहयोगियों, दोस्तों और परिवार के सदस्यों में अपनी खुद की एक घर की चाहत को महसूस किया, चाहे वह कितने भी साधारण क्यों न हों। मैंने यह भी देखा कि जिन लोगों के पास अपना घर था, उनके चेहरे पर खुशी थी। जल्द ही मुझे एहसास हुआ कि किसी का अपना घर होना लोगों को विशेष रूप से पंजाब, हरियाणा और उत्तर प्रदेश में, जहाँ की पीढ़ियों को मध्यकाल में आक्रमणकारी सेनाओं के हमलों, लूटपाट और विस्थापन का सामना करना पड़ा था, एक अद्वितीय आत्मविश्वास और आत्म-निर्भरता का अहसास दिलाता है। किसी का खुद का घर या जमीन उसकी अस्तित्व की आवश्यकता है और जीवित रहने की सबसे अच्छी गारंटी है। बाकी सब कुछ गौण है। चौधरी चरण सिंह और लालू प्रसाद यादव की राजनीति इसका प्रमाण है। उनके द्वारा शुरू की गई ज़मीन सुधारों ने भूमिहीनों को लाभ पहुँचाया और उन्होंने इन नेताओं की पूजा भगवान की तरह की।

दुर्भाग्यवश, उत्तर भारतीय मानसिकता में निहित इस बुनियादी गुण को प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी द्वारा नेतृत्व किए गए गुजराती लॉबी न तो जानती है और न ही इसे समझने के लिए तैयार है। वे एक पैसे-केंद्रित व्यापार संस्कृति के प्रवर्तक हैं, और उन्हें यह समझ में नहीं आता कि कोई भी नकद सब्सिडी या मुफ्त राशन इस अस्तित्व संबंधी आवश्यकता को पूरा नहीं कर सकता। चाहे जितना भी अच्छा इरादा हो, कोई भी उपाय जो लोगों को अपनी ज़मीन से वंचित करने का खतरा उत्पन्न करता है, वह जनता के लिए डर का कारण बनता है। पहले उन्होंने तीन कृषि बिल लाए थे, जिन्हें भले ही वापस ले लिया गया हो, लेकिन इसने पंजाब, हरियाणा और उत्तर प्रदेश में पार्टी के जनाधार को कमजोर किया और 2024 के चुनावों में उन्हें भारी नुकसान हुआ। अब उन्होंने वही गलती वक्फ बिल से की है, जिसका उन्हें और भी अधिक भारी नुकसान उठाना पड़ेगा।

यदि प्रधानमंत्री मोदी और उनके आसपास के लोग यह सोचते हैं कि वक्फ बिल केवल मुसलमानों को प्रभावित करेगा, जो उनके वोट बैंक में नहीं आते, तो वे गलत हैं। यदि वे सोचते हैं कि हिन्दू इससे खुश होंगे, तो वे फिर से गलत हैं। सरकार के इरादों या उद्देश्य चाहे जो भी हों, साधारण आदमी के लिए संदेश यह होगा कि सरकार उन्हें उनकी ज़मीन से वंचित करना चाहती है, जो उनकी सुरक्षित जीवित रहने की गारंटी है। और यह संदेश मुसलमानों, दलित हिन्दुओं और सभी वर्गों के गरीबों के लिए होगा, जो अपने ज़मीन से उखाड़े जाने के डर के साथ असुरक्षित जीवन जी रहे हैं। इससे सभी समुदायों के गरीब वर्गों का बीजेपी से विलगाव होगा, जिसे कोई भी आर्थिक सब्सिडी या सांप्रदायिक प्रचार दूर नहीं कर पाएगा।  

They never saw ,never heard and never read him. And most certainly they know nothing about his contribution to our freedom struggle and making of modern India. Yet they leave no opportunity to run down Jawaharlal Nehru. And they are as vehement in their criticism as they are ignorant in their understanding of our political history.

First I thought these Nehru critics are in the typical habit of talking about the issues they do not understand. Then I felt it is natural for the apolitical youth, now vocal in the euphoria of our economic resurgence ,to blame his ancestors for the fact that India is not America. Then political adversaries are always critical and Nehru was a politician.. But now I realize that the tendency to vilify Nehru and undermine his contribution is perhaps not so simple to understand

True the present generation does not have the same emotional attachment for the leaders of freedom struggle which the previous generation(s) had However, why single out Nehru for all the ills that the present day India suffers from. Why blame him for all the things that have gone wrong while the fact is that things would have been much worst had there been no Nehru to take charge of the country after our independence.

Nehru lost much of his appeal and the God like image after Chinese attacked our north-eastern borders and humiliated us in the border war .Nehru died a disillusioned man one and a half years later. But neither during those 18 months nor after his demise even his worst critics attacked him the way he is being attacked now — more than four-five decades after his death. With most of his friends and contemporaries gone Nehru is now defenceless in his death. And there is nobody to tell these Nehru critics that you are absolutely wrong.

The generation which felt the pain of Chinese betrayal and humiliation did not abuse Nehru. They neither questioned his patriotism nor his political wisdom .His economic development model was often criticized as being too heavily tilted in favour of industrialization but none questioned his commitment for making India a self-reliant country .If the economy of the country is on sound footing now it is largely because of its sound infra-structure the basis of which was laid by Nehru in the teeth of opposition from many people who could not to see beyond their nose.

One can say that none could dare castigate Nehru as his daughter, a very forceful personality in her own right , was at the helm of affairs. But then we did not see this sort of Nehru bashing when she went out of power in 1977.In fact many people remembered him as a true democrat who would have never gone for a measure like the emergency .Though dead for more than a decade at the time of the emergency Nehru was remembered as a man who respected institutions and institutional culture.

During his lifetime and till Mrs Indira Gandhi’s return to power Nehru’s worst critics were the socialists of Lohia variety. They felt Nehru belonged to India while they were from Bharat and there was a big class barrier that separated them .Yet they were never paranoid in their criticism of Nehru and most certainly they were not abusive as the present-day Nehru bashers are.

Even if some one feels very strongly, though ignorantly, that Nehru was solely responsible for our troubles with Pakistan and China one need not be so obsessed with Nehru for the simple reason that our relations with the two countries are on road to improvement now . No, the real reason of Nehru bashing is not the “ concessions” he made to Pakistan on Kashmir or to China on Tibet – something the Nehru critics would like us to believe.

So why this anger against Nehru ? Who these Nehru critics really are and why of all persons they pick up Nehru to vent their anger?

In my view Nehru bashers do not come from a single ideological stream. .They are a motley crowd. However, their way of thinking and source of inspiration is the same.

They are young and not so young people who do jobs in retailing, banks, BPOs and financial marketing, They are management executives who run or manage small and medium scale businesses and are engaged in cut throat competition to make money by hook or crook.They are people benefiting from construction boom who are committed to the doctorine that the solution of the country’s housing problem is by selling dreams and not residential units to the lower middle class and middle class people They are people from airlines, hotels and hospitality industries.

The interesting thing is that none of these persons know anything about Nehru.. Their knowledge of India’s history—recent or medieval– is of the level of Munnabhai. Yet they are neither ashamed of their ignorance nor have any desire to shed it.

But why they are after Nehru.?

To give them company there are others .—pseudo intellectuals in academia, media and middle classes .Since it is difficult to compherend the changing scenario , to attack a defenceless Nehru comes easy to them.

Then there are compulsive minority(read muslim) haters both in and outside Sangh parivar who seriously need some lessons India’s history.

But why they are paranoid about Nehru ?

There is one thing in common in all of them. They hate self-restraint, institutional discipline ,rule of law and transparency. They are impatient to succeed and worship “ sub chalta hai ‘ creed.

The Nehru bashers belong to a new post 1990 generation of Indian society which is a product of the new age of globalised market economy.Money is their only God and money making businesses,fair or foul , the way to reach their God. They are product of a market culture sans ethics .Management education has given them skills and efficiency but no social perspective. For short term success they can break all behavioural norms—personal, social and professional. Harshad Mehta can be their model and Guru their favourite movie. Any comparison with Shylock does not offend them.

But why should they be disliking Nehru ?

Though Nehru died when most of them were not born yet they know that Nehru had said that the State must have a controlling hand on business.—economic progress is not the same thing as corporate loot— when you plan big construction like highways, flyovers, multiplexes and malls you should also think of poor of the country who need a roof over their heads—economic strides should not be made by breaking institutionalized working and procedural norms and the state machinery is there to control malpractices and not to support business in its questionable dealings.

It is the tremendous moral strength that Nehru gave to India’s small but determined middle class minority to stand for what is right and correct that this new class of ruthless economic predators hates. Nehru was a symbol for all modern-minded, decent and conscientious Indians who want the country to develop on right lines in keeping with our ethos and the idealism generated in the wake of our freedom struggle. Such people have been in public life, bureaucracy,judiciary,police, education, media and social work.Despite best efforts of “environment managing corporate bosses “ many of them are still not corrupt .Though considerably weakened such people are still putting resistance to insensitive corporate loot of this country. And for this Nehru is responsible and is to “ blame”. An attack on Nehru weakens this resistance and leaves the door open for these money hounds. Hence plan, promote , support and sustain hate Nehru campaign.

 Whatever be  the motivation, mass movements, agitations and protest rallies aim at  two things – they challenge the established order and seek to break the status quo  . In fact   they exhibit   agitators’ urge, aspirations and  a  desire to either protect or to further their interests. Agitations may or may not succeed in achieving their goal but they do put an imprint on society   and bring about a change in society  . The on-going farmers’ agitation is no exception to this. Since  the standoff between the agitating farmers and the Centre   has  vertically divided public   opinion for or against the agitation   we are not able to appreciate its long term impact  .

 If the J.P. movement of early 1970s changed the elitist character of our political leadership and paved the way for  transfer of power to the middle classes, the Anna Hazare movement of  the 2010s put leadership on the defensive for all that was rotten in the system. The  fact is that neither the JP movement was able to bring about any  semblance of a   sampurna kranti ( total revolution ) nor the Anna Movement was able to end corruption. Therefore, whatever be  the end result  of the farmers’ agitation it will be too much to expect that the post agitation situation will lead to any reforms in our agriculture sector. However, it will bring about a change in the socio –political scenario.

The  aim of agitation leaders has been  to get   what  in their view is  a better deal for themselves and for those whom they claimed to represent. But a  combination of factors such as unexpectedly good response to the agitation, media attention , inapt political handling and insensitivity of the  authorities  dealing  with the situation has  prolonged the agitation and changed its character from non-political to political. Therefore, the agitation, which could have ended with  settlement on some   economic demands of the farmers   ,   will now have a much   larger   impact on   public life.

 The agitation has  no doubt  shifted public discourse from purely emotional issues to real issues of sustenance and empowerment. The emotive slogans based on nationalism, patriotism, and past glory and allegations of suspect loyalty and doubtful  commitment to national integrity reflected in terminology like tudke tudke gang   have certainly taken a back seat. The focus   now  is on the  economics of farm policies and the impact of the three farm laws on  the  simple bread and butter  issue of small and marginal farmers. With this we can  hope that the  prevailing cynicism in our public discourse will end and its quality will improve.

The declining appeal of emotive issues will have considerable impact on the electoral scene especially when four important states and one union territory are going for assembly elections in the coming 100 days or less. The ruling BJP which has been thriving on emotional issues will have to change its strategy to ensure      mass support in the elections. The fact that emotional issues have started losing their appeal   was clearly visible in the  Bihar Assembly elections  in October-November last 

when we witnessed how    young   Tajeshwi Yadav  nearly upstaged mighty  BJP and JDU leaders by raising the issue of employment.  

 More than anything else the agitation has bridged the communal divide by  securing wide support from all castes and communities. In west U.P.  Muslims and Hindus, who engaged in violent communal riots in  the year 2013 , have openly admitted their mistake, expressed regrets and decided to fight as one for repeal of the farm laws. With the momentum gained by the farmers’ agitation the   hate campaign against the minorities has certainly  weakened. This sure will remove the distortion in the political narrative that we have been witnessing of late  and will restore much-desired communal harmony. The bridging of the communal divide will  no doubt have its impact in the assembly elections in four states and a union territory to be held in the coming months.

The large scale participation of village women of all ages has   given strength to the agitation and a new dimension to the campaign for woman empowerment. Campaigning for the empowerment of women what the  feminist movement in India could not  achieve in more than 40 years   the farmers agitation  has  achieved in few months.. One only wishes that from this point our rural society moves to ensure equality of gender   and break all shackles that bind half of our population in chains. 

Similarly the agitation has also revived the process of   much-needed   initiation  of our youth in understanding  genuine political issues  , a highly desirable activity in  any democratic society.  which had stopped  after student unions were banned.

Since IT revolution   and economic liberalization of 1980s and advent of consumerism the Indian middle class has been moving away from the culture   of protest  and  agitation thus denying the workers and marginal farmers the much needed leadership. Single-minded pursuit of careerism and the desire for more  money also gave it a mental attitude to accommodate with what was  unjust ,wrong  and  rotten   in the system. The words like  social consciousness , compassion, equality and social justice  went out of use  in the mad rush of consumerism with the result that the educated urban middle class which led the freedom struggle became indifferent to the aspirations of the masses. 

  A revival of the culture of mass movements will perhaps   be the most significant outcome of the farmers’ agitation and this is what the present establishment fears most . This revival will give a new lease of life to the moribund trade union movement and the genuine  demands of  workers may be raised with much more power to the chagrin of  our corporate which enjoys patronage of the present government.  

The   farmers’ struggle   has received support from many quarters including the urban-based middle class intelligentsia. Let us    hope that it will help this agitation to    bridge the consumerism-created  urban-rural divide and sensitize the  city-based apolitical   sections  of our society   to feel more and  be  humane to their less fortunate country men and women who toil hard in the fields to feed them.   

Prof Pradeep Mathur, New Delhi

———–

  West Bengal is clearly witnessing  the most crucial electoral battle .  For one it is the biggest State in terms of assembly size after U.P. and then in Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee  the BJP leadership sees biggest challenge to its authority and political clout in the country. Little wonder  the BJP big wigs are going to Kolkata so very often and enticing  dissatisfied Trinmool Congress leaders and workers to leave Mamata Banerjee and join BJP ranks. The big question is if the BJP will succeed in its endeavour. 

The BJP’s   good showing in the 2019 parliamentary elections   when it won 18 of the 42  seats has given rise to the speculation  that the assembly elections will see a close  contest between Mamata Banerjee’s Trianmool Congress and Prime Minister Modi’s BJP. Most of the assessments are based on this narrative. More than anybody else BJP leaders  themselves believe in this narrative and think that   West Bengal  is all set to welcome them  with open arms.

However, this may not come out to be  true  because of several reasons.  

In fact to   assess the electoral outcome in the forthcoming elections one must first try to understand the typical   Bengali mindset. An average   Bengali is   steeped in tradition and is extremely   proud of his culture, history  , language and literature. He is  non-conformist , is   irreverent   to authority and  by and large unimpressed by  the status of those  who have power or money. Their excessive sense of self   importance   often limits their all-India  vision and ,therefore, they are often accused of sub -nationalism .

We may like  Mamata Banerjee or not but there is no denying the fact that she is true   representative the Bengali mindset. She is proud and defiant and that makes her someone as a class apart. Perhaps no other Opposition leader   had  dared to  register a protest so tellingly before the Prime Minister of the country as she did  on  Netaji’s birth anniversary function at Victoria Memorial on January 23 . She is certainly Prime Minister Modi’s most formidable opponent in India politics at the moment.

The all-important question is if   Mamta Banerjee will be able to convince the voters of West Bengal that she is not only the best votary  of Bengali subnational identity but also its most strongest defender. She will also have to convince the voters that if the BJP comes to the power in West Bengal it will mean dilution of this identity into the cultural confluence  of the Hindi belt something which BJP champions and an average Bengali abhors.  

There are indications  that Mamata is winning this battle to capture Bengali mind. An NGO has already started a “ Anyone but BJP “ campaign and as time to go to the polling booth approaches such voices  may become louder.   

In fact the stance the Left Front and the Congress take will have a decisive impact on the West Bengal election results. It is no secret that the spectacular victory of BJP in 2019 parliamentary elections was made possible by support from CP-M cadres who were angry by Mamata Banerjee and wanted to teach her a lesson. But it may not be so this time . 

Both parties the Congress and the CP-M  are as strongly pitted against  the BJP as Mamata’s   Trinamool Congress  in the 2021  assembly elections. The big question, therefore, is if they   will go for   some understanding with Mamata to keep the BJP out. However,   it is a Catch 22 situation for both. They also   see a powerful Mamata as   a threat to their existence. 

Elections are quite some time away and a lot will depend on what happens in between. The road for BJP however is not as smooth as it has thought it to be   . For one the charges against Mamata are not cutting much ice and the BJP government’s image is also not improving.  Then may be  BJP is helping Mamata  Banerjee in her bid to be the leader-protector of Bengali identity. Indifferent to  the fact of cultural  diversity of  India and unfamiliar with the federal and democratic culture of  its  politics , BJP’s stress on slogan of Rashtravad strokes those emotions which islands of regional culture like West Bengal  do not  like. 

For all we know BJP’s strategy of communal polarization may not succeed because to its chagrin  Bengalitva  may prove  more powerful than Hindutva. That is the reason which may prompt strong opponents of Mamata like CPI-M and the Congress to be weary of the BJP and go soft on, if not back Mamata  .In that case  the BJP’s strongest weapon of Rashtravad ,an euphoria for majoritarianism, will prove to be its worst liability. 

Pradeep Mathur , Senior Journalist , Delhi

———–

Whatever be the end result ’ it  can be said with a degree   of certainty that the farmers’ agitation has changed the political scenario in the country . Besides other things it has  changed the course of public discourse which now more  issue focused .No doubt  several  charges have been levelled against the agitators who have in turn accused  the government of being pro corporate . Yet the charges and their language is much better than the cynical Pappu and Chor syndrome   that we have witnessed in the past few years.

Let us briefly examine the charges that have been leveled by the two rival parties to the dispute against each other. Intolerant of dissent and unknown to the culture of people’s movement , the leaders and supporters  of the BJP government have been accusing  the agitating farmers of broadly three  things :

a. they are being misled  by Opposition parties;

b. they are harbouring Khalistani and

c. they are not caring for larger national interests and the longer term benefits of the farm measures. 

Moreover, in what looks to be a combination of insensitivity, meanness and perhaps jealously some blind supporters of the ruling party have also said  that the agitating farmers are having a picnic time and enjoying pizza and dry fruits.

Now let us examine these charges. Any  criticism , allegation or protest in public life  is routinely termed as being political. Once accused of playing politics in a certain matter Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Jagjiwan Ram retorted by saying that  in politics he was supposed to play politics and not to sing bhajans( devotional songs). Therefore, to say that the farmers are taking support from and are being influenced by politicians in their struggle is no charge. Similarly   if the Opposition parties do not use the agitation to further their interests they are unfit to be in politics.

The charge of Khalistani infiltration is serious , is also  in bad taste  but has no substance. The   Khalistani movement which was an outcome of the wrong policies of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi , is long dead. A small fringe of it might still be there in Canada but it is of no consequence. Perhaps contribution to the agitation by prosperous relations of the agitators in Canada has prompted the detractors of the agitation to level this charge. However, even those who have made such charges do not believe these to be true.

Prime Minister Modi perhaps feels hurt over the fact that  instead of being grateful for the measures he brought for their good  the farmers  are protesting against the three farm measures. But for this he has to blame himself and his style of functioning. Nothing would have been lost had he initialled a discuss on the three bills and had worked out a consensus on the much needed farm   sector reforms. To accuse the farmers of not knowing their welfare and ignoring the national interests   ,therefore,  does not carry any weight.

It is surprising that the agitating farmers and their friends in  political parties should say that the Modi government is pro big business, does not have  farmers as its overriding priority and therefore, the measures are not good. It shows that they lack basic understanding of politics. It was never a secret that BJP is a right wing party, is supportive of big business, have had no record of genuinely supporting farmers or workers agitations. Therefore, the “discovery” by farmers’ leaders that Mr Modi is a friend of Ambani and Adani is amusing.  

Since there is nothing much in the accusations of the two rival sides the  discourse on the agitation  is thankfully not dirty , cynical or cantankerous. The charges are not personal,   nobody’s grandfather is being put in the dock and nobody’s father’s faith  or mother’s nationality is being questioned .

On a serious note the farmers’ agitation is above all narrow lines of   class , caste, creed and regionalism which could  give its opponents a handle to discredit It is a non-violent movement built around an issue that concerns everyone.

For those of us who do not belong to either side  it should be a matter of great satisfaction that there is no hate campaign, no wild allegations, no cynicism, no distortion of historical facts, no self  s glorification and no cheap talk in this agitation . This gives us the hope that the era of nauseating public discourse is over and perhaps now onwards we will have political discourse in our country on healthier lines. Let us thank God for small mercies.  

—Pradeep Mathur , Seniour journalist

Every crisis throws unforeseen challenges. The crisis created by Corona pandemic has been no exception to this. Besides posing a big challenge to public health sector and various areas of economy the pandemic   also created a serious crisis in the sphere of education  .

If the massive damage done    by Corona to   education in our country did not become   a topic of discussion in public domain it was because of the fact that  it did not cause any loss of lives and did not make teachers and students walk back to their village homes on foot. 

Only 30 % students have facility

With 25 crore students in schools and nearly 3.7 crore students in colleges and professional institutes , India has the world’s biggest educational set- up.

However, hardly 30 per cent of these students in urban and rural India have internet facility and digital devices like computers and mobile phones to use online education facility.

This means that the lockdown and the fear of corona virus that led to closing of educational institutions   created a situation of no teaching for 70 per cent of our students. This is singularly unfortunate in a developing country where education is basic to fighting  backwardness and improving the   living standards of the masses      

The lockdown and what we call Corona Protocol also  resulted in   a big  loss of teaching jobs. But more than that it   brought to light the fact that  even the  smaller  percentage  of  students  with internet facility did not get proper education.

The reason   was not only  problems  of  poor and inadequate infrastructure like erratic power supply and poor internet connectivity.

Poor digital skills of teachers

The  inadequate   knowledge  and poor   skills of  teachers in the use of digital devices  for online education was  a  major constraint. Because of this   online education could not be properly imparted even in areas where infrastructure problems and availability of digital devices were no issues. This is unfortunate because imparting training in the use of digital devices for teachers and students was least problematic of the so many grim challenges the   corona pandemic posed  before us.  The  immediate need to improve   techniques and skills in on-line teaching methodology , therefore, cannot be over emphasised. 

 Before we talk of a strategy to train teachers in digital media skills and prepare them for effective on-line teaching let us try to understand as to what all is involved in imparting education by sitting before a computer  instead of standing in a class room. The term digital describes electronic technology that generates, stores, and processes data in terms of two states: positive and non-positive.  A modem is used to convert the digital information in your computer to analogue signals for your phone line and to convert analogue phone signals to digital information for your computer So, in layman’s terms, digital media refers to any kind of information broadcast to us through a screen. This information might be found on websites or in applications, software packages, video games, and more. This makes digital media a very broad term. 

Those in the business of teaching  should  seek digital media use to facilitate more effective teaching and learning which includes  interactions and communication with students .

Digital media is a transformative technology that is dramatically changing the face of the academic world in the developed countries. In the Corona times we have been trying to adapt to major changes in how we interact with and communicate to students.  In a way it is an exciting time to be in education. Harnessing the power of digital media has the potential to re-engage students and their parents. So, let’s consider a few questions on our evolving digital media path:

Digital Media Fluency must

As such our society must maintain a minimum level of digital media fluency.  This means using appropriate digital platforms to build more open, transparent, participative academic community that is fundamentally  collaborative. It also means facilitating appropriate information sharing  .  But digital media fluency necessitates that all those involved with teaching and training develop at least a working knowledge of the myriad technologies including digital media and cloud computing platforms. Determining what are basic applications and their potential pitfalls remains rather difficult. Yet this is a critically important task for all.  Ultimately, this will enable   us to develop effective standards and protocols for digital media use in all spheres of education..

What we need is a teaching community well versed in the use of digital technologies and willing to upgrade its skill to communicate with students and  motivate them to use the potential of digital media tools for enhanced learning 

Today, few of us use desktop computers. Most use a mobile device. In fact, over 60 per cent of   people now   use smartphones to access the Internet.
Clearly, digital media use by teachers   seeking interaction with their students need to be  more focused.  The desire for communication and the ability to complete tasks online has to be  fairly strong. 

 Innovation is fundamental to any social activity and embracing change must continue with our approach to digital media. We can tweet safety alerts, track trends on policy initiatives on Twitter and use smartphone apps to report potholes in our education system or address ethical questions   . Our limitations are only bound by our imaginations and our willingness to embrace change.

Digital media eliminates barriers of time and distance.  It can improve knowledge   delivery through increased access and processing speed. Data can be readily shared and transformed into usable information via accessible central repositories.  Access to data across classrooms can facilitate small, but useful change. 

The blueprint for digital media use in teaching and learning   is still evolving and there is no one-size-fits-all model. Therefore, it is important to chart our own path as we reach to improve   our skills..  One thing we do know? Accessibility to knowledge seems to be translating into new ways of delivering in lecture rooms. So   all of those in the field of education  must effectively adapt to this new paradigm and improve their core competence.

3 point programme for improvement

The following three point programme can serve as a starting point for   developing the skills of the teaching community that will meet the challenge posed in imparting   on-line education 

• Planning a series of   flexible and broad based digital media programmes, both in terms of faculty   resources and IT skill enhancement  that can grow as  needs evolve.

• Developing   a formal digital media curriculum  to serve as basic  to ensure universal application  and  common usage.

• Establishing   networks of open data systems to facilitate broader faculty engagement in problem solving.

On-line teaching was there even before Corona forced lockdown and made home stay necessary   . However, Corona created a need for its widespread and universal application. With the country all set for a massive vaccination programme we will win the war against Corona soon. However, on-line education ,which became a necessity to meet the adversity can be converted into an opportunity to spread the net of online education. This can be done only when we make a sincere effort to improve on-line teaching methodology.    

Please also read : https://mediaswaraj.com/india-needs-post-covid-care-rehabilitation-center/

* Prof Pradeep Mathur is a veteran journalist and media educator

• ** Dr Anubhav Mathur is Asstt Professor , IIMC, Jammu Campus. New Media and Communication Research are his core competence areas.  

India is a vast country that is home to different castes, creeds, and communities with their different traditions and ways of life. This diversity defines India’s socio-cultural structure and political superstructure which is the subject matter of media content writing. The media content concerning issues of governance and development is now a matter of intense debate as concerns are being expressed by all stakeholders about declining standards and professional ethics of journalism in our country.
To address the issue let us have a look at the evolution of journalism in India which can give us an idea of the conceptual framework to understand the present state of drift in Indian media.

Modern journalism in India started with a small English weekly launched by Augusts Hickey, a Calcutta based English man in 1780. The newspaper soon closed down because of opposition by the East India Company’s bureaucracy whose misdeeds and corrupt practices the newspaper tried to expose. There were some other attempts to start newspapers before Raja Ram Mohan Rai launched a series of newspapers which were the spokespersons of his social reform campaign. Launched in the early decades of the 19th century Raja Ram Mohan Rai’s three newspapers set the tone of what we even today call value-based journalism for the socio-economic development of our society.

By the start of the 20th century and growth of the movement for freedom from the British colonial movement, the Indian newspaper world had developed three distinct ideological trends. There were newspapers which supported British rule in India like The Statesman and The Times of India and were of the view that it was in the best interest of India and Indians.
These were newspapers which did not oppose the British rule but criticised the British Raj bureaucracy for its failings and incompetence. They were called Anglo India Press. The prominent newspapers which belonged to this category were The Pioneer of Allahabad, The Mail of what was then called Madras and The Civil and Military Gazette of Karachi.

The third category comprised newspapers that opposed the British rule in India and supported the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule. The Free Press Journal of Bombay, The Tribune of Lahore, The Hitvad of Nagpur, Amrit Bazar Patrika of Calcutta, and National Herald of Lucknow besides a big number of Indian languages newspapers belonged to this category. These three major ideological streams defined journalism in India of the time of its Independence. However, India’s independence brought about a policy shift in their editorial line. The British press became a supporter of the conservative public opinion and corporate world. The Anglo-Indian press retained its role as a critic of the Government of the day with the Idea to apply a correction to the establishment. The nationalist press, however, lost its plot as the great communal divide and the partition of the country made it clueless.

It is the loss of plot by this third stream of the press which is responsible for most of our media related problems that we face today. After the Independence media in India slowly started losing its ideological commitment to the common man and became what is popularly called from a mission to the profession. Media and media persons enjoy big clout in a democratic society and the media coverage can make a considerable impact on the careers of those in the position of authority. Similarly, media coverage can also influence policy decisions that vested interests always want in their favor. Therefore in our development social media became an instrument in the hands of power brokers. In fact, true professionalism touched only the fringe of the media industry in India. In the transition from mission to the profession, Indian media first became a management tool in the name of PR, advertising, and communication skills and then an instrument in the hands of the vested interests of big business and political dispensation. The spirit of idealism and commitment to the people’s cause was lost in the way.

The advent of TV and digital media has only strengthened this trend. Hailed as a magic multiplier that would generate mass consciousness and fight backwardness, both social and economic, TV made an entry in India about two decades after the Independence. Initially, it looked like living to its promise but soon became a soap opera. No doubt in just about 50 years T.V. media has developed in a big way. Now there are nearly 400 channels in India which telecast news and other programs in English and different Indian languages. Their combined audience strength is formidable. By a rough estimate, It could easily be around 600 million. To be fair, TV has no doubt played the role of a magic multiplier in India. Therefore, the widespread criticism bordering on condemnation and rejection of TV that we see today is singularly unfortunate. TV is neither evil nor a devil.

However, this is not to suggest that there is nothing wrong with TV in India. It has no doubt trivialized and trivialized news and content relating to critical issues of the public good. It has promoted sensationalism and has very, unfortunately, become a channel for disseminating false news. Even worse it is being labelled as promoting fake news and becoming what is being derisively called good media. All this has greatly damaged the credibility of Indian media in general.

Any decline in the basic standards of TV journalism is understandably a matter of great concern to all right-thinking people and stakeholders in the media. Therefore, the concerns being raised about the way T.V. journalism is going today are perfectly understandable. However, what is needed is an objective and analytical understanding of the problem and not outright condemnation and rejection of TV journalism. Cynicism does not help in understanding a problem and certainly, it cannot solve any. Let us make an attempt to understand the problem.

There are very few public-funded T.V. channels like Doordarshan, Lok Sabha TV, and Rajya Sabha TV. All private channels have to generate their own resources to survive in business Running a TV channel is a high-cost business. In a highly competitive advertising market, it is not easy to generate resources to run the business. Understandably the mortality rate of private TV channels is very high. A large number of viewers, popularity called TRP, improves the standing of a TV channel in the ad market. Unlike print media, TV media audiences are not necessarily intelligent, educated, and intellectually sophisticated. They may or may not have any understanding of the system and its institutions. Since the audience is the oxygen of mass media TV channels have to keep these large illiterate and semi-literate audiences in mind while shooting their programs.

And here lies the crux of the problem. Instead of producing the content that will attract, entertain and educate the masses and raise their level of understanding and perception, most of our channels are taking the content quality down to the level of dark, uneducated and unenlightened minds of their illiterate and semi-literate audiences. That is the reason while on the program side we have such stupid stuff like “ Patal ki Seedi and discovery of the kitchen of Sita Mata”, on the news side we have a totally distorted framework of history about which less said the better.

Obviously the question is what is the way out. The way out is difficult but not impossible. Indian masses, illiterate or semi-literate, who constitute the bulk of Indian TV audiences, are ever willing to listen and learn provided you know how to communicate with them. And to communicate with them successfully you have to understand them and not impose yourself on them. Mahatma Gandhi knew this fact. The problem with us in the world of communication is that we look down upon our audiences and think of ourselves as a class apart. The arrogance of Arnab Goswami is a testimony to this. This is all the more true when we relate to the poor, the illiterate, and semi-urban uneducated audiences. We presume that only stupid content will appeal to them. This is a monumental mistake that we commit.
The big challenge before us is a commitment to true professionalism and this calls for good media education, understanding of society, right perception, hard work.

A touch with ground reality and the right attitude. Only this will help us to be good content producers. A thorough study of the audience’s habits, behavior, and attitude is the need of the hour. This will give us an idea of motivating points in the audience psyche. These points have to be captured to make them interested in the real issues of health, education, jobs, and social participation Content creation has to be done on this basis. And this will help the media industry as well as our society. Only such an approach will give strength to Indian media, especially T.V. news, will arrest its declining trend and ensure that we regain the honor and prestige of media whose defining character has been marked by idealism and public service till recently. The End.

Media in India: How to Face the Challenge of Credibility Crisis
Prof Pradeep Mathur India is a vast country that is home to different castes, creeds, and communities with their different traditions and ways of life. This diversity defines India’s socio-cultural structure and political super-structure which is the subject matter of media content writing. The media content concerning issues of governance and development is now a matter of intense debate as concerns are being expressed by all stakeholders about declining standards and professional ethics of journalism in our country. To address the issue let us have a look at the evolution of journalism in India which can give us an idea of the conceptual framework to understand the present state of drift in Indian media.

Modern journalism in India started with a small English weekly launched by Augusts Hickey, a Calcutta based English man in 1780. The newspaper soon closed down because of opposition by the East India Company’s bureaucracy whose misdeeds and corrupt practices the newspaper tried to expose. There were some other attempts to start newspapers before Raja Ram Mohan Rai launched a series of newspapers which were the spokespersons of his social reform campaign. Launched in the early decades of the 19th century Raja Ram Mohan Rai’s three newspapers set the tone of what we even today call value-based journalism for the socio-economic development of our society.

By the start of the 20th century and the growth of the movement for freedom from the British colonial movement, the Indian newspaper world had developed three distinct ideological trends. There were newspapers that supported British rule in India like The Statesman and The Times of India and were of the view that it was in the best interest of India and Indians. These were newspapers that did not oppose the British rule but criticized the British Raj bureaucracy for its failings and incompetence. They were called Anglo India Press. The prominent newspapers which belonged to this category were The Pioneer of Allahabad, The Mail of what was then called Madras, and The Civil and Military Gazette of Karachi.

The third category comprised newspapers that opposed the British rule in India and supported the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule. The Free Press Journal of Bombay, The Tribune of Lahore, The Hitvad of Nagpur, Amrit Bazar Patrika of Calcutta, and National Herald of Lucknow besides a big number of Indian languages newspapers belonged to this category. These three major ideological streams defined journalism in India of the time of its Independence. However, India’s independence brought about a policy shift in their editorial line. The British press became a supporter of the conservative public opinion and corporate world. The Anglo-Indian press retained its role as a critic of the Government of the day with the Idea to apply a correction to the establishment. The nationalist press, however, lost its plot as the great communal divide and the partition of the country made it clueless.

It is the loss of plot by this third stream of the press which is responsible for most of our media related problems that we face today. After the Independence media in India slowly started losing its ideological commitment to the common man and became what is popularly called from a mission to the profession. Media and media persons enjoy big clout in a democratic society and the media coverage can make a considerable impact on the careers of those in a position of authority. Similarly, media coverage can also influence policy decisions which vested interests always want in their favour. Therefore in our developing social media became an instrument in the hands of power brokers. In fact, true professionalism touched only the fringe of the media industry in India. In the transition from mission to profession, Indian media first became a management tool in the name of PR, advertising and communication skills and then an instrument in the hands of the vested interests of big business and political dispensation. The spirit of idealism and commitment to the people’s cause was lost in the way.

The advent of TV and digital media has only strengthened this trend. Hailed as a magic multiplier that would generate mass consciousness and fight backwardness, both social and economic, TV made an entry in India about two decades after the Independence. Initially, it looked like living to its promise but soon became a soap opera. No doubt in just about 50 years T.V. media has developed in a big way. Now there are nearly 400 channels in India which telecast news and other programs in English and different Indian languages. Their combined audience strength is formidable. By a rough estimate, It could easily be around 600 million. To be fair, TV has no doubt played the role of a magic multiplier in India. Therefore, the widespread criticism bordering on condemnation and rejection of TV that we see today is singularly unfortunate. TV is neither evil nor a devil.

However, this is not to suggest that there is nothing wrong with TV in India. It has no doubt trivialized and trivialized news and content relating to critical issues of the public good. It has promoted sensationalism and has very, unfortunately, become a channel for disseminating false news. Even worse it is being labelled as promoting fake news and becoming what is being derisively called good media. All this has greatly damaged the credibility of Indian media in general. Any decline in the basic standards of TV journalism is understandably a matter of great concern to all right-thinking people and stakeholders in the media. Therefore, the concerns being raised about the way T.V. journalism is going today are perfectly understandable. However, what is needed is an objective and analytical understanding of the problem and not outright condemnation and rejection of TV journalism. Cynicism does not help in understanding a problem and certainly, it cannot solve any.

Let us make an attempt to understand the problem. There are very few public-funded T.V. channels like Doordarshan, Lok Sabha TV, and Rajya Sabha TV. All private channels have to generate their own resources to survive in business ness. In a highly competitive advertising market, it is not easy to generate resources to run the business. Understandably the mortality rate of private TV channels is very high. A large number of viewers, popularity called TRP, improves the standing of a TV channel in the ad market. Unlike print media, TV media audiences are not necessarily intelligent, educated, and intellectually sophisticated. They may or may not have any understanding of the system and its institutions. Since the audience is the oxygen of mass media TV channels have to keep these large illiterate and semi-literate audiences in mind while shooting their programs. And here lies the crux of the problem. Instead of producing the content that will attract, entertain and educate the masses and raise their level of understanding and perception, most of our channels are taking the content quality down to the level of dark, uneducated and unenlightened minds of their illiterate and semi-literate audiences.

That is the reason while on the program side we have such stupid stuff like “ Patal ki Seedi and discovery of the kitchen of Sita Mata”, on the news side we have a totally distorted framework of history about which less said the better. Obviously the question is what is the way out. The way out is difficult but not impossible. Indian masses, illiterate or semi-literate, who constitute the bulk of Indian TV audiences, are ever willing to listen and learn provided you know how to communicate with them. And to communicate with them successfully you have to understand them and not impose yourself on them. Mahatma Gandhi knew this fact. The problem with us in the world of communication is that we look down upon our audiences and think of ourselves as a class apart. The arrogance of Arnab Goswami is a testimony to this. This is all the more true when we relate to the poor, the illiterate, and semi-urban uneducated audiences. We presume that only stupid content will appeal to them. This is a monumental mistake that we commit.

The big challenge before us is a commitment to true professionalism and this calls for good media education, understanding of society, right perception, hard work. A touch with ground reality and the right attitude. Only this will help us to be good content producers. A thorough study of the audience’s habits, behavior, and attitude is the need of the hour. This will give us an idea of motivating points in the audience psyche. These points have to be captured to make them interested in the real issues of health, education, jobs, and social participation Content creation have to be done on this basis. And this will help the media industry as well as our society. Only such an approach will give strength to Indian media, especially T.V. news, will arrest its declining trend and ensure that we regain the honor and prestige of media whose defining character has been marked by idealism and public service till recently. 

Being a senior, superannuated, and sidelined media person, I think it won’t be an act of grace on my part to comment on the ways of the present generation of journalists, especially so when quite a few of them have either been my student or are of the age of my children. However, I cannot help commenting on Arnab Goswami who I do not think I have ever met or interacted with. And here my concern is neither his focus nor his political preferences. My problem is with the way he conducts his programs. He has an immaculate expression in the English language but unfortunately, he does not understand the spirit and soul of the language. Moreover, the way he conducts his programs is against all good and great traditions of English journalism. He is loud, vulgar, and needlessly aggressive which is not at all necessary to derive a point home. I wish someone will tell him someday that this is not done.

In the past 50 years or so the practice of journalism has changed significantly in India. The English press has conceded its preeminent position to Indian language newspapers. Quite a few English journals have closed down, others are losing circulation; TV channels, especially those in Hindi get a much bigger TRP compared to the best English channels. However, what has survived are the traditions of professionalism – and a culture of good manners and modesty which was the defining character of English journalism. From Prem Bhatia to Sapan Das Gupta many journalists after the Independence got important positions like ambassadorships and membership of the Rajya Sabha because the government of the day appreciated their creative contribution to society but they never had to shout from the housetop that those in the Opposition are demons. Perhaps Anrab does this to catch the eye of those who are in authority. But this is not in keeping with the traditions of good journalism.

While the essential characteristics of a journalist are confidence, a high sense of self-respect, and some degree of assertiveness, ego should be no part of his personality. Almost the first thing we were taught while entering the newsroom was that while a journalist meets and interacts with VVIPs himself he is no VIP. Humility is a good quality for any human being. But for a journalist, it is an essential requirement. Unless you are humble you cannot interact with the common man who the media represents in a democracy to be called as its Fourth Estate. Moreover, the man in the street is the biggest source of news. Most of the all-time great news scoops have come by talking to the common man and operating at the ground level and not by sitting with VVIPs in their high chambers.

My friends may ask me that when I am retired and out of circulation why should I be concerned as to how Anrab functions especially so when I do not want to bother about his politics. My answer would be simple. For one, his arrogant style and brash manners are anathema to me and my contemporaries who have pursued and taught journalism for nearly half a century. And the other more concerning thing is that he is becoming an icon for our educated urban middle-class youth who like their right to vote but do not understand the basics of the culture of democracy.

My concern was greatly enhanced while conducting an online viva voce examination of a university student recently. I put up some simple questions for her. The poor girl was blank about the history of media, had not read even a single book on media, did not read newspapers, did not know what broadcast or digital media was but without clearly remembering the name of the TV channel wanted to be a media person like Anrab Goswami.

“Why so “, I asked her.” Because he does not listen to anyone and shouts down other participants in his show “ she replied. Like most of us, I have always thought of vested interests of business and industry, people in authority, and the mafia as major threats to the freedom of our media. Before this, I never thought that a mere anchor could be a cult figure and becomes a big threat to the very culture of news media.

The on-going kisan agitation is arguably the toughest test  theModi government is facing in its over six and a half years in office so far. Like all governments in the past it has faced opposition to several of its policy decisions and has seen protests and agitations against such decisions. Some of its decisions like demonetisation, GST and labour reforms  have been pretty controversial and were  hotly contested by its opponents. But the government  not only successfully  defended such decisions but was also  able to retain mass support  and win elections held subsequently. The Modi magic survived all such controversial decisions . The question is will it be different this time. 

The farmers’ agitation is now in its second week and with every passing day it is growing in strength .What initially started as a protest movement of Punjab farmers and  got enthusiastic  support from Haryana farmers has now been joined by farmers of western U.P. and Uttrakhand. While farmers from other far off states may not be able to come to Delhi  there are reports that farmers in the states of Bihar, Rajasthan,  Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are also in ferment and this agitation is soon going to acquire an all India character. The Modi government had certainly not bargained for this.

The government tried to tackle the agitation in a manner which is now well known. It claimed that the three  farm bills are in the best interests of farmers and the farmers are being misled by the Opposition. Attempts were made to communalise the agitation by called its  Sikh leaders as Khalistanis and charging them as being the agents of vested interests who did not care for the vast majority of poor and marginal farmers. A vicious campaign was unleashed against  Punjab Chief Minister Captain Arminder Singh and the Badal family , long time political ally of BJP. The friendly media was always there to create public opinion in favour of the government.

There are several reasons because of which the Modi government is finding it tough to tackle the farmers’ agitation. Perhaps the most striking of these is trust deficit. The agitation leaders are so scared of being outsmarted that they saw a trap in even accepting a simple lunch  at the time of negotiations with the government .They are unwilling to accept any verbal assurance and want any agreement with the government in black and white. While in all negotiations there is always a give and take and in these negotiations too both sides will have to climbdown from their stated positions, the agitation leaders are unlikely to withdraw their agitation on any verbal assurance from the Prime Mininster.

Behind the agitators unwillingness to take the government on its words are several factors, the most important being the government’s pro corporate image .The agitation leaders feel that the basic aim of the three farm acts is to help the big  business interests and not the farmers as such. The indecent haste in which the bills were passed without reference to any parliamentary committee , discussions with the Opposition leaders , farmers’ organisations and other stake-holders have given rise to suspicions in their minds about government intentions. They are unwilling to see the point that to act in an autocratic manner and taking people’s support for its actions for granted is the style of the Modi government. 

However,if the government thought that it would be able to carry the farming community with it  and quell the dissenting voices in the usual manner of questioning their motives, it made a gross miscalculation. The hard core of the BJP leadership comes from educated urban middle and lower middle classes and they have no proper understanding of the the rural scenario.The party has no strong leaders from the farming community and no solid rural base. The Hinduvat card did get it electoral support from rural areas but not a solid rural grounding. The party leadership also did not know that unlike other north Indian states the farmer families  in Punjab had highly educated and professionally qualified people in their ranks . Nor did it realise their financial strength and capacity to sustain a long drawn protest movement. Similarly the government also did not know about strong pockets of the support groups of Punjabi farmers in the United States, Canada and western Europe.

The  economic scenario in the country is also not in favour of the government to tackle a popular agitation like the present one. The economy is slowly emerging out of the lockdown blockade and massive unemployment, inflation and sluggish growth is a matter of great concern. There is  tension on the borders with China where deployment of forces has become a necessity and it is also putting pressure on the economy. With employees’ organisations and the Opposition totally backing the farmers’ agitation, the government has no other option than to climb down and negotiate with the farmers’ leaders on equal terms.

What has perhaps surprised the government  is the fact that farmers’ leaders are extremely well prepared with their case and are proving to be tough negotiators. Then there is a think tank that is guiding the agitation and negotiations with the government. Moreover, the agitators are giving the government no opportunity to raise extraneous issues like threat to law and order situation or public inconvenience.

The political fallout of the agitation also has dangerous implications for the BJP. The Haryana Government is tottering and any day it may lose majority support in the state assembly.The loss of government in Haryana will have adverse impact onthe BJP government in Madhya Pradesh and the BJP –JD(U)coalition in Bihar where the Chief Minister Nitish Kumar already looks restive. With assembly elections  in the  all-important state of  West Bengal to be held soon, the BJP cannot allow the situation to drift.

Therefore, despite all the brave talk of its leaders the party knows that it is in a Catch 22 situation.If it concedes the demands of agitating farmers it loses face before all those who were supposed to benefit from these measures and if it stands firm and refuses to concede any ground it suffers considerable political damage. How the willy Modi and his Man Friday Amit Shah tackle the situation will be interesting to watch. 

Sir Winston Churchill, Britain’s war-time Prime Minister, once said: A statesman is one who can convert an adversity into an opportunity. Corona is one such adversity which has hit us hard. Can we convert it into an opportunity?

In India Corona and the lockdown ordered to contain spread of its virus has very severely hit the economy and livelihoods. We need hard and strong measure very urgently to overcome the economic crisis. The big question is will our leaders political, social and religious rise above the petty squabbles and blame game in which they have been involved all these years to think of converting the situation created by Corona into an opportunity for public good. Unfortunately the corona created situation has been used by sharks of business world and unscrupulous elements in medical and healthcare sector to make big money. But since we have to live with Corona we must think of it as an opportunity for meaningful social change.

Also Read: The Importance of Pangong Tso Lake for India

Everyone seems to agree that even when the corona infection is contained and we are able to cure this deadly disease with some new found vaccine the life will not be as before. There will be a “new normal” for us which means the way we have been living so far will need to be redefined.

And here lies the opportunity to convert the adversity caused by Corona into an opportunity. Can the “new normal” we will have after Corona can be without the mad rat race in which our traditional society has been needlessly pushed by the market forces? Can we return to the simple good and dignified living standards to which we had been used till the globalized economy swept us off our feet? Can we shun vulgar display of wealth and shun conspicuous consumption that has promoted crime, corruption and dishonesty and brought us on the brink of social disorganisation.
To say this is not to suggest that we go back to the era of kerosene lamp. We have to adapt to the new ways of life and make best use of the things the new technology offers. What all we need to understand is that to progress is not to indulge in the minting money by means fair or foul. Similarly to be an important member of society indulging in wasteful expenditure is not required.

Corona has forced us to stay indoors. Now for more than five months or so people of different professional groups and socio-economic status are living without lavish parties, fabulous dinners, ostentatious social gatherings, busy clubs life and almost regular visits to malls. Women of the middle and upper middle class have also got no chance to flaunt their jewels and costly sarees. Since movement has been severely restricted there has hardly been the need to exchange good running cars with the new and costly models.

No doubt social life is important and the lockdown conditions are unnatural. However, we can ask ourselves was all that needless glamour, show off and wasteful expenditure in which we had been indulging before Corona lockdown was really necessary. Have we really felt very miserable by not indulging in wasteful consumption? Did the excessive spending necessarily gave us a high level of happiness and self satisfaction?

Once a journalist urgently sort an interview with JRD Tata. Tata was exceptionally busy and the only time he could give was in the early morning when he was preparing to go to office. As the journalist reached on appointed time he saw Tata giving himself a shave. They talked and as Tata finished his shaving he took the blade out of the razor, washed and dried it and kept it back in the foil for the next shave.

The journalist could not resist asking JRD as to why he the richest man in India could not throw that blade and use a new one for the next shave.
Tata said: Yes, I am a rich man and can afford a new blade for every shave. But why throw it when it is good enough for two more shaves.
I think our neo- rich business class and well-paid professionals must know that to have money does not entitle them to indulge in wasteful consumption. They must also know that the real pleasure in life does not come from earning and spending money, but from something else.
In our country post- liberalization era has put a lot of money in the hands of many people. But it has destroyed values and culture. It has promoted a rat race which has seriously strained our social fabric, and this is a serious problem before our society.
Though dreadful and agonizing if Corona- enforced home stay has made people realise about the futility of a life style driven by thoughtless consumerism and the rat race it promotes , the calamity of Corona might as well serve as a course corrector for our society.
The author, a veteran journalist and a former Professor at IIMC, New Delhi, is editor of Mediamap, a monthly thought journal on current affairs.He is also Chairman of the School for International Media Studies( SIMS).

(Pradeep Mathur is a renowned writer.)