Letters to the editor dated January 13, 2021

This refers to ‘Supreme Court order puts pressure on agitating farmers’ (January 13). The farmers’ unions had consistently been saying that they did not want the matter to be dealt with by the apex court, knowing full well that they won’t be able to pressure it unlike the Centre. They now seem to be left with no choice but to fall in line.

Moreover, it is unlikely that the farmers would now get an audience with the Centre on January 15, in the wake of the constitution of a four-member committee by the apex court. The ball now lies in the protesting farmers’ court. They must rise to the occasion and resolve this unduly prolonged issue.

Bengaluru

The Supreme Court’s order staying the implementation of the farm laws raises several issues of constitutional appropriateness. It has not recorded even in passing its prime facie opinion whether Parliament was competent to legislate on subjects specifically falling within the jurisdiction of State legislatures under the Constitution.

Staying of laws enacted by Parliament by a judicial diktat cannot be used as a convenient tool to overcome a political impasse that needs political resolution and not court’s mediation. The court was fully aware of the farmers’ unions outright rejection of the Centre’s proposal for constituting an expert committee in the initial stages of their several rounds of fruitless negotiations.

And yet it chose to thrust such a committee on the unwilling farmers and that too by unilaterally nominating members who have taken a position in public in defence of the contested laws, raising questions about their neutrality. Not surprisingly, the farmers have firmly rejected such mediation by any committee.

Bengaluru

The verdict of the Supreme court staying the farm laws is welcome especially in the context of the agitating farmers issuing a threat to disrupt Republic Day events. Looking at the developments, one gets the impression that the whole issue could have been handled deftly, avoiding the criticism that the laws are “anti-farmer”. It is a fact that these laws were supported by the Opposition when they were in power and a contrarian view has been taken now to score political points.

But the main contentious issue relates to the increase in threat perception posed on account of changes made on ground rules. Hence under changed circumstances a mere written provision assuring the farmers that nothing in the amended Act shall stop the government from procuring the crops at existing MSP(minimum support price) would have assuaged their feelings.

Having missed the bus at the initial stage of the negotiations, the issue got complicated and reached a point of no return mandating the highest court to intervene expressing its displeasure on the way the whole issue was handled by the government.

Chennai

The decision to promote all students on the rolls to the next class, conveyed by the Union Education Ministry in a directive to the States, is a welcome step. But it could only be part of the strategy for the avoidance of school drop-outs.

Drop-outs do not happen in a vacuum, but in a socio-economic context.

The exacerbation of socio-economic inequalities and worsening living conditions of the impoverished people owing to the Covid-19 pandemic are self-evident. Children from underprivileged sections of society could not attend online classes because of lack of access to digital devices and platforms.

A financial safety net that takes care of the continued education of all children is the need of the hour and must become a top priority.

Education should be a universal right and not a privilege. No child should be denied the joy of learning and the benefit of a good education in their formative years because of impecunious circumstances at home or domestic problems.

Maruthancode, TN

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send your letters by email to bleditor@thehindu.co.in or by post to ‘Letters to the Editor’, The Hindu Business Line, Kasturi Buildings, 859-860, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.

COMMENT NOW