<img style="float: left;" src="http://images.mid-day.com/images/images/2017/jun/dharmendra-joreA.jpg" alt="" />
Every few years or so, the widening divide between the rural Bharat and urban India bubbles to the surface; this time, it's the statewide farmers' strike.
Apart from the obvious political games that some people are playing under the garb of this strike that has crippled the daily supply of vegetables other essentials to cities, the more striking aspect is how the farmers have opted to throw their produce onto the streets as a means of humbling the government, even if it comes at a personal loss. Effectively, the farmers have chosen the urban population as a tool to get their various demands met from the government. They think that the government would step down from its elevated perch and offer them relief if cities are subjected to an acute shortage. It's their way of seeking justice for 'Bharat' from 'India'.
On Saturday, CM Devendra Fadnavis made an attempt to end the strike by announcing a R30,000 crore loan waiver for small and marginal farmers, but a fractured opinion among various farmers' groups could not bring an end to the agitation. The authority of the delegation that met the CM to call off the protest was later challenged. Now, it appears that the protest will become one of the tougher issues to resolve because of the multi-layered system. Things may escalate further if the BJP government that had three years ago promised 'acche din' does not deliver promptly.
Blaming the urban But the most prominent feature of this issue - one that is not very healthy for a progressive state like ours &mdash; is the attempt to widen the urban-rural divide. Debates on social media and television went to extremes to project urbanites as villains. The tone of debates suggested that the salaried and self-financed urban were insensitive to rural folks who are forced to end lives in financial distress. Pro-farmer analysts felt that the best way to get justice for farmers was to hold cities to ransom.
And in such debates, everything boiled down to the government. Sample this statement from a woman farmer: "We also want our children to get better education and good salaried jobs. We don't want our children to toil in the fields and die in penury like us. Why are people in cities get all these facilitates from the government?" Her opinion is well within her rights, but the anger smacked of ill-feeling for the urban, also at the mercy of the government. 
Why oppose development? A common refrain is that Mumbai gets crores for development funds, whereas the hinterland is ignored. The argument gained traction when the Metro network worth R80,000 crore was planned for Mumbai. However, the same people have been conveniently ignoring the flagship project of a 710-km super communication expressway between Nagpur-Mumbai that will pass through 10 underdeveloped districts. An investment of R46,000-crore is being made to create this one-of-a-kind infrastructure, with a land acquisition compensation package of Rs 10,000 crore.
The project - aptly named the Samruddhi (prosperity) Corridor - will have 40 business nodes where farmers will get an opportunity to become entrepreneurs by using their share of government-developed land parcels, part of the compensation package. And with no land parcels available in Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Konkan, Pune and Nashik areas, big industry is expected to go to these districts because of access-controlled expressway, government incentives and ample manpower available. In future, the expressway will connect to neighbouring Chhattisgarh and many states up east, finally reaching Kolkata, West Bengal.
Isn't this then an opportunity knocking on the doors of distressed farmers? Yet some political leaders are opposing the development in the backward areas of the corridor. Why do they still want a less-privileged farming community in north Maharashtra, central Maharashtra (Marathwada) and Vidarbha to remain poor?&nbsp;A profiling of these leaders clearly indicates their selfish motive because they want investment to go their way, not super expressway.
A balancing act So, it is pertinent that CM Fadnavis ensures he maintains a balancing act. He should see to it that the anger and frustration in rural population is neutered with flawless sustained development because immediate relief is not permanent relief.
And as far as the rural-urban divide is concerned, both sides need to stand in support of each other. The urban is not only a market, but also a prospective home for the rural. Meanwhile, city dwellers should remember that their abode came into existence only because some villagers thought of moving out to build cities in pursuit of prosperity many generations ago.
Dharmendra Jore is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @dharmendrajore. Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

As the statewide farmers'&nbsp;strike has held cities to ransom as part of its agenda to make it hurt where it counts, the government needs to tread a fine line&nbsp;when taking this socio-economic bull by its horns

Dharmendra Jore: Why is Bharat so upset with India?

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast

Home / News / India News / Article / Dharmendra Jore: Why is Bharat so upset with India?

Dharmendra Jore: Why is Bharat so upset with India?

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast