I could have done better at the personal attacks but it's hard to tow the line when genuine grievances of peacefully protesting farmers are ignored for months a

I could have done better at the personal attacks but it's hard to tow the line when genuine grievances of peacefully protesting farmers are ignored for months and one negative attack is suddenly all that is talked about. That to me indicates malice and I cannot respond in good faith when that is done. > a quick glance at the difference between male and female litery rates shows there's some distance to cover. How is that relevant? You are pulling at straws here. Women work in the fields along with men. Anti-farmer laws affect both men and women, young and old. Supreme Court of India brings it up as if it matters, when it doesn't and clearly ignore the demographics at play, hinting at something without saying it. The literacy rate needs to be worked on but that's not the concern here. How many people can you coerce to attend protests? Hundreds, probably at most. Not thousands. Some of the people have been protesting in frigid temperatures for months. Do you mean to say they are all paid? That doesn't even make sense and is logistically infeasible. The Supreme Court allows seems to consider freedom of expression differently though, when it comes to granting bails to journalists in favour of the government versus cartoons that suggest contempt of court. So no, I don't trust them to make the right call. Farmers should continue peacefully protesting, as is their fundamental right. Notice in all this, you haven't said anything about: the right of farmers to protest and what they are protesting about.