The odor is distinctly suspicious.

"India's Supreme Court has put one hold three contentious farm laws that have sparked weeks of protest," reported BBC. "The farmer groups have repeatedly said that they will settle for nothing less than a repeal of the laws, and the government has ruled out any rollback." "At least four farmers have killed themselves, and several others have died from ailments and the harsh winter cold." "Mr Modi has built a reputation for tough talking and playing hardball with his critics and his party is widely believed to have its ears to the ground," wrote Soutik Biswas. "The protests have originated in Punjab, the relatively prosperous farming heartland of India." Not so, said Dr Varinder Sharma. "Farmer's income registered a downward trend in the '80s which continues till today." Also, "Punjab's farmers have raised loans of more than Rs 30,000 crore (Rs 300 billion) to meet the expenses after they failed to maintain the requisite income level and failed to repay the loans." In 2017, farmers from Tamil Nadu protested in Delhi for 107 days after severe drought destroyed their crops but Modi ignored them. The protests are "about a lack of trust in the government and an assertive articulation of of federalism," said Prof Pratap Bhanu Mehta. "The Supreme Court on Tuesday constituted a 4 member committee for the purpose of holding talks between the Central Government and the farmers to resolve the protests over the three contentious farm laws. A notable feature of the composition is that all four members have expressed open views in support of the implementation of the farm laws." "Even as the Government called on all sides to 'honour' the Supreme Court's ruling on the agricultural laws, there was palpable sense of relief within the establishment and the BJP, which were desperate to end the stalemate without being seen as 'anti-farmer'." In fact, there is great pleasure as farmers may lose public support if they carry on with their protest. "The court's order putting on hold the farm bills is terrible constitutional precedent, bereft of judgement. It has an odour of cynicism behind it," wrote an angry Mehta. Perhaps to guard against contempt of court Mehta does not blame it directly. "The court is, perhaps unintentionally but damagingly, seeking to break the momentum of a social movement." "Over the past few years, the SC has shown a marked lack of urgency and, in fact, distressing inattention to cases that have involved important constitutional questions and lined up at its door," wrote an editorial in The Indian Express. "Now, its alacrity in taking into its own hands the ongoing impasse between government and farmers on the three farm laws, and its enthusiasm in playing arbiter, therefore, raises questions." In short, it doesn't pass the smell test.