BY GURSEWAK SINGH
Earlier this month, farmer rallies on the outskirts of New Delhi surpassed 100 continuous days of protesting. Instigated by farmers from across India, the protesters seek to repeal three pieces of legislation passed by the Indian Government, which they view as encroaching on the stability and security of the more than 100 million farmers in India. The farmers’ protests provide an opportunity to not just explore the incredibly important agriculture sector in India but also the anti-democratic tendencies of the Indian Government and how the farmers’ protest has stuck around to become an anomaly in a series of protests against the Government.
Last year, the Government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, put forward three pieces of legislation with the view that the Indian agriculture sector had to be reformed and modernised to be more productive—a view that, despite the protests, was shared by the farmers. The issue arose when the Indian Government rammed the legislation through the Parliament with only a voice vote and denying opposition MPs the opportunity to vote in a division, unilaterally moving towards reform without consultation with farmers or their unions and, as some argue, breaking from parliamentary processes regarding the voting of laws. These actions were perceived by many to be acting against the interests of the millions of farmers and instead promoting the interests of large corporations and agribusinesses who look to gain the most with the passing of these reforms.
Farming and agriculture are the backbones of India and its economy. There are nearly 100 million farmers, primarily small-scale family farmers, and more than 200 million Indians in total who work directly in the agriculture sector. Nearly half the working-age population in India work in agriculture or industries supported by agriculture. Beyond the economic story, agriculture enriches the many cultures of India and forms a key component of their identity. So it’s no understatement that agriculture is the lifeblood of the country.
While the reforms were heralded by the Government as modernising, in reality, they paved the path towards greater privatisation of the sector and deregulation, which threatens the securities and guarantees farmers had received for decades.
The current policy framework supporting farmers finds its origins in the Green Revolution of the 1960s when the industrialisation of the agriculture sector grew productivity and prosperity, in particular in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The loss of wheat and rice-producing regions to Pakistan during independence meant India had to make tremendous efforts to achieve self-sufficiency and food security. Facing another famine, an effort was made to plant high-yield producing wheat and incorporate new techniques in irrigation, and insecticides and pesticides. Backing this was a measure called the minimum support price (MSP), introduced by the Gandhi Government as a form of subsiding the growing of wheat and rice and guaranteeing a minimum price for these produce. However, the Green Revolution in India hasn’t been all glitz and glamour. Reliance on Green Revolution tools and techniques has meant reliance on agriculture as the engine for the economy. The chemicals and irrigation tools that once provide greater productivity have now degraded the soil, and the groundwater accessible to farmers has diminished.
At the centre of the controversial laws is the dismantling of the current monopoly of the APMC mandi—marketplaces regulated and operated by the Government which purchase certain grains and staples produced by farmers at the MSP. The Government contests that these measures reduce the red tape and bureaucratic burden for farmers selling into the private markets and directly to buyers—the farmers argue that the reforms will only empower corporations and agribusinesses to enter the sector, undersell small-scale farmers, and dominate the market and threaten the livelihoods of tens of millions of Indian farmers.
Over the months, more than 11 rounds of negotiations have taken place between farmer unions and the Modi Government. All have produced no progress. The farmers are demanding for a full repeal, and the Government is offering amendments that do not meet the needs of the farmers. Early this year, the Supreme Court ordered a suspension of the three controversial laws and that a committee be formed to review them. Farmers were sceptical of this move as well as the Supreme Court had gone ahead without consulting farmers and stacking the committee with individuals who had come forward in support of the laws.
The peaceful protests outside Delhi passed the 100-day milestone despite coordinated attempts to label the protesters as anti-nationalists and separatists by the members of the right-wing ruling party and media, heavy-handed tactics and brute force used on the protesters by security forces, and indiscriminate violations of civil rights and liberties of the protesting men and women.
On their way to Delhi, farmers coming from Punjab and Haryana were met with heavily-armed police barricades on highways and water cannons shooting at them. All in an attempt to prevent a peaceful protest from marching onto the national seat of government. Prevented from entering the city, they set up their base outside the city. Over the last three months, the Government has intermittently cut access to the internet and to cellular service, blocking access to social media and hindering the farmers from organising through technology.
On Republic Day, the independence day of India on January 26, the farmers got on their tractors and drove into the capital city—thousands of tractors rolled into the streets of Delhi, carrying out their own version of the traditional Republic Day parades. A fringe group in the rally marched onto the Red Fort, the historic seat of emperors ruling over India, flying the flags representing the farmers’ protest. By the end of the day, police were violently beating back the marchers unprovoked—even when they were following the commands from police—and damaging tractors and other vehicles brought into the city. Since then, over 150 protesters have been arrested in relation to the Red Fort incident. Previous history of police brutality in India would suggest arrested protesters would be treated inhumanely and tortured excessively. Men and women weren’t discriminated against, and neither were the young and old—all have been facing the batons of the Indian police.
This approach to silencing dissent and democratic protests against the government—using police to carry out violent acts with brute force and using the media and political voices to mark protesters as anti-India—indicate a pattern in the Modi Government’s response to other anti-government demonstrations. In December 2019, the Indian government put forward changes to who could seek asylum undocumented in India from neighbouring countries, introducing qualifications around the religion of asylum seekers and preventing undocumented Muslim asylum seekers from seeking refuge in India. This sparked a wave of protests in India from the Muslim community and allies who saw the conflict between India’s secular constitution and a religious agenda being pursued by the Government. Protesters were labelled by the Government and its supporters as ‘anti-nationalists’, ‘traitors’, and were beaten up by Government supporters while the police turned a blind eye. Before this, in August 2019, Kashmir’s special status was revoked, prompting protests where protesters were labelled ‘anti-nationalists’ and ‘jihadis’. They were met with armed police firing tear gas and pellets into the crowd, and residents of Jammu & Kashmir were locked down and their access to cellular and internet services was cut off.
At every major demonstration against the Modi Government, politicians and supporters sought to delegitimise the protest and build a narrative of ‘us-vs-them’ in India—a strategy not dissimilar to the one being deployed against the farmers. These authoritarian tendencies have led Freedom House to downgrade India’s ranking from ‘free’ to ‘partly-free’.
Now more than 100 days in, the farmers continue their protest to sustain their livelihoods. They stand out from recent protests in that they remain steadfast and resolute in the face of opposition and relentless attacks—uncertain that their demands will be met and prepared to do what needs to be done.
