FARMERS PROTEST IN INDIA: WILL HISTORY REPEAT?

Under the leadership of the Modi government in India, three farm bills were passed on September 27, 2020. These bills aim to liberalize access to agricultural markets, remove existing barriers to the storage of agricultural products and facilitate the farming agreement.

However, contrary to the government’s expectations, the farmers did not adopt the new bills and there was a large protest movement against the bills. More than 400 farmer organizations in the country came together to protest the government over the passed agricultural bills. On November 26, 2020, the farmers declared an indefinite strike, shouting “Dilli Chalo” (Go to Delhi). The majority of the farmers are from the states of Haryana and Punjab, but also states such as Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh participated in the protest. Bharatiya Kisan Union (India’s Farmers Association) and other farmers’ organizations sought permission from the BJP-led Haryana government on September 10 for a protest rally, but the state government did not allow them due to the coronavirus outbreak and said it would not be right to hold a protest during that time. But the farmers did not care about the government, and a rally was held in which more than 100 farmers drove their tractors into the protest area, which some called a “tractor protest” and chanted “Save the farmers, save the mandis” (market place organized by the state governments).

The government did its best to stop this march. They built barricades, used water cannons and tear gas, and at one point they literally dug the roadway to prevent pedestrian farmers from crossing. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 was applied in many parts of Haryana. Bus services have been suspended. More than 100 farmers’ union members were even arrested. More than 500 farmers were arrested in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Despite all the obstacles of the police and the government, the farmers managed to reach Delhi. On November 29, Delhi police requested permission from the Delhi government to turn 9 stadiums into temporary prisons to arrest the farmers who protested. However, as the Delhi government was led by the Aam Aadmi Party, Delhi police could not achieve this request. In Uttar Pradesh, where the BJP government was in power, farmers were not allowed to gather and protest. Again, the Uttar Pradesh government even stopped printing brochures and posters for the protests. Shiromani Akali Dal was allied with the BJP in Punjab, the oldest ally in the state. He left the alliance after the agrarian reform bills passed. The Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP) in Rajasthan also threatened the government to leave the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) if the farmers are not considered.

Farmers, on the other hand, had to struggle not only with the government’s hurdles, but also with smear stories about them in the media. The protesters were featured in the media with different titles, such as pro-Khalistan, urban naxals, liberals, tukde tukde gang (a derogatory political slogan by the BJP and its sympathizers accusing opponents of supporting strife and separatism), and protesters funded by the Congress. In addition, the protestors were viewed as another community (reference to Tablighi Jamaat) that caused the spread of Covid-19. The rhetoric the government most cited against farmer protesters was that they were misguided about the new bills. Again, the media covered the news that implied that the protesters did not agree to this despite the government’s efforts to compromise. In short, the problem was marginalizing sections of the country protesting on any issue, like protests against CAA-NRC laws and student protests. Despite the fact that the leaders of many of the farmers’ unions in Punjab and Haryana, which merged in September, had ties to left and far-left parties and their struggles were politicized, the protesting farmers tried to distance themselves from political parties.

After all these resistance, the Delhi police finally allowed the farmers to hold peaceful demonstrations in Delhi. The BJP expressed its willingness to hold unconditional negotiations with farmers to resolve disputes. As a result, the reaction of the central government and the media to these protests was extremely shocking and raised a serious question about the country’s democracy and freedom of expression.

Changes brought by the bills

With the new regulations, the government of India is planning to remove all restrictions in the farm sector, in short, this sector is liberalized. The government aims to open the market to the private sector, for larger farm businesses to establish direct contact with farmers and to modernize the supply chain by increasing ease of access to the divided market. In addition, it is aimed to remove the barriers to the trade of inter-state and intra-state agricultural products.

According to the government, the new bills will protect and empower anyone who is a farmer, wholesaler, retail giant or exporter to sell. If the buyer tries to deceive the farmers, they will have written contracts to protect them and will be able to sell future crops today. There will be significant benefits for farmers, such as reduced costs in marketing and transportation. With the changes, there will be no trading taxes in areas other than mandis. With such a change, these tax-free markets will be more attractive than mandis. In this case, while the buyer turns to market places where he will not pay taxes, the advantages of selling products in farmers’ mandis will become dysfunctional.

On the other hand, the majority of the protesters are Punjab and Haryana farmers and 70-80% of them benefit from the Minimum Support Price (MSP). However, the rate of farmers across the country benefiting from MSP is only 6%. MSP is given on the condition that farmers sell their products only in mandis. The remaining 94% of the farmers sell outside of mandis and are dependent on private trade and therefore on the market. In other words, farmers in other states cannot benefit from MSP. In short, mandis do not have a great influence. So what is the main concern for farmers?

Protesting farmers believe that the new bills will privatize the Indian agricultural sector. Therefore, they think that large companies can easily exploit farmers while establishing monopolies in the farm sector. They state that, with the changes, the supply of crops will fall within the domain of private companies, so farmers will be paid a lower wage than they receive today. Besides these legitimate concerns, most of the farmers in the country do not have the necessary knowledge to understand the long contracts made by multinational companies and to fight them legally.

Although the farm sector in India seems to create a duality due to the fact that it is subject to two different systems, this also gives farmers the freedom of choice in selling their products. With the new regulations, the Indian government states that farmers can sell their products wherever they want, at the price they want, with the slogan “one nation, one market”, but 86% of the farmers in the country do not have the capacity to sell their products in another region or state. Farmers also say that in 2006 in Bihar, the government abolished mandis and middlemen, so the wheat prices increased very much there, and that the farmers from Bihar suffered because of this, and they did not want to be in the same situation. As a result, the farmers are seeking the written assurances of the MSP and the withdrawal of three farm bills. They also demand the maintenance of the mandi system and the payment of loans.

Another issue is that farmers are not the only ones to suffer from the current changes. If farmers sell their produce outside of registered APMC markets, the states will lose revenue as they cannot collect mandi fees. In addition, if the farm trade is out of the mandis, the farm economy and the vital middlemen for thousands of farmers will be excluded from this trade circulation. In such a situation, farmers worry that even the MSP-based procurement system could end. E-NAM, also India’s National Agricultural Market online platform, also uses mandis. With the new bills, the aforementioned platforms will also suffer in case of possible weakening of the mandi system.

Does history repeat itself?

In India, farmers ‘unrest has been a topic for many years, so current protests are not the farmers’ first claim for rights. However, due to its quantity, it is the biggest protest Modi has faced since he came to power. And when the current situation is evaluated together with Modi’s discourses and policies, a different picture emerges. And again, this image evokes Indira Gandhi’s India in the 1970s. How does?

When Indira Gandhi declared the emergency in 1975, the picture in the country accurately depicted a profound deterioration in center-state relations. Indira Gandhi’s efforts to strengthen the center and the deterioration of federal institutions were severely damaging to strong regionalism and federalism, a natural manifestation of Indian character. Moreover, when the main reason behind the political crisis of 1975 is evaluated, it will be seen that Gandhi has these political steps that do not fit the Indian character.

Going back to today, it is seen that Modi and his government aim to gather the diversity of administration into the same central pattern with slogans such as “one nation, one market”, “one nation, one tax”, “one nation, one language”, “one nation, one election“. In addition, Modi’s statements to change the constitution reveal the extent of his willingness to realize these intentions. When evaluated within the framework of these discourses of Modi, it will be seen that the root of the unrest of the farmers is the increasing perception that the states lose their power to the center. Because, according to the Indian constitution, farm falls under the jurisdiction of the states. For this reason, it means that states will always have initiatives to intervene in the market. Therefore, the new bills in question are seen by state governments as a usurpation of their powers and an attack against federalism.

And if we go back to the 1980s, the heroes of the events that took place in that period were the center and Sikhs like now. Today, the majority of the farmers who protest are Sikhs. For this reason, the relationship of the BJP-RSS wing with the Sikhs has been questioned on the occasion of the farmers’ protest. The BJP and its ideological wing did not distinguish the Sikhs from the Hindus and saw them as part of Hinduism. Despite this, the BJP was unable to come to power in Punjab, where the Sikhs constituted the majority. Moreover, the characterization of Punjab and Haryana farmers as separatists due to recent events is in danger of deepening the gap between the BJP and the Sikhs. If Modi does not want history to repeat itself, he has to pursue policies in line with the realities of his country, rather than trying to streamline the dual system in the country in order to make it easier to do business in making India the new China.

Finally, even in the West, which believes in free markets, the farm sector survives with agricultural subsidies provided by governments. So how will this system be successful in a country like India that has not fully realized its internal liberalism? Because with the withdrawal of the state, the market will be faced with the cruelty of businesses and large companies, and the problems caused by neo-liberalism all over the world are obvious. If it is desired to prevent farmers from falling prey to neo-liberalism and capitalism, arrangements should be made on the deficiencies in the existing system in cooperation with the farmers. The outcome of these protests will constitute an important turning point not only for the future of agriculture, but also for the future of economic reforms and negotiations on central-federal relations in India.