India’s Farmers Are Protesting For Us All: A Comprehensive Review
By Shivani Gupta, SDG Research Lead
The largest organized strike in the history of the world is currently unfolding. February 2021 marks 70+ days and counting that farmers across India marched to Delhi, the nation’s capital. Elderly men and women, youth, and supporters are unyieldingly withstanding the bitter cold and police barricades as they stage protests along the Singhu border outside Delhi.
The start of these now historic protests dates back to September 2020 when India’s parliament, in the midst of a global pandemic, pushed through three farm bills without adequate input from farmers. The three farm bills mark an unprecedented dismantling of the current agricultural marketing system in India. Sparse information about this new system, coupled with bypassing farmer concerns, has spurred immense backlash — months of nonviolent protests, skewed media coverage, police violence, rounds of inconclusive talks, and, most recently, the suspension of internet services.
What are the driving forces of the current protests and deep anxiety amongst farmers?
The short answer is that the three bills in question collectively hollow out government investment and regulations in the agriculture sector, leaving farmers vulnerable to private sector demands. A more thorough examination, however, acknowledges that the current privatization of India’s agricultural industry is inextricably tied to the country’s history of colonialism. These protests represent a movement for farmer rights. Farmers across India — from the northern regions of Punjab and Haryana to the western states of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh — have joined this movement to protect their livelihoods and to demand justice.
Peaceful Protests Met With Violence & Conspiracy Theories
On November 26th, 2020, after two months of unheard calls for change, tens of thousands of farmers took their concerns directly to the nation’s capital. Participating in the Delhi Chalo (“let’s go to Delhi”) movement, these farmers attempted to exercise their right to protest, but were met instead with police violence. Parliamentary troops constructed multi-layer, wired barricades, barring farmers from entering their capital, and fired water cannons and tear gas indiscriminately into crowds of mainly elders.
Even more devastating than this violence is the manner in which hate-riddled, skewed media coverage has been working to undermine these protests. Millions of farmers’ concerns have been repackaged as exclusionary politics and conspiracy theories. For example, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) recently summoned more than 40 protestors for their alleged affiliations with pro-Khalistani and anti-national activities. These Khalistan references date back to the 1980’s — a time of contentious partition politics — when a sub sect of militant Sikhs favored creating a sovereign state in the now areas of Punjab, Pakistan and Punjab, India. Needless to say, this separatist movement died out following heavy crackdowns and reduced populace support. Why, then, is the government of India reviving a pro-Khalistan crackdown, especially now? As journalists have pointed out, these efforts are likely a ploy to “malign the farmers’ agitation.”
Amidst this biased news coverage, activists have taken to sharing on social media. Social media advocacy has propelled the efforts, but social media has also magnified hate rhetoric and conspiracies. On the one hand, NGOs, working to provide supplies and medical attention to protestors like Khalsa Aid India, and ground activists like Gauravdeep Singh are mobilizing on social media. On the other hand, the government and sympathizers are using social media to fuel conspiracy theories. For example, the protests recently caught the attention of international communities after tweets from notable activists and celebrities — including Rihanna, Greta Thunberg, and Meena Harris. A simple tweet from Rihanna — asking why many of us are not talking about the current protests — garnered viral attention and hate.
Representatives from India’s government, including the Minister of External Affairs, went as far as organizing an entire “India Against Propaganda” campaign, claiming international celebrities calling attention to the protest are part of anti-government campaigns. Government officials have shared statements, including one claiming that “the temptation of sensationalist social media hashtags and comments, especially when resorted to by celebrities and others, is neither accurate nor responsible.” Extremists echoing these sentiments have, however, demonstrated their own sensationalism and irresponsibility as they burned effigies of Rihanna, Greta and Meena.
The question, then, is whether this international media attention will help the more than 250 million farmers and supporters to repeal the farm bills, or if it will derail farmers’ efforts with ongoing conspiracy theories, social media bans, and internet shutdowns.
The Three Bills Explained
Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of farmers peacefully protesting at this moment are determined to repeal the three bills. They believe that the laws will increase their vulnerability to corporate interests and price instability. India’s former Chief Economic Advisor, Kaushik Basu, also spoke out against the bills. “The new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers,” he wrote on Twitter.
The three farm bills eliminate the existing government-sanctioned marketplace, or mandi, system, whereby the government purchases crops from farmers. One bill sets up private mandis instead to introduce private sector purchasing. Unlike the government-run mandi system, private traders do not need to be licensed. Another bill enables contract farming, whereby private players and companies can strike independent deals with farmers. The third bill also grants traders and corporate houses a free hand to stock agricultural commodities. Corporate houses will likely hoard commodities, only to reintroduce them in the market during shortages, leading to price inflation.
The rationale for these deregulation measures is to offer farmers more opportunities to sell their crops. Farmers can enter private contracts outside the mandi system. The government of India has also referred to these laws as an effort to “modernize” Indian agriculture — what people fear will equal a hollowing out of government investment and a rise of private companies. Farmers have long been voicing the need for improved efficiency within the mandi system. However, these bills are not the right avenue for change; they only exacerbate farmers’ vulnerabilities.
For one, liberalizing the agriculture market — that is, requiring farmers to trade with private companies — cuts out accountability measures. Even within this mandi system, farmer bargaining power is low. Government representatives and appointed middlemen purchase crops from farmers, but farmers often do not receive adequate prices. Unlike with private traders, however, farmers and farmer unions can still advocate to elected officials for better pricing and policies. Privatization of markets, as outlined in the new reforms, dismantles this minor safeguard. Specific clauses in the bills also do not permit farmers to litigate against corporations in case of contract violations.
The government claims that these laws “provide greater choice and freedom to farmers to sell their produce…thereby creating competition in agricultural marketing.” However, this logic rests on shaky assumptions. Greater competition does not mean that private traders will not collude to deny farmers a fair price. Furthermore, the laws offer farmers no checks on private traders. Companies can easily refuse to do business with small-scale farmers, preferring large-scale producers who can cut costs and achieve desired quality standards.
A Closer Look at the Bills: MSP
The new farm bills also threaten the government’s practice of purchasing crops at the minimum support price, or MSP. Set by the central government twice a year, MSP is a safety net or insurance price. With the new farm bills, the government has not committed to a legal guarantee of continuing MSP — a major setback to farmers, especially for marginalized, small land holding farmers. 86% of India’s farmers are small and marginal farmers (those with less than 2 hectares of farmland). These farmers in particular depend on MSP to maintain their livelihoods and financially plan each year.
Losing MSP will only compound farmers’ debt and financial insecurity. For years now, India’s farmers have been dependent upon factors outside their control: pricing, yearly crop yield, and climate change. This system of persistent inequality perpetuates rising farmer suicide in India — in 2019 alone, more than 10,200 persons in the farm sector died by suicide.
The Colonial Connection
A simple economic analysis of the bills — free market, more competition, lower prices — fails to recognize how these bills compound a history of injustice. Many Indian economists and government officials are trying their hardest to convince farmers that these bills are “in their best interest.” In fact, they have displayed disbelief that farmers could be opposed to these bills. However, they have not properly addressed the concerns of farmers: will the government commit to a legal guarantee for MSP? What legal safeguards exist for small-scale farmers?
A critical examination of India’s agricultural history helps place farmers’ concerns in context. They are not only voicing opposition against these bills but a history of devaluing their labor and the land they honor.
The MSP system that is now under threat began in the 1960’s following India’s independence, as the nation faced acute food shortages. As India opened its economy, it also adopted policies from the Global North promising pathways to poverty alleviation in the Global South. As many scholars have argued, these policies repackaged colonialism. The rich grew richer and farmers bore the repercussions of land exploitation. One such policy, introduced in the 1960’s, was the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution marked a significant shift in India’s agricultural industry. Agricultural practices, such as using pesticides from the United States, replaced indigenous agricultural knowledge. Land became a means for production without care for ecological devastation and labor exploitation.
Farmers, especially from the state of Punjab — also known as the breadbasket of India — are bearing the negative consequences of these policies till date. What began as a strategy for higher crop production transformed into land extraction and ecological damage. For example, after the 1970’s India lost more than 1 lakh (100,000) varieties of indigenous rice. New seed varieties demanded unsustainable water and depleted available water sources. This has led to the water crisis in Punjab.
Seen from this context, it is understandable why millions of farmers from Punjab see no alternative than repealing the farm bills. These farmers have been working in a historically broken system, one predicated on ecologically unsustainable farming practices and sparse legal protections. The new farm bills strip away even more protections for farmers and private companies will be given the upper hand. Many of these private companies, prioritizing mass production and lower prices, will continue ecologically unsustainable practices. Farmer protests, therefore, also signify a call against persisting land exploitation — something that directly affects us all, including millions across the globe dependent on spices and crops from India.
Protesting For Us All
Upwards of 250 million farmers (nearly the population of the U.S.) are protesting right now. They are raising their voices against an unjust system, reinforced by the newly passed farm bills. They are clutching their right to peacefully protest amidst a global pandemic, internet shutdowns, rampant conspiracy theories and police violence. They are demanding a better system — one that values not only people but the land we all depend upon. In short, millions of farmers and supporters in India are protesting for us all.
Moving forward, we must stand with India’s farmers and actively filter out biased information. This is not only reserved to educating oneself about the current protests and bills. As articulated in, “Food Sovereignty: Returning Power to Those Who Produce,” this extends to safeguarding farmers’ right to define their own food and agricultural systems. As an international community, we must defend food sovereignty for India’s farmers and call out human rights abuses on the ground. It is time to protect those who feed us all.
