Why Are Farmers Protesting in India?
“Why aren’t we talking about this?! #FarmersProtest”, tweeted Rihanna on the 2nd of February 2021, more than six months after the movement began. Unlike other protests from 2020, the farmers protest has been given minimal media exposure, leaving many completely unaware of India’s largest protest to date. Though protests began locally, unrest led to farmers hailing from various parts of the country, with most originating from Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, to unite in Delhi and resist three agricultural laws that passed through government last August.
Though the Indian government vouches for the laws, suggesting they will empower farmers by allowing them more say over how they sell their produce, the farmers themselves are unconvinced. As such, men, women and the elderly have gathered in their thousands in a bid to have these bills revoked. The main provisions of The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 are said to give farmers and traders a greater freedom of choice, promote inter-state trade, reduce costs of marketing, allow farmers access to modern technology and that there will not be a stock limit on agricultural produce. Essentially, what these acts do is turn the existing agricultural trading system into a free market whereby the farmers would indeed have more freedom, though simultaneously less protection.
Privy to these laws, farmers would sell their produce to their designated state governed wholesale markets, mandis, where a minimum support price (MSP) would be offered for their crops. Although not a perfect system, these mandis provided a degree of stability to farmers and meant they were protected by monitored middlemen. The laws turn this system upside down, as farmers could bypass these middlemen, heading straight to buyers. Though seemingly beneficial, there are multiple arguments against these laws such as that there are not enough crops to sustain a free market and that there will be no guaranteed price for goods. So, farmers are angry and are under the impression that these laws will be harmful for their livelihoods which, based on a similar reform that took place in Bihar, they have every right to believe. In 2005, the government repealed the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) in Bihar and since then, according to experts, farmers have not received a fair trade for their goods with paddy, for example, selling at less than half of what it did with MSP.
Therefore, the fight for an MSP is a huge part of these protests but the significance of these date back much further than these three agricultural laws. As mentioned, farmers from Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana are the ones most involved in the protests, this is because they have the most to lose. Since the implementation of MSP in the 1960s, farmers from these regions have relied upon this as a safety net which, along with an agricultural reform, rescued them from famine. After the 1947 Partition, India’s food production was scarce and in order to reduce the level of poverty in the country the government increased the production of certain crops such as rice and wheat. With help from the United States, India underwent what has been called the Green Revolution of the 1960s, whereby high yielding varieties (HYV) of crops were curated to bolster food supplies. As a result, the MSP was introduced on these crops to encourage farmers to produce them.
In terms of alleviating malnourishment and food shortages, the Green Revolution was a success, with Punjab and Haryana being dubbed as India’s breadbasket. However, the Revolution came at an ecological cost. Through the use of pesticides, fertilizers and large amounts of water needed to yield these HYV crops, damage has been done in the form of air pollution, groundwater poison and soil degradation. Acknowledgement of these severe environmental issues means that alternatives to the HYVs were needed, however, it is believed that the three laws will allow for private markets to overtake the mandis, rendering the MSP system obsolete.
At the time of writing, the laws do not state that the MSP system will be maintained, and the bills are yet to be repealed. As such, the farmers continue to peacefully protest to revoke both of these motions. What the acts signify to the farmers is a disregard for their livelihoods and therefore they are standing, not only against the legislations themselves, but against a history of oppression. The lack of regard afforded to the farmers reopens unhealed wounds of state violence in Punjab, such as the military attack of Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) in Amritsar of 1984, which must only have been cut deeper by the government’s undemocratic response to the protests which has included violence, internet shut downs and press censorship. Furthermore, the Peasant Movements which arose in various regions of India throughout the 20th century as a reaction to governmental exploitation are representative of the ongoing struggle felt by those who depend on agricultural security.
An awareness of these instances of state violence towards its citizens allow us to understand there is far more to these protests then some disgruntled farmers objecting to some hurried laws, rather, it is what they signify, a lack of compassion, and what they uncover, a history of oppression.
Written by Poppi Knight
Poppi is a Master's student in International Studies on Media, Power and Difference at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. She has experience creating written and visual content and is interested in human rights, environmental justice, film and documentaries.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/poppiknight/
IG: @popsknight
Twitter: @p0psknight
Recipes
