The deadlock between protesting farmers and the government on the contentious farm laws have taken an ugly turn, with incidents of vandalism during the tractor parade by the protesting farmers on January 26. It is as yet unclear as to how the peaceful protest for the last two months was allowed to take a violent turn by the farmers’ union leadership as well as the police administration given that the police were aware of the plans and had approved the parade.
Shadow of mistrust
While responsibility must be fixed for the administrative lapses and action taken against erring antisocial elements, the events again point out to the growing mistrust and breakdown of any dialogue between the two sides. Attempts by a section of media and representatives of political parties to use the incidents of vandalism to vilify and malign the two-month-old peaceful agitation will only add to the mistrust between the government and the farmer unions. Such a situation is unlikely to lead to any meaningful outcome despite best intentions.
Data | Farmers, new agriculture laws and government procurement
Even though thousands of farmers have been protesting peacefully for more than two months at different sites on the Delhi border, the issues raised by the farmer representatives are not just limited to the demand for guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and the repeal of the three farm laws passed during the monsoon session of Parliament , in September last year. They are the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 ; the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 .
A resonance of anger
While an impression has been created that the agitating farmers only represent the interests of farmers from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, these issues have found resonance across several States in the country where large mobilisations of farmers have been protesting peacefully. There are large variations across States in the way the MSP-led procurement operations are conducted; but there are also variations in States in terms of the role and functions of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) .
Despite these differences, these mobilisations represent the anger against the political economy of agricultural reforms. The genuine fear of corporate takeover and withdrawal of the state go beyond the three Acts. It is essentially about the trust deficit between the state and the farmers who see the actions of the state as allowing greater control by the private sector which will ultimately dispossess them from the meagre resources and land that they have.
Data | Even in States with limited procurement, farmers wanted MSP programme to continue
These impressions are not entirely unfounded if one is to go by the experience in different States such as Bihar in abolishing the APMC system. But these fears also gain strength at a time when the economy is slowing down and the agricultural sector has seen severe distress in the last six years, starting with the twin droughts of 2014 and 2015. With a decline in agricultural wages and falling farm gate prices and farm incomes in the last three years, these Acts represent a pattern of state withdrawal from support to the agricultural sector.
Flaws in legislating
This is precisely why any attempt by the government to resolve the deadlock has to go beyond the nitty-gritty of the three laws; it has to start from instilling trust in the government’s actions and rhetoric of reforms. With a hardening of positions by the farmers and the government’s representatives, any possibility of resolutions through a dialogue with the unions remains a distant possibility.
Even the attempt by the Supreme Court of India to appoint a committee has failed to elicit any positive response from the farmers. The failure of dialogue and mediation by government ministers and the Supreme Court committee is partly a result of the flawed understanding of the government that this issue is a regional issue concerning only a section of farmers. The attempt by both farmer unions as well as the government to exclude other political parties out of such dialogues and discussions is unlikely to resolve the issues which concern every State of the country ruled by different political parties.
Comment | Mediating the farmers’ protests is difficult terrain
But it also reflects the process of legislating on important issues without taking into account the concerns of various stakeholders. These pieces of legislation were announced as part of the COVID-19 pandemic relief package when the country was going through a period of severe economic disruption as a result of the lockdown.
Not only was the timing wrong, but even the attempt to force these pieces of legislation without any discussion in Parliament created an impression of stubbornness on the part of the government to deny any form of dialogue and consultation. The failure to consult State governments, which are important stakeholders, has also created the peculiar situation where six large States have now passed separate pieces of legislation in their State legislatures negating the three central Acts .
Budget session as opportunity
The commencement of the Budget session from January 29 presents another opportunity to bring back these pieces of legislation in Parliament. An Act of Parliament can only be repealed and amended through Parliament. It is this supreme authority which has the power to resolve this issue despite negotiations outside. While dialogues and negotiations at a time when Parliament was not in session made sense and proved useful in clarifying the concerns of various stakeholders, it is now time to let Parliament take a call. In any case, the Supreme Court has “suspended” the “implementation” of three farm laws for the time being and the government has also offered to put the laws in abeyance for one and half years. While the offer of putting the implementation of the Acts in abeyance for 18 months may have been a strategy to delay the implementation until the Uttar Pradesh legislative elections due in one and half years, it does offer the government the possibility to build larger consensus for the reforms in new form. That will imply repealing the Acts as have been passed in Parliament currently and starting the process afresh with the parliament standing committee steering such larger deliberations.
Also read | Government proposal on farm laws’ suspension stands: Modi
Need for diverse opinions
A parliamentary standing committee with representations from different political parties will not only give it more legitimacy but will also allow diverse opinions from States and political parties to be represented. For the government, which is willing to suspend the implementation for one and half years, it will also allow it time, space and the political forum to convince the States and farmers about the benefits of such reforms. More than that, it will be an opportunity to bridge the trust deficit between the government and the protesting farmers. For a government which is serious about reforms in agricultural marketing, repealing the Acts in the current form and starting the process afresh will only reaffirm its seriousness and commitments to the agricultural sector and the farmers of this country.
Himanshu is Associate Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
