Round The World
New Delhi, 4 November 2020
Farmers
Agitation
GLOBAL
PERCEPTION
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
(Prof,
International Relations, JIMMC)
Even
during the pandemic accompanied with various restrictions like social distancing
and the coldest November since 1949, the farmers came on to the streets
protesting against three new laws passed by Parliament. The mobilisation in
these trying times is unbelievable. The agitation has as usual divided the
opinion across the country between pro-government and those critical of the
government. What is more, it has drawn international attention and comments
from heads of States and Members of Parliament. This has resulted in a
diplomatic row between Ministry of External Affairs and those making remarks on
the agitation. The issue must be resolved before it is too late.
At the
time of writing, two rounds of dialogue had taken place between the government
and the farmers. This is a breakthrough as there was hardly any dialogue or bridge
between them so far. No wonder, one of the grievances by the farmers is that
they were not consulted before such drastic changes were made in the farm
sector. Earlier, the farmers refused any offer for talks as government had made
it conditional. In the last round, the farmers demanded a special session of
Parliament.
The
government will have to do some out-of-box thinking and management to resolve
this vexatious issue. Unless it does so, the farmers are unlikely to budge, on
the contrary, they seem to prepare for a long haul. They have shielded Delhi’s borders,
are refusing to move into a police-designated site for protest as they fear
they will be squeezed into that area and be marginalised in popular attention.
Interestingly,
initially, the government tried to delegitimise the protest movement as
Opposition instigated, fed by untruths and misinformation. That tactics did not
hold much water. The farmers bluntly announced that no leader from any
political party could share the platform with them. They were in fact, reported
to have shooed away to middle-level leaders who were trying to persuade the
farmers to shift to a new venue. The government perhaps failed to realise that
farmers are as strong in their resolve as the soldiers are at the borders.
During
1965 war, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri had given the famous slogan of Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (Hail the soldier,
hail the farmer). It evoked national sentiments for farmers as they provide
food security whereas the soldiers give us physical security. Therefore, the
agitating farmers could not be called ‘anti-national’ as often times the
government tends to dub protesters and critics as anti-national.
In view of
the critical role and sensitive position of the farmers, the government will
have to negotiate and find amicable solutions. The un-thoughtful use of force
by the Haryana Police on the Punjab farmers has left a bad taste in the country
and incurred comments from abroad. The government has somehow backtracked from
such aggressive actions and is talking. But somehow, the ice has not broken
yet. Both parties assume they are right in their thinking and action. This
could lead either of them to sit on prestige and take a hubristic posture. This
seems to be the case. In democracy, through dialogue, points of convergence are
created by conceding space and knowledge base.
Before
scanning the international response, it is in order that we take a look at the
three laws passed by the Parliament. The first, Farmers’ Produce, Trade and
Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation Act), which expands the scope of trade for
farmers produce from select areas like the mandis to ‘any place of production,
collection and aggregation’. In theory, this gives freedom to the farmers to sell
anywhere by liberating them from either middlemen or even State governments. The
government thinks that the Act unshackles the farmers, whereas the farmers
think it has orphaned them as the so-called middlemen were the interface
between the market and the farm land, and State governments provided them a
secured place to do trading. They also apprehend they have been thrown into the
predatory traders cartels.
The second
one is Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and
Farm Services Act, 2020, which provides a legal framework for farmers to enter
into a pre-arranged contract with buyers including pre-fixed pricing. The Act
also provides for a dispute resolution mechanism should the contract become
controversial. This is legalising contract farming. Farmers are put against
powerful business houses, which will initiate and manage the contract, but it’s
unlikely that a farmer can monitor its implementation. Nor can he challenge the
mighty businessmen in the court of law.
Third is
Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, which allows the government to regulate
food items through essential commodities list. It provides for stocking
agriculture produce. Government believes by allowing the producers to stock and
sell their produces at the time of their choice, they won’t be compelled to
trade when they don’t want to. The farmers suspect that it will lead to hoarding
by big traders and thereby manipulation of the market.
So, as
said, there is a big gap between the thinking of the government and the farmers’
understanding. To be sure, both the government and farmers have enough wisdom
and expertise to know what they are saying. Government is working on a
strategy. Farmers sense the ‘danger’ for them down the road the government is
taking them. The biggest source of their fear comes from no-mention of Minimum
Support Price (MSP) in the Act. The MSP has been the lifeline of farmers as it
provided insurance against any natural calamity befalling farming and reducing
the price.
Among the
international reactions, the strongest by far is from Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau. He said that his country has made contacts with Indian
authorities, “through multiple means” to express concern about the farmers
agitating. He added, “the news of protest unfolding around Delhi is concerning.
We all very worried about family and friends”. Several other Indo-Canadian MPs and leaders
have expressed their concern about the farmers in India and have condemned the
police action on the farmers.
Farmers in
Germany have taken out tractor rallies in support of Indian farmers. The
Indian-origin MPs in the United Kingdom have also expressed their moral support
in favour of the farmers. There have been odd reactions from other parts of the
world. One could politically suggest that since Punjab farmers have their
relations, friends, acquaintances throughout the globe, voices of sympathy and
solidarity will be heard.
The
government has dismissed the Canadian PM’s reactions as undue and unnecessary
interference in India’s internal affairs. The MEA could take the same position
about anybody reacting from abroad to the farmers’ agitation. This is the usual
copybook reaction in the name of national sovereignty, right to
self-determination, non-interference in internal matters of another country and
so on. Technically, one is right. But there is no issue in our country except
the developments in Jammu and Kashmir which has ever drawn international
criticism. There was of course, the dark period of emergency in 1975-77. The
government should be sensitive to such international reactions. India prides in
its democracy, diversity, debate and disagreements, which all merge into
India’s unique practice of synthesis. Let the farmers’ agitation and
government’s mishandling not end such a great tradition. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|