The fourth round of talks between the Narendra Modi government and the farmers’ representatives has failed to resolve the deadlock over the minimum support price and other demands. The farm leaders have rejected the Centre’s proposal of purchasing pulses, maize, and cotton crops at MSP by government agencies for five years after entering into a contract. Logically, this promise aligns with the farmers’ demand for legal guarantee of MSP. The other demands, such as a life-time pension of Rs 10,000 to all farmers aged above 60, need further discussion as they require budgetary provisions and parliamentary sanctions, which can come only after the Lok Sabha election. In any case, the pension demand sounds untenable as it will open a Pandora’s box of similar demand from other groups, including the unemployed.
While the talks are not helping, violence is making the situation worse. A section of the farmers protesting at the Delhi-Haryana border reportedly turned violent and were subjected to tear gas shells and police firing, which has allegedly caused the death of a 21-year-old farmer. Twelve police personnel have also been reportedly injured. The protest was expected to go out of hand and turn violent when some anti-social elements infiltrated the protesting groups. It’s only going to become worse now with the farmers resuming their march to Delhi—“Dilli Chalo”—after a two-day hiatus. From the looks of it, the farmers and the Centre seem ready to enter into a battle similar to the 2020-2021 protests over the farm laws.
While the government hopes to engage the farmers for a fifth round of talks, the farmers’ leadership appears divided. It will be unfortunate if they take an obstinate stand and refuse further dialogue with the government. When they do come to the negotiating table, the Punjab farmers must remember that they cannot insist on a solution that applies to farmers elsewhere in the country without first understanding their stance. The government cannot be expected to unilaterally apply any outcome from discussion with Punjab protesters across the country. The fact that the ongoing protest has given no indication of what farmers outside Punjab want makes it clear that the protesters are simply intent on demonstrating their destructive power and using anger against the Modi government as a negotiating tool ahead of the Lok Sabha election.
The government’s proposal to buy pulses after a five-year contract is part of a larger plan to increase cultivation, reduce dependence on imports of pulses mainly from Canada, and increase the buffer stock to meet challenges of shortages during festive seasons and crop failures. The four-day Pulses 24 conference organised by the Global Pulse Conference and the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative marketing has unveiled a roadmap in this regard. It would have been to the best advantage of the farmers if they had accepted the MSP offer by the government and then negotiated with the government on other proposals later.
Also read: Farmers’ intention isn’t right. Modi govt must tell them conflict & commerce can’t go together
A challenge for the govt
It is nobody’s argument that farmers do not face problems. Like any other sector, the farm sector too has its own list of woes, both natural and man-made. While the crop pattern in Punjab requires excessive water, farmers have resorted to deep well boring, thus depleting the groundwater in most parts of the state. Since electricity is free, many borewell pumps operate for longer periods, pumping out more water. The government needs to set up agriculture institutes and conduct regular camps for farmers in as many states as possible on changing crop patterns, water usage, and market mechanisms. The Union government and state governments conduct regular training and skill-upgradation camps for handloom weavers. A similar approach can be adopted for farmers depending on their respective crops.
The “Green Revolution” of 1968 changed the way governments handled farmers’ issues and provided relief for crop failures. Over the years, successive governments have come up with more farmer-friendly schemes. The four major crop insurance schemes—Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme, and the Unified Package Insurance Scheme—are compulsory. The crop loan schemes of the government are also beneficial to farmers, and loan waivers are almost a regular ritual during elections. Agricultural income is tax-free, making it a bone of contention, especially during violent agitations and “Delhi Siege” protests, which tend to disrupt normal life in the capital city.
The Modi government should convince the farmers that major reforms, introduction of technology and a new market mechanism is needed in the agriculture sector. But past experience and red-tape approach makes the farmers apprehensive of reforms. Both the government and the farmers cannot stand at the ‘point of no return’ for long. The sooner they come out of this Catch-22 situation, the better.
The leaders who called for farmers to join the protest should ensure that the protest remains violence-free and weed out anti-social and unwanted elements that bring disgrace to the protest and weaken the genuine issues and demands of the farmers.
On its part the Union and state governments should not only popularise existing farmer-friendly schemes but also include farmers’ representatives in the decision-making process. This is not the first time that farmers have taken to the streets. Besides, farmers’ protests are reported in several parts of the world, implying a larger problem triggered by climate change and other global issues. There are attempts to dismiss these protests as a new form of ‘culture war by far-right political groups.’ The Modi government should avoid the buildup of such narratives domestically. The issues at hand in India are different, and both sides need to maintain necessary decorum in negotiations.
Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)