A Possible Resolution for ending Farmers' Protests

FARMERS' PROTESTS: RESOLUTION IS POSSIBLE 

It is nearly six weeks since the farmers, mainly from Punjab, landed in Delhi to protest against the three farm laws passed in the last session of Parliament. Unless a miracle happens either  by way of directions by the Supreme Court and is faithully listened to by both the parties as 'meaningful' or both the parties reach midway in their next round of discussions, the agitation is likely to extend up to Republic day and beyond. 

I look at the ground realities, the stand taken by both the sides and what can bring the issue closer to a resolution.

I. Ground Realities

1.Union Territory of Delhi is ruled by a party different from the party ruling the centre. The party ruling Delhi UT, is not part of allies to the party ruling the centre. Incidentally it is the third largest party in Punjab, with a vote share of twenty per cent plus. Not surprisingly, it extended open support to the ongoing agitation in Delhi.

2. Green Revolution leading to self-sufficiency commenced in Punjab in the 1960s and the state is taken as the role model for emulation by the other states. The apprehension that the farm laws might change the standard of living and life style of the people of Punjab has cut across all sections of people in the state The sentiment is apparent, if the support declared by the various people in the state is any indication. 

3. In Punjab, BJP, the party ruling the Centre, was a junior partner to Akali Dal, one of the two major political parties the state.  It contested only 23 seats out of 117 assembly seats in 2017 and had a vote share of less than 6% in the last assembly elections. Even in the Lok Sabha elections held in 2019, BJP could get only two seats. Now, Akali Dal snapped its ties with BJP on this issue. In effect, the three major parties, who together have a vote share of more than 80% in the state, are against the farm laws implemented and extended their full support to the farmers of the state. 

4. The situation in the neighbour state Haryana, which connects Delhi, is not rosy either. Though BJP is able to retain power in 2019, it was with the help of a local party JJP and seven independents. Its vote share is less than 34% and the tides may turn against the centre, if the allies and independents, extending support to the state government, change their stand. 

5. As the farmers are from the neighbourhood states, access and sustaining the agitation in Delhi is much easier, with assured support from the local government in Delhi. (Tamil Nadu farmers carried a long term agitation in Delhi for release of Cauvery Water to save the delta crops; it ended in a failure as the protesters could not sustain for long as they were from the Southern end of the Country)

6. Prior to 2014, for close to 25 years, the centre was ruled by Coalition Partners, many of whom were regional in character and the main national party was having less than 200 seats in the Lok Sabha. Now, the Centre is ruled by a single party with more than 300 seats and the second largest party (a national party) having less than 54 seats, in the Lok Sabha. (Total strength: 542). The regional parties, which continue to be dominant in their respective states, increasingly sense their irrelevance in decisions affecting Pan India. In the states ruled by them, the regional parties organise/support agitations against the Centre, if the decision of the Centre is not to their liking

II. Change in Agitation Mehtods

The way the agitations were conducted has witnessed a sea-change in the last two years.

    a. The entire family participates in the agitation, which includes elders, adults and children. In fact, CAA protests had the unique feature of home-maker women outnumbering male members. In the ongoing agitation elders and children form a significant number among the protesters. 

    b. The protesters occupy main larger areas bordering other states, which are also sensitive connects to transportation of people and goods for days together, thereby impacting the livelihoods/conveniences of the other sections of the society. 

    c. To continue the agitation, they come well prepared in respect of food, clothing, comforts, communication, etc. The agitators include rich, middle, small and small farmers, traders and the like.

        d. As was seen in the earlier agitations, support is readily available from some of the national and regional parties, desperate to come back to 'recognition' at all India level; free advice extended by academicians representing 'intelligentsia'

III. Implementation of Farm Laws: whether it was done after a long debate:

Many major decisions were taken since 2014 by the ruling party in the centre, some in consultation with others and some on its own.  The success rates of the major decisions are mixed. Huge success include IBC Act implementation, Direct Benefit Transfer, Pradhan Mantri Jandhan Yojana (PMJDY), MUDRA loans, GST, crediting the farmers accounts with Rs.6000 a year, etc. Limited success was achieved in Fazal Bhima Yojana, Ayushman Bharat, etc. In respect of Demonetisation, no one could arrive at a fair conclusion on its success/failure. No word can yet be said about CAA either.

Reforms in farming was long overdue and before introducing the three laws in the Parliament, ordinances were in place for implementing the three laws. It appears that at least the major opposition parties (national/regional) had favoured introduction of some of the measures, which are part of the three laws, some time or other in the past. While so, it is also a fact that the acts were introduced in the Parliament and were passed within a week's time after introduction. So it is debatable again, whether the ruling party took all points of view before the laws were legislated. 

IV. Suggestions to the Government in general: 

GST was a success, mainly after wide-ranging consultations with all stakeholders including the state governments, major national and regional parties. Such level of consultation process was not visible in the other decisions taken.  Though the ruling party might have stated in its manifesto about what it will do if it wins the elections and is perfectly justified in implementing the same after coming to power with a clear mandate from the people, it is equally important to convey a message that its manifesto is carried out after throwing them open for a public debate across the nation.  Finally, the decision can be implemented, with or without including the suggestions poured in during the debate. 

After implementation of major decisions, the rationale should be explained across the country, focussing more on the apprehensions expressed and how it will be ensured that such apprehensions will not take place. But explanations appear to get confined mostly to the social media.  Majority of the population in the country particularly those living in small towns and villages do not know anything about social media or know how to access the same.

V. Stand of the Government and the Farmer Associations 

The associations have not so far indicated that they will reconcile to anything less than annulment of the three laws.  The Central Government, though not declared in the open, appear to be keen in retaining the laws passed, while accommodating the demands of the farmers through subsequent amendments.

VI. Suggestions on Solution:

While the Central Government is justified in not agreeing to repeal of the laws, just because a section of farmers in one state are apprehenive, sensing the ground realities as enumerated above, my suggestions are as under:

    i. Agriculture is a State subject. In respect of Fazal Bhima Yojana, Ayushman Bharat, etc. the state governments retain the right to implement the schemes or manage their own schemes. Even in respect of the interest subsidy scheme for crop loans extended to farmers, the state governments are permitted to offer further subsidies in case of prompt repayment/meeting other conditions.  Waiver of loan promises, continues both in the state and central elections.  In the above back ground, the Central Government, while retaining the three laws, can bring an amendment that the state government have the right to implement the laws. modify the same according to local conditions, etc. 

    ii. The Central Government should by now be aware of the clauses, which might not give the farmers the intended benefits as envisaged. It will also be knowing the clauses, which might be interpreted by big corporates or non-farmers/non-government organisations to their advantage, thereby depriving the farmers of their legitimate dues. Instead of saying that the government is prepared to discuss point by point on the laws implemented, the representatives from the government can proactively come forward on the amendments that can be carried out in respect of these objectionable/ambiguous clauses.

For example, some of the clauses like contract farming are practiced in some states with big corporates like coca-cola.  And in dairy sector, already contracts exists for procurement of milk, etc. by big players. The clauses that affected the fortunes of the farmers are known to both sides.  Such clauses can be amended straightaway. Or new clauses can be added to bring more clarity on the issue. 

    iii. The need of the hour is for the central government to demonstrate that the laws were implemented only for furthering the interests of the farmers and it is open to suggestions to strengthen the hands of the farmers through these laws.  The mental comfort to every stakeholder that MSP will continue as long as the farmers desire, the states can implement the laws customising it to local conditions and removal of pitfalls in contract farming that might affect the fortunes of the farmers are the important goals to be achieved by the central government to win the confidence of the farmers, involved in the agitation in Delhi. 

V.Viswanathan

Coimbatore

7th January 2021