Photo credit : Xinhua
Dissatisfaction displayed by protesting farmers certainly indicates this. The farmers began their “Delhi Chalo” (Let’s Go To Delhi) march on February 13, but have been refused entry into the capital city. At present, they are staying put along the Punjab-Haryana border as on February 23, they decided to put their “Delhi Chalo” march on hold till February 29. During these days, they plan to display their protest through a candle march, meetings, seminars, burning effigies of World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the Center and other such activities. Each is symbolic of farmers not being satisfied with the center’s approach towards their grievances. The farmers’ protest is primarily due to economic grievances faced by them.
Their demands include Minimum Support Price (MSP) on 23 crops. Though four rounds of talks have been held between farmers and central government, they have failed. Protesting Indian farmers have rejected the government proposal to buy some crops at assured prices on a five-year contract. This includes government’s proposal of MSP for pulses, maize and cotton through cooperatives for five years. As of now, chances of the government actually implementing this proposal also seem fairly limited. At least, this seems to be farmers’ understanding of the situation on ground. Clearly, farmers are not pleased with apparently a mild approach of the government towards their concerns.
The decision of farmers can certainly not be taken lightly. It is not without reason that they have decided to protest again as they did for 13 months till December 2021 against certain policies of the government. The earlier protest ceased following several claims made by the government. However, “failure” of their implementation has led farmers take to streets again. With parliamentary elections round the corner and as reports indicate that farmers are well prepared to camp for several months, where does this place the central leaders? From one angle, if the government had paid serious as well as genuine attention to grievances of farmers, they may not have been compelled to protest again. From another angle, something seems amiss in certain speculations being voiced regarding it being impossible for the government to yield to farmers’ demand for MSP for their agricultural produce and other issues, as desired by the latter. If this view is for a moment accepted as genuine, should the government’s reaction be marked by using tear-gas against protesting farmers and prevent them from entering Delhi? And why should Internet services be banned in certain parts linked with protest?
If religious and political marches can be permitted, why should one voicing economic grievances be restricted? Democratically speaking, what is wrong with a march by any number and/or section of the population if it is peaceful and does not spell major disturbance for other citizens? Farmers constitute more than 60% of country’s population for whom agriculture is main source of income, which contributes to around 25% of national income. Economically and socially, it seems strange that attempts are being made to silence their political voice and not allowing farmers entry into the capital city. As mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that farmers have voiced their demands. If probably some genuine attempt had been made earlier to pay greater attention to the same, the situation may not reached this stage of crisis.
Certainly, to a degree, with farmers’ march including their tractors, inconvenience caused to others cannot be totally ignored. Nevertheless, this does not justify the use of teargas and other steps causing physical injury to protesting farmers. Till date, five protesting farmers have reportedly died. This has further agitated the farmers. Think of it from another angle. Rather than taking steps at least symbolizing government’s efforts to genuinely consider their demands, this amounts to brushing them aside forcibly as if they have no significance for the government and the country. In addition, this also suggests government’s reluctance and perhaps even practically refusal to consider their demands. Now, politically, particularly when elections are near, display of such attitude on any economic issue towards affected sections hardly signals wise politicking. The fact that farmers form a major vote-bank cannot be side-lined. Having succeeded in 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is confident about returning to power in 2024 despite their being no major upswing in its rural popularity. More confident about its political strength in urban areas, BJP is perhaps not really concerned about its rural support.
Interestingly, it may be recalled, ahead of Punjab assembly polls in 2022, during its electoral manifesto BJP did make promises to farmers regarding debt waiver, extension of center’s MSP policies and so on. But BJP did not win elections and as apparent, the central government has failed to implement promises earlier laid out before protesting farmers. Empty promises, loud rhetoric and so forth have limited temporal as well as political value. They sound great to those making them but float like empty balloons, bursting like the same, to whom they are addressed. Clearly, they can silence protestors for a while but not for long as is the case of farmers dissatisfied, frustrated and probably also angry at government’s attitude towards them. They are displaying this through their protest.
The government may have a point about not being financially strong enough to yield to all demands of farmers particularly regarding MSP. The government hasn’t used these words but this is definitely suggested by its response, which is paradoxically being strongly reported in certain sections. The government will have to spend Rs 10 lakh crore (around US $250 billion), which reportedly, is not “feasible” and will require cut in spending on infrastructure, defense and/or increase in taxation. This demand for MSP has also been described as “politically motivated.” From this angle, it isn’t surprising that few rounds of talks between the center and farmer leaders have failed to yield any solution.
Not surprisingly, farmers’ decision to continue their protest has not changed by simply holding of such talks. They are looking forward for effective solutions to their grievances and are not likely to be satisfied by just talks. Whether the farmers’ demand is “politically motivated” or the approach of power-holders is, as suggested by reports, there is yet another side to farmers’ grievances, which cannot be ignored. What can be said and what should be done about increase in deaths by suicide of those engaged in farming? These include farmers as well as agricultural laborers. Data released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) on December 4, 2023 indicates that 11,290 suicide cases were reported in 2022. In 2021, 10,281 such deaths were reported. In 2022, there was an increase of 3.7% in comparison to 2021 and of 5.7% with figures of 2020. These figures have remained high over the past six years with around 30 engaged in agriculture committing suicide daily, that is at least one such death taking place each hour.
True, each and every issue cannot be resolved at one go but at least needed steps beyond rhetoric need to be taken in this direction. Treating their protest as “politically motivated” doesn’t justify rhetoric and/or tacit tactic of not taking positive steps to favor them. Enhancing rural-oriented employment opportunities, facilitating banking services, increasing educational, medical and other basic facilities in villages in addition to improving their roadways may also be considered a part of infrastructural services needed for progress in most rural areas. Nearly 70% of India’s land is rural. In this context, even if 60% of budget, the government has reportedly kept aside for the country’s infrastructure is used to address protesting farmers’ grievances, it is likely to go a long way in resolving at least a great part of problems they seem to be frustrated by. And if rhetoric-filled balloons are floated once again, they will burst again, only angering agitated farmers further. The government may choose to turn a blind eye to them but not all are going to remain oblivious of increase in deaths by suicide of those engaged in farming. If farmers’ grievances are not taken serious note of, it also amounts to ignoring more than 50% of country’s population. And this raises the question, how will the country progress if this section does not?