FARMER PROTEST IN INDIA 2020 TO 2022

National Armed Police Force Academy

Matatirtha, Kathmandu

A Group Case Study Submitted to

National Armed Police Force Academy
S.N.14 Short Term Inspector Basic Training

Submitted by
Insp Ghanashyam Ghimire
Insp Man Bahadur Shrestha
Insp Wakil Bahadur Dhanuk
Insp Bishwa Raj Tripathee
Insp Hira Kumar Shrestha

October, 2022
FARMER PROTEST IN INDIA 2020 TO 2022

National Armed Police Force Academy

Matatirtha, Kathmandu

A Case Study Submitted to

National Armed Police Force Academy
S.N.14 Short Term Inspector Basic Training

Submitted by
Insp Ghanashyam Ghimire
Insp Man Bahadur Shrestha
Insp Wakil Bahadur Dhanuk
Insp Bishwa Raj Tripathee
Insp Hira Kumar Shrestha

October, 2022
 ii

ABSTRACT

The victory of the peasant movement in India comes after decades of state and market
threats. Although the farmers’ movement has recently succeeded, rural emancipation
is not yet a reality, and to achieve it, existing agricultural challenges should be
addressed. These challenges as falling into three main groups. First, the unequal
distribution of benefits from agricultural markets. Historically, the peasant movement
has focused on the right to land, which is still relevant today. According to bin
Rashid, the farmers’ movement should acknowledge that rural markets are essential
spaces for rural politics, given their key position as mediators of agrarian surpluses.
Second, the need to curb unsustainable agriculture. Recently, the ecological
consequences of industrial agriculture, in terms of destruction of land and livelihoods,
have begun to be recognised. In this sense, future agricultural practices should be
sustainable and care for the land. Lastly, the issue of not having access to or
ownership of the land. In recent times, South Asian movements are re-raising the
issue of landlessness and discussing urban-rural labour issues from a rural
perspective. Future agrarian debates should consider both the right to land and the
right to decent work. The peasant movement has proven its strength, confronting an
authoritarian regime and building grassroots power. The task ahead of it now is to
define a coherent and situated emancipatory vision that addresses the interlinked
challenges of markets, ecology, and land.

.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION iv
CHAPTER I 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Objective Of the Study 3
CHAPTER II 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 Research Design 4
2.2 Tools and Technique of Data Collection 4
2.3 Data Management and Analysis 4
CHAPTER III 5
DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE 5
3.1 Causes 5
3.2 Demands 7
CHAPTER IV 9
STRENGTH, WEAKNESS AND LESSON LEARNT 9
4.1 Strength 9
4.2 Weakness 9
4.3 Lesson Learnt 9
CHAPTER V 10
FINDING, CONSLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 10
5.1 Finding 10
5.2 Conclusion 10
5.3 Recommendation 10
REFERENCES 12
 iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

COVID Corona Virus Disease

MSP Minimum Support Price

NCR National Capital Region

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

For over a year, mass protests by farmers camped in and around New Delhi had been an
international talking point. Concerns were often borne out by the government’s heavy-
handed responses and accusations that the protestors were unpatriotic. That the protestors’
victory was framed as a win for democracy against an autocratic regime is not surprising.

But at its core, the protests were not about democracy. It was about the economic interests of
some farmers in maintaining a set of policies dating back to the food shortages of the 1960s
when the government promoted hybrid high-yield varieties of rice and wheat with a wide
range of subsidies. Over time, the subsidies came to cover agricultural inputs — seeds,
fertilisers, power and water — as well as the prices paid to farmers and by consumers. The
policy led to a dramatic increase in food production, the so-called Green Revolution, but also
brought problems in its wake.

Subsidies to farmers and consumers were closely linked. The purchase of grain by the Food
Corporation of India for the Public Distribution System was redistributed to consumers at
subsidised prices. While private traders were allowed to purchase grain, trade across state
boundaries in grains and other ’essential commodities’ was restricted to prevent profiteering
at the expense of food deficit states.

Prices paid to farmers by the government increased until they were well above market prices
in many states and constituted a Minimum Support Price (MSP). Farmers preferred to sell
their grain to the government and huge grain surpluses rapidly outstripped warehouse
capacity.

By the 1980s, the combined cost of food and agricultural subsidies was a significant fiscal
burden. Some questioned whether farmers were actually subsidised once trade policies were
taken into account. Import restrictions on fertiliser and export restrictions on grain may have
represented hidden taxes on farmers that ate up much of the value of the subsidies. But,
economists on both left and right decried the size of the subsidies.

The regional, class and caste biases of the subsidies also attracted criticism. The coverage of
the Public Distribution System was uneven. Some states expanded it to the countryside,
 2

while in others it remained a predominantly urban intervention benefiting the middle class.
Farmers who benefited from agricultural subsidies tended to be concentrated in a few
regions deemed suitable for high-yield variety seeds. They often came from owner-cultivator
castes who formed the middle stratum in the countryside in many parts of the country.

Farming communities were both agents and beneficiaries of agricultural modernisation.

Caste solidarity facilitated their political mobilisation. Subsistence farmers, farmers in drier
areas growing other crops like onions and agricultural workers from lower castes benefited
little from the policies, apart from the increase in food output.

The class bias critique can be exaggerated. While critics often refer to ’rich farmers’, even
prosperous Indian farmers are small farmers by global standards and poor by Western ones.
The economic challenges faced by farmers, especially in the states characterised by more
commercial crops, are significant and farm indebtedness has been blamed for persistent
suicides by farmers.

The caste and regional biases are central to understanding the politics of Indian farm prices.
Farmers’ organisations have been active politically in many states since the 1970s. But, the
proximity of wheat-growing Green Revolution areas to New Delhi and the supporting
infrastructure provided by caste organisations gave them special clout in these regions. The
Bharatiya Kisan Union, for example, mounts force in the capital whenever policies that
threaten the subsidy regime are proposed.

In the 1990s, as India pursued economic liberalisation, dealing with agricultural subsidies
became one of the residual issues that successive Indian governments failed to deal with.
While food subsidies were reduced, the MSP for key agricultural commodities was
expanded.

It was against this backdrop that Modi’s government passed three reform laws in September
2020. The laws allowed farmers to sell their grain anywhere, allowed long-term contracts
between farmers and trading companies and removed many agricultural products from the
essential commodities list. Farmers’ concerns have focused on the potential impact of these
measures on farm prices. Farmers fear that the increased role of private contracts would lead
to a gradual erosion of the MSP paid by the government.

While it is tempting to view the farmers’ protest as a blow for democracy against an
authoritarian government, the economic pressures to reform the agrarian sector and the
 3

political obstacles to do so have been around for decades. The context of farm politics is
essential to understand why the protest ensued, why it lasted so long and why farmers won.

Modi’s decision to withdraw the laws was undoubtedly motivated by political concerns, as
was the decision of all opposition parties to oppose it. The need for change will not go away,
but the Modi government’s characteristic preference for a frontal assault may yield to more
incremental steps less likely to provoke another mass demonstration (Swamy, 2022).

1.2 Objective Of the Study

This case study deals with the analysis of the farmer protest of India.
1.2.1 to examine the causes and demand of the protest and role of the government.

.
 4

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research paper was explanatory and descriptive in nature. Through the collection of
qualitative information from annual reports, publications, cases studies and review of
literatures.

2.1 Research Design

The research design of the study was non-experimental, qualitative design.

2.2 Tools and Technique of Data Collection

Secondary data was collected by using the following tools and techniques. Secondary data
was obtained through the published sources like reports, articles, journals, booklets, books,
newspaper articles, research paper.

2.3 Data Management and Analysis

The data collected at first from secondary information was filtered and sorted to remove
unnecessary information for analysis. The data was coded to get the desired information
during the analysis.
 5

CHAPTER III

DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

3.1 Causes

The proportion of people working in the agriculture sector in India was 54.6% in 2011,
according to the government (although there is some dispute about the numbers). Between
52% and 55% of these people have no means of irrigation, and are dependent on rain-fed
agriculture, whether one goes by government estimates or the Rainfed Atlas produced by the
Revitalising Rainfed Agriculture Network, composed of 600 civil society organisations,
researchers and individuals across India. In other words, at least a quarter of the Indian
working population is exclusively dependent on rainfall.

3.1.1 Climate Change

This is precisely the area that is most affected by climate change. As global temperatures
have risen, rainfall has become more erratic, with longer dry spells (droughts) and shorter
periods of more intense rainfall (floods). Not only does this directly impact productivity,
research has also shown rising carbon dioxide levels are bringing down the nutritional value
of crops.

The impact of these changes on those dependent on rain-fed farming is devastating, but those
with access to irrigation are not spared either. Unpredictable rainfall patterns mean that crops
have less time to grow, producing less over time. Farmers resort to higher use of fertiliser
and water to compensate, degrading the quality of soil as well as lowering groundwater
levels, while spending much more to grow the same amount – or less – on the same acreage.
Insecticide use has also increased, not just to save the smaller amount of crops grown but
also because pest populations change with climate patterns. In January 2019, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare estimated that wheat production will decline by 6-23% by
2050 due to the impacts of climate change.

3.1.2 Uncertainty everywhere

The uncertainty of the Indian farmer is not just how much he is able to produce, but who he
will sell it to and at what price. (Farmers are often referred to as he/him in India because
 6

though 73.2% of rural women workers are involved in agriculture, only 12.8% own land,
limiting their ability to sell produce as “their own”.)

So far, the government has set a Minimum Support Price (MSP) for 23 crops every cropping
season. Agricultural markets run by state governments are obliged to pay this. These markets
buy only about one third of the amount produced, but the MSP acts as a benchmark figure
around which the price can be negotiated by private actors.

The three new laws do not discuss the MSP, but have led to the fear that contract farming
and buying more in the open market and less in regulated markets will largely negate the use
of the MSP as a benchmark price, and thereby significantly reduce the bargaining ability of
the farmer (Ahmad, 2021).

3.1.3 Enactment of three new farm laws

The immediate trigger for the protests was the government’s hasty enactment of three new
farm laws, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic without consulting stakeholders, like
the farmers themselves, or state governments, which are responsible for agriculture under
India’s Constitution. On the face of it, the laws appear harmless or even beneficial for
farmers. They relax restrictions on the purchase and sale of farm produce, remove
constraints on stockpiling under the 1955 Essential Commodities Act, and enable contract
farming based on written agreements. The government’s declared purpose is to create “an
ecosystem where farmers and traders enjoy freedom of choice,” with “competitive
alternative trading channels” that “promote efficient, transparent, and barrier-free” trade.

India’s farmers view the new legislation very differently. They fear that these “modernizing”
laws will pave the way for the predatory corporate commercialization of Indian agriculture,
led by politically well-connected tycoons. Others argue that the laws effectively deregulate
farm-produce transactions, contract farming, and stock holding in ways that will harm
farmers. Small and marginal farmers fear they will be the worst affected (Gosh, 2020).

The laws allowed private buyers to hoard food like rice, wheat and pulses for future sales,
which only government-authorised agents could do earlier.

The reforms, at least on paper, gave farmers the option of selling outside of this so-called
"mandi system". But the protesters said the laws would weaken the farmers and allow
 7

private players to dictate prices and control their fate. They said the MSP was keeping many
farmers going and without it, many of them will struggle to survive.

3.2 Demands

The farmer unions believe that the laws will open the sale and marketing of agricultural
products outside the notified Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis for
farmers. Further, the laws will allow inter-state trade and encourage hike electronic trading
of agricultural produce. The new laws prevent the state governments from collecting a
market fee, cess, or levy for trade outside the APMC markets; this has led the farmers to
believe the laws will "gradually lead to the deterioration and ultimately end the mandi
system" thus "leaving farmers at the mercy of corporates". Further, the farmers believe that
the laws will end their existing relationship with agricultural small-scale businessmen
(commission agents who act as middlemen by providing financial loans, ensuring timely
procurement, and promising adequate prices for their crop).

Among the demands is the removal of punishments and fines for stubble burning as well as
the release of farmers arrested for burning paddy stubble in Punjab

3.2.1 Later demands

Additionally, protesting farmers believe dismantling the APMC mandis will encourage
abolishing the purchase of their crops at the Minimum Support Price (MSP). They are
therefore demanding the minimum support prices to be guaranteed by the government in
writing. Other demands added over time have included-

3.2.1.1 Convene a special Parliament session to repeal the farm laws

3.2.1.2 Make MSP and state procurement of crops a legal right

3.2.1.3 Assurances that conventional procurement system will remain

3.2.1.4 Implement Swaminathan Panel Report and peg MSP at least 50% more than
weighted average cost of production

3.2.1.5 Cut diesel prices for agricultural use by 50%

3.2.1.6 Repeal of Commission on Air Quality Management in NCR and the adjoining
Ordinance 2020 and removal of punishment and fine for stubble burning
 8

3.2.1.7 Release of farmers arrested for burning paddy stubble in Punjab

3.2.1.8 Abolishing the Electricity Ordinance 2020

3.2.1.9 Centre should not interfere in state subjects, decentralization in practice

3.2.1.10 Withdrawal of all cases against and release of farmer leaders

Farmers have been insistent over repealing the farm laws. Even after the government offered
to stay the farm laws for 18 months on 21 January 2021, the farmers refused the stay and
pushed for repeal. Other than the farm unions and leaders, people such as Markandey Katju
and Thol. Thirumavalavan have also made statements in relation to staying the farm laws.
 9

CHAPTER IV

STRENGTH, WEAKNESS AND LESSON LEARNT

4.1 Strength

4.1.1 On 17 September, the Food Processing Industries Union Minister, Harsimrat Kaur
Badal of Shiromani Akali Dal, resigned from her post in protest against the bills.

4.1.2 Ten rounds of talks have taken place between the Centre and farmers (represented by
farm unions) until 20 January 2021.

4.1.3 The role of national and international media played a key role in pressurizing the
government to take action.

4.2 Weakness

4.2.1 The failure and lack of the governments communication with regard to informing
farmers and political allies about the importance of the farm bills.[274][275][276][277] Farm
reforms have been mentioned in both BJP and Congress manifestos.

4.3 Lesson Learnt

The Farmers Movement in India has inspired millions around the world who are fighting for
justice, democracy and solidarity. The farmers held their ground in the face of threats,
intimidation and relentless propoganda, and forced the Modi government to repeal the farm
bills. This was one of the most spectacular victories of ordinary people against the combined
assault of corporate power and the state, showing that determined struggle can defeat the
mightiest of forces.

The unity of the struggle did not come about automatically. It was the result of long-term
relationship building, historically shared struggles, and concrete work to identify shared and
common agendas including anti-corporate, anti-privatisation, and pro-democracy positions.
Government repression and neoliberalism threaten both peasants and workers. Although an
enormous victory has been won, there is much more still to be done. The many lessons from
this movement can help to strengthen and guide future struggles, building towards a
democratic and egalitarian society for all working people.
 10

CHAPTER V

FINDING, CONSLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Finding

On the demand for a minimum support price (MSP), the government has promised to form a
committee which will include representatives from the federal and state governments,
agriculture scientists and farmer groups. The protests first gained momentum in November
last year when farmers tried to march into Delhi but were stopped by police at the city's
borders. Since then, they had stayed at the edge of the city against all odds - braving
scorching heat, a bitter winter and even a deadly second wave of Covid.

Farmers form the most influential voting bloc in India - and experts say the upcoming state
elections in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh may have forced the government to roll back the laws..

5.2 Conclusion

The farmer’s movement in India represented a revolt against the inequality produced by
neoliberalism, capitalism and imperialism in the Global South. These social ills, exacerbated
by the COVID-19 pandemic, are part of a single system that has to be fought by all sections
of society together. To continue, the movement must look for alternatives for repressed and
marginalised working people both urban and rural. This means building broader movements
and continuing cooperation between the peasant movements, trade unions, social movements
and all other sectors of Indian society. It also means continuing to articulate a shared vision
of an emancipatory future for all, against corporate-driven, authoritarian, ecologically
destructive neoliberal capitalist regimes. Many of the details of this vision, and what it will
look like for different kinds of working people facing different challenges in different
contexts and situations, remains to be seen. But the unity, democracy, and power of the
farmers’ mobilisations will help to light the way..

5.3 Recommendation

Some of the recommendation are as follow:

5.3.1 The government should not take action based on the profit of the certain interest
group, but should look after the larger group.
 11

5.3.2 As, the farmers were already the victim in the modern economy, the government role
is to support them.
5.3.3 Any law that are against the interest of a certain group should be repelled by non-
violence means.
 12

REFERENCES

Ahmad, O. (2021, January 25). Climate crisis is foundation of Indian farmers’ protests.
Retrieved from The Third Pole: https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/food/climate-crisis-
is-foundation-of-indian-farmers-protests/?
amp&gclid=CjwKCAjwtKmaBhBMEiwAyINuwMDcxUHzyYNlXXnnqpFutmJjkY
gN8N5SJ5Md8LpL8wFhSZaFB92rPhoC9-0QAvD_BwE

Gosh, J. (2020, December 11). Farmers vs. the Indian State. Retrieved from Project
Syndicate: https://www2.project-syndicate.org/commentary/india-farmer-protests-
government-reaction-by-jayati-ghosh-2020-12?
utm_term=&utm_campaign=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1
220154768&hsa_cam=12374283753&hsa_grp=117511853986&hsa_ad=499567080
225&hsa_s

Swamy, A. (2022, Febrauary 24). Peeling back the onion on India’s farm protests. Retrieved
from East Asia Forum: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/02/24/peeling-back-the-
onion-on-indias-farm-protests/