The farmers’ protest in India has emerged as a crucial demand against the democratic decline witnessed under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership since 2014. Amidst growing illiberal tendencies and authoritarian governance by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), this protest questions the strength Indian democracy. This article examines the impact of farm acts on India’s farmers arguing that it not only denies their democratic rights but also provides undue advantage to the corporate sector. The infamous controversy surrounding the concept of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and its importance for farmers is discussed, by contrasting it with government policies and actions. It explains how promises of political parties contradict with the realities of agricultural practices.
The Historical Context of MSP
Maximum Retail Price (MRP) exists to protect consumers. Whereas MSP (issued by CACP in India) protects the farmers for the compensation if their crops. MSP is decided by a committee created in 2002. It is calculated by Accumulative (A2) cost and Family Labor (FL) Cost today while back in 2002, it included Comprehensive (C2) cost as well.
Swaminathon report 2004 highlighted MSP is unable to recover C2 cost in most of the states. Hence it should be 50% more than the estimated cost, including the post-harvest cost, for the government and private traders. The report even said the farmers’ income should be comparable with that of a civil servant’s salary.
What did the government do?
PM of India, Narendra Modi was in favor of MSP before 2014 (before coming into power). He even took the oath to improve farmers’ economic standing. Consequently, he won elections and in 2016, and made another huge promise that farmers’ income would double by 2022. As opposed to the promises, he passed three black laws, which allowed unfair practices for private traders and corporate, including tax exempt.
Four years back, the Indian Parliament approved three agriculture reform bills related to the pricing, sale, and storage of farm products, without adhering to parliamentary protocol or engaging with farmers’ organizations for consultation. These laws removed the essential safety net for the farmers and they suffered to maintain minimum support price for their crops:
- The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act.
- The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act.
- The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.
The reforms are anticipated to result in the dismantling of the mandi system, which presently ensures farmers receive the MSP. The market-driven agriculture business model was introduced by Sharad Marathi and Adani groups, after creating a task force which didn’t include any farmer group or even economist. It revoked the “essential commodities Act”, which protected farmers’ rights by preventing hoarding. Pulse scam in 2015 is an example.
The agricultural reform bills signify an ongoing trend towards the privatization of India’s economy, encompassing the agricultural sector, which contributes to 18% of India’s GDP and employs over 60% of the workforce.
Furthermore, the IT Ministry blocked 177 twitter accounts because they supported farmers’ protest. This is the epitome of BJP’s hypocrisy. Twitter official statement acknowledged that they blocked accounts on Indian government orders but what they are doing is wrong, and against freedom of expression.
Impact on Farmers’ Livelihoods
According to Shanta Kumar Committee’s report, only 6% elite farmers in India are receiving MSP in it’s true terms, who are the only ones opposing farm laws. Because those who are not receiving MSP, do not fear losing it because of black laws.
The remaining 94% farmers are living in even worse conditions. instead of securing their rights, govt attempted to snatch the rights of those 6% in 2019. 600-700 people had to die for those farm laws to be repealed.
Cases of suicides have been reported from states such as Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. The NCF has underlined the need to address the farmer suicide problem on a priority basis. The recent farmers’ protests are against agricultural laws that threaten their income, mostly from Haryana, Punjab and Western UP. It is for the same MSP Legal right, which Modi promised in 2014.
Role of Mainstream Media
India’s mainstream media has notoriously sided with the government’s narrative. The journalists have tried their best to delegitimize farmers’ movement against discriminatory farm acts/ bills, by labelling them as separatists, Maoists or even Khalistani terrorists.
The news channels attempted to malign farmers’ image and reputation. The propaganda lens they used portrayed the government as heroes and farmers as Khalistani traitors. Also made false claims that their demands will have negative consequences for India’s economy.
According to World Bank, about 64% of India’s population lives in villages as of year 2020. However, rural India occupies only 0.67% of the front page of print news publications as per the study conducted by Centre for Media studies. Debates on news channels have never covered the distressed farmers committing suicide. Only 0.7% news on agriculture since 2017 talked about increasing cost of production. When the farmers are silent, their suffering is never highlighted, and when they raise voice for their rights, propaganda against them begins on TV. Even YouTubers started to promote the false narrative of government and spread misinformation.
In response to biased reporting of the events surrounding protest, the farmers have founded, Trolley Times, a newspaper which allowed them to produce their own narrative to counter the BJP’s propaganda and misinformation. This has now become India’s fastest growing newspaper.
Conclusion
The economic challenges facing India’s agricultural sector are discussed in detail. The video emphasises the need for fair pricing, support for farmers, and the crucial role of MSP in ensuring the welfare of those who feed the nation. If the farmers’ demands are fulfilled, the cost will mainly be bearable by private enterprises, for them the MSP wouldn’t make much difference. MSP is just like minimum wage of employees and must be protected.
Be the first to comment