Agricultural reforms must have the farmers’ consent

The fast, coupled with the rollout of the National Policy Framework on agricultural marketing in November—widely seen as a backdoor attempt to reintroduce the repealed farm laws—gave fresh impetus to the agitation. Until then, it had been largely limited to the two border points, with protesters drawn mainly from Dallewal’s Bharatiya Kisan Union [Sidhupur (BKU)] and Sarwan Singh Pandher’s Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMSC). The KMSC, infamous for its march to the Red Fort on Republic Day 2021, had remained aloof from the SKM during the 2020-21 agitation, while Dallewal’s BKU (Sidhupur) defied the SKM when it withdrew from the Delhi borders. These differences later led to the formation of the SKM (non-political). Consequently, the SKM refused to join this current agitation, though unity talks in the recent past have helped ease tensions, culminating in the SKM announcing a nationwide tractor march on January 26. Unity between the two groups of protesters has also been a subject of speculation, further fuelled when Pandher appeared to question Dallewal’s decision to accept the invitation for talks on February 14.

The agitation that led Haryana to fortify the two borders to keep the protesters from marching to Delhi has caused considerable inconvenience to commuters who are forced to take much longer routes to commute outside of the state. Unlike the SKM-led agitation, which managed to unite the state in its favour, this protest has created a divide between farmers and urban dwellers. While Dallewal’s fast did stir emotions in the rural heartland, the bandh call on December 30 last year was met with stiff resistance from traders. Women, who played a pivotal role in the earlier SKM protests, have largely been on the margins at the two border points.

The agitation’s 13-point charter of demands, which includes a legal guarantee of minimum support price (MSP) for crops based on the Swaminathan Panel’s formula, waiver of farm loans, a monthly pension of Rs 10,000 for farmers above the age of 60, and India’s withdrawal from the WTO, has reignited the debate on MSP. Supporters argue that a legal guarantee is the only way to ensure crop diversification and fair remuneration for farmers. However, critics warn that such a move could backfire on Punjab, as the quota system of procurement would come into play, and the Centre might limit the purchase of wheat and paddy.

There is also a realisation that farmers are being used as pawns by political forces. Despite successive governments in Punjab coming to power on promises of diversification away from water-guzzling paddy, none has provided a viable roadmap for change. An agrarian behemoth, Punjab has little to show in terms of cold chains or food processing units. Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) remain underdeveloped, with the focus still on biannual crop procurement and the annual issue of stubble burning.

The agitation, which seemed close to resolution last February when central ministers visited Chandigarh and proposed a guaranteed MSP for pulses, is now hoping for a breakthrough in the talks scheduled for February 14. The MSP guarantee, also recommended by the parliamentary standing committee on agriculture headed by Congress MP and former chief minister Charanjit Singh Channi, remains central to the demands of the protesting unions. While all stakeholders agree that agricultural reforms are urgently needed, the challenge lies in ensuring that these reforms are implemented with the farmers’ consent.

manraj.grewal@expressindia.com