The agrarian community’s ongoing protest in India against the introduction of new agriculture reforms has received international attention and support. The Indian government continues to view these protests as fallout of a “misleading and deceptive narrative”. After enduring water cannons, tear gas, and baton charges, hundreds of thousands of unwearied farmers continue to sit peacefully under the open sky on the outskirts of India’s capital, Delhi, demanding the laws be repealed in a struggle to safeguard their livelihoods.
On 14 September 2020, three bills were introduced to the lower house (Lok Sabha) of the Indian Parliament for discussion, namely: the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2020. On 15 September 2020, the lower house passed the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2020, followed by the other two bills, which were passed on 17 September 2020. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, referred to the passing of the bills in the lower house of the Indian Parliament as a “watershed moment”. However, the farmers showed their reservations fearing that the “projections about how these acts will be implemented are wishful thinking”.
By 22 September 2020, the upper house (Rajya Sabha) of the Indian Parliament had passed all the three bills as well. By 26 September 2020, Indian President Ramnath Kovind had given his assent to the three bills, forming them into binding laws.
Following protests within the state, in the last week of November 2020, farmers from the state of Panjab initiated a march towards Delhi to hold a peaceful protest. On 27 November 2020, in Haryana (the state lying geographically between Panjab and Delhi), police forces dug trenches on a national highway to prevent the farmers from reaching Delhi and from meeting local groups of farmers protesting against the reforms. By 30 November 2020, thousands of farmers had reached the outskirts of Delhi and have remained stationary since, with farmers from across India joining them every day.
THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE PROTESTS
Firstly, governments of those Indian states that have adopted the Agriculture Produce Marketing Regulation (APMR) organise markets where farmers can sell their produce at the minimum support price (MSP). MSP refers to the lowest price at which certain crops can be purchased. It is reviewed by the government twice a year and works as a safety net by assuring that farmers make a profit from their produce even if it is sold at the lowest price. As the reforms are designed to attract private buyers, they do not impose a responsibility on them to purchase crops at the MSP. It is feared that wealthy private organisations, to create a monopoly, could offer higher purchasing rates than the MSP for the initial four to five years of their presence in the market as purchasers. Consequently, APMR markets would shut down as no farmer would sell their crops there. Once APMR markets are shut, farmers would lose the choice of selecting whether to sell their produce privately or in APMR markets and remain at the mercy of the price being offered by private organisations. Although various spokespersons of the government have provided assurance that APMR markets would never discontinue, the suggestion of amending the laws and requiring private buyers to purchase at the MSP has been conveniently ignored.
Monopoly of private buyers in the Indian agriculture market has historically done a disservice to farmers. In 2006, in the state of Bihar, APMR markets were scrapped in favour of private buyers. This resulted in farming becoming unprofitable in the state, which continues till date. For instance, in 2020 Bihar “farmers reported receiving prices 10-15% lower than the minimum support price” when selling wheat.
Secondly, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, encourages contract farming by creating a “framework” for it. It allows farmers to get into written agreements with private buyers, the conditions of which must be respected by both the parties. However, the existing practice of contract farming in India indicates that it does not cater to small and marginal farmers, who form 86.2% of all farmers in India. A farmer involved in contract farming states:
Contract farming benefits those who cultivate big farms. It’s harmful to a small or medium farmer. Farmers who only know farming and crop cultivation will fall behind in this system. Only farmers who know the business side of agriculture can hope to benefit from this system. I work with PepsiCo and Mahindra. We have a facility to stock our produce. When the prices are low we store our crops and sell them once the prices rise. A small farmer cannot do that. He doesn’t have a place to stock his yield so he is forced to sell it. This system only harbours losses for small farmers.
Commenting on the state of how private organisations behave with small scale farmers, he adds that “the people who are servile to PepsiCo get gate passes easily. No ordinary farmer gets a pass. Ask any farmer who wants to sell just a few kilos of produce, they are not even spoken to cordially there.” Even Sukhpal Singh, an agricultural economist, opposes the expansion of contract farming by stating that in India it has predominantly involved “one-sided (pro-contracting agency) contract agreements, delayed payments, quality-based undue rejections and outright cheating”.
Further, doubts regarding the effectiveness of the mechanism provided for solving disputes between a farmer and a trader have also been raised. Section 8 of the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020 provides that a dispute may be resolved through a course of conciliation proceedings concluding with a memorandum of understanding. In case a dispute cannot be resolved through conciliation proceedings, either of the parties may approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the decision of which can be further appealed before the Appellate Authority (Collector or Additional Collector nominated by the Collector). The problem with this mechanism is twofold. Firstly, the disparity between a farmer’s financial resources and that of a private organisation, clubbed with the prevalent corruption in India, renders farmers vulnerable to bullying and unfair conciliation proceedings. Secondly, it takes away the balance of powers a civil court creates between two parties with contrasting resources. Even the Bar Council of Delhi cited their concerns regarding this mechanism in a press release issued in support of the protests that states farmers “will not get justice in regard to any dispute raised on any issues as the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the adjudication rights have been given to SDM and ADM who directly work under the dictate of the Ministers”.
In addition, the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020 allows private buyers to “hold, move, distribute and supply commodities like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes”. However, the amendment does provide exceptions to the new rule in the form of government regulating the supplies of the mentioned crops. However, it is only possible in exceptional circumstances like: “(I) war, (II) famine, (III) extraordinary price rise and (IV) natural calamity of grave nature,” making the possibility of state intervention controlling supply and demand in ordinary circumstances an unlikely one.
THE COST OF SHOWING DISSENT
Despite India’s on-the-record support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), since the start of Prime Minister Modi’s first term in 2014, India has, on numerous instances, witnessed human rights violations of people dissenting against decisions made by the Modi government.
Farmers expressing their opinions against the law reform, in accordance with article 19 of the UDHR, led to internet and telecommunication services being shut and slowed down in Delhi and its surrounding areas. The United Nations Human Rights Office commented that Indian authorities should exercise restraint and ensure that the right to expression is protected both online and offline. This is not an isolated incident of internet services being shut down in India. A Forbes report states that India shuts down its internet more than any other country in the world. A noticeable instance was the eighteen-months-long ban on internet services in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has only been partially lifted as of yet following a judgment made by the Indian Supreme Court. The judgment held that shutting down internet services for long periods of time can amount to abuse of power by the state.
In relation to the right to peaceful assembly, embraced by article 20 of the UDHR, there have been two noticeable events where police forces resorted to aggressive means to disassemble peaceful assemblies of protesting farmers. Firstly, on 26 November 2020, in the northern state of Haryana, police forces fired tear gas and conducted a baton charge against farmers marching from Panjab towards Delhi. Pictures and videos of injured protesters were shared through social media platforms, which led to people across the country criticising the unnecessary use of force by police forces. Secondly, on 29 December 2020, in the eastern state of Bihar, several people were left injured after the local police force baton-charged at a crowd consisting of local farmers organisations protesting against the reforms. As is usual in such matters, in both instances the police forces stated that force was used as a preemptive measure to restrict the protesters from becoming violent and causing damage. However, from a panoramic view, these incidents conform to a pattern of force being used in the Modi government’s India to dismantle and silence groups with opposing views. For instance, people across India were baton-charged and arrested for protesting against the infamous Citizenship (Amendment) Act in 2019. This act continues to exclude Muslims, in particular, from a pathway of obtaining Indian citizenship. Commenting on the arrests then, a group of UN human rights experts stated that the arrests were “clearly designed to send a chilling message to India’s vibrant civil society that criticism of government policies will not be tolerated”—a notion that remains true.
In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognised the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation through Resolution 64/292. Although UN resolutions are not binding, India has case law in the form of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. [1983] INSC 206 and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana [1994] SCC 577 concerning the same rights. The former makes the incumbent government responsible for providing safe water for consumption and routine use to its citizens. The latter makes the state responsible for ensuring that each citizen has the right to sanitation. Nevertheless, in this scenario, the government’s militarised barricading, which consists iron nails, rods, barbed wires, boulders, and makeshift walls at locations with large numbers of protesters, along with inconsistent power supply and depleting water resources, has led to protesting farmers’ resorting to defecating in open spaces and being unable to wash their clothes. The situation becomes even more concerning considering that elderly men and women form a significant number of those protesting, yet the government has made no efforts to ensure that protesters have access to safe water and clean toilets.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Farmers’ unions claim that over 200 protesters have died since the protests started in November 2020. However, an end is still not in sight. Although the Indian Supreme Court has put the reforms on hold in view of the protests until an amicable solution is found, farmers’ representatives and government officials have had almost a dozen unsuccessful negotiation meetings. The government is adamant on not repealing the laws and the farmers want nothing more than for the laws to be completely repealed. However, as the human rights violations of those protesting continue, the pertinent question is: how many more deaths, baton charges, and deterioration in the living standards of those protesting will it take for the Modi government to view these protestors as concerned citizens rather than a crowd motivated by political gain? It seems this will not happen anytime soon, as on 8 February 2021, Prime Minister Modi shared his view of those protesting, stating that a new branch of protesters had come into existence, who, like “parasites[,] feast on every agitation”.
Sartaz graduated with a First-Class LLB (Hons) degree from the University of Hertfordshire and aims to practice as a public law barrister in the future. He is currently working as a Paralegal for a class action firm and has volunteered for the following organisations in the past: Citizens Advice, Shelter UK, and the Hertfordshire Law Clinic. His commitment towards pro bono services earned him the LawWorks and Attorney General Award for the ''best contribution by an individual'' in 2020.