The Belligerence of Farmers

BY THE EVENING of February 14, it had become clear that the so-called farmers’ protest was turning into hooliganism that opposition parties somehow hoped would turn into a tide against the BJP gov­ernment. With journalists being manhandled and public property damaged, the “annadaatas”, as the farmers who tried to storm Delhi were being called in eulogistic terms, have never been this far from their image among the middle class of a community to whom wrong has been done.

The farmers, and this time it is just farmers predomi­nantly from the Jat Sikh community of Punjab, claim they are pressing for the implementation of MS Swaminathan’s recommendation of the mid-2000s that the minimum support price (MSP) to farmers be 50 per cent more than the weighted average cost of production. But along with it are unrealistic demands, such as a pension of ₹10,000 per month for every farmer from the age of 60. That they are not serious about the MSP is further driven home by the timing of this protest—the last Parliament session before India goes to polls is already over. To top it all, the belligerence of the tractors, some of them fitted with iron frames to force their way through barricades, does not quite match the image of a farmer under distress. To fight for what they deserve is their right. But it is clear from the way this march has unfolded so far that this is a hostile group more interested in nose-thumbing the government, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

This spite comes from the impression that like two years ago, the government will again beat a retreat. Last time, the Modi government had repealed the three proposed farm laws as farmers lay siege to Delhi’s borders for months. Modi’s staunchest supporters had seen this as a weakness and said stepping back would only embolden the farmer groups—which they claimed were supported by the opposition and “outside forc­es” inimical to Modi’s stability. That time, the protest had received a fresh lease of life after Jat leader Rakesh Tikait had shed tears on national television, creating a wave of support, especially from Western Uttar Pradesh. Sensing that this would complicate mat­ters, Modi chose a tactical retreat. But now, it is unlikely that the government will bow down or let the farmers create townships around Delhi’s borders as they had done previously.

AS THE FARMERS came close to Delhi, the government was prepared. It had put barricades and spikes on the roads to stall tractor convoys. As this was unfolding, Modi’s detrac­tors made a rather ridiculous argument that his govern­ment was on the one hand awarding Bharat Ratna to Chaudhary Charan Singh (farmer leader), while on the other, it was laying spikes in the way of farmers. The political astuteness of that deci­sion apart, there is no way the government would allow a redux of the last time when a group of farmers tried to storm the Red Fort and a man was lynched on charges of beadbi (or disrespect) to Sikh scripture.

A week before the farmers landed on the Delhi border, the government told Parliament that there was no proposal for the next five years to frame a “long-term MSP policy”. The govern­ment said it was clear that it would keep offering MSP to farmers while they were also free to sell their produce in the open market, depending on what seemed more advantageous to them. In its defence, the government released data on how under the Modi govern­ment there has been an increase of 115 per cent in MSP. It said the government had spent about ₹2.28 lakh crore in 2022- 23 to procure food grains at MSP, which was about ₹1.06 lakh crore in 2014-15. For example, in the case of the paddy crop, it said, the price increased from ₹1,550/quintal in 2017-18 to ₹1,750/quintal in 2018-19, an increase of 12.9 per cent.

The government said it would keep offering MSP to farmers while they were also free to sell their produce in the open market. In its defence, the government released data on how under the Modi government there has been an increase of 115 per cent in MSP

Share this on

In December itself, it was clear that the MSP as per Swami­nathan’s recommendations was far from becoming a reality. In response to the Akali Dal’s Sukhbir Badal’s question, Minister of Agriculture Arjun Munda said that the government was still “de­liberating on the matter”. As the farmers reached the borders of Delhi on February 13 and were dispersed with tear gas, BJP sources made it clear that the government was not willing to bear this cost. They argued that the total value of agricultural produce is ₹40 lakh crore (in FY20), which included 24 crops on which MSP is offered. “For the last two or three years, people have been made to believe, rather falsely, that MSP is integral to India’s agricul­tural operations. However, that is far from the truth. For FY20, the total MSP procurement stood at ₹2.5 lakh crore, that is 6.25 per cent of the total agricultural produce, and 25 per cent of the produce under MSP,” they said. The sources made it clear that if the MSP guarantee law were to be introduced, it would mean an additional expenditure of ₹10 lakh crore annually. This, they said, was almost equivalent to the infrastructure budget set aside in the Union Budget. Calling it a “politically motivated argument against the government,” they said that the demand did not make any economic or fiscal sense.

“Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to assume that the cost can be borne by the government, at ₹10 lakh crore, where would the money come from? Are we, as citizens, alright with the idea of significantly reduced government spending in infrastruc­ture and defence, or more taxation through direct and indirect taxes?” they cautioned.

A day later, on February 14, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi spoke to a farmer injured in police action. Accusing the Modi government of a dictatorial attitude, he said the government was “running away” from giving the MSP guarantee. BJP hit back, quoting a reply in Rajya Sabha in 2010 when the Congress-led UPA government was in power. At that time, replying to BJP leader Prakash Javadekar’s question about the recommenda­tion (by MS Swaminathan), Minister of State for Agriculture KV Thomas had stated that it had not been accepted by the gov­ernment. Thomas said that MSP was recommended after consid­ering a variety of relevant factors and that prescribing an increase of 50 per cent of the cost might distort the market.

There are clearly arguments on both sides about whether it is feasible to implement this recommendation. There is no ambi­guity that a significant number of farmers, according to surveys, are not happy with the prices they are getting in the market for their produce. However, it is unlikely that the government will increase its food subsidy bill. Also, as established by Hindustan Times’ Roshan Kishore, the nature of the current MSP procure­ment is already biased in favour of Punjab, especially towards farmers with bigger holdings. But all this has got lost in the din. Voices and visuals from the protest site point to an increased radicalisation—the threat to bring down the government, the usage of religious flags, and, as it happened in the past protest, the imagery of Khalistan, including the symbolism of the slain Sikh extremist, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. But only this time, the retreat they are hoping for from the government may not come at all.

About The Author

Rahul Pandita

•