What do Rihanna, Greta Thunberg and Vice President Kamala Harris's niece, Meena Harris, have in common? They're all rallying support for India's farmer protests, which are morphing from an arcane domestic dispute into an emotive international cause. And they're all mostly wrong in their thinking.

"Why aren't we talking about this?!" the singer tweeted to her 101 million followers Tuesday, with a link to a CNN article on the Indian government's crackdown on protesters. "We stand in solidarity with the #FarmersProtest in India," tweeted the Swedish teenage activist the same day. In a convoluted series of tweets, Ms. Harris, an author and entrepreneur, linked the Indian crackdown to last month's Capitol Hill riot and Donald Trump while railing against "militant nationalism" and "FASCIST DICTATORS."

The demonstrations are a serious national issue for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. Since late November, tens of thousands of farmers, mostly from the prosperous northern states of Punjab and Haryana, have camped on Delhi's borders to protest new agricultural reforms that reduce the government's role in procuring produce and encourage the private sector by easing restrictions on contract farming and investment in modern cold-storage chains.

Sonali Ranade

Sadanand Dhume's easy acceptance of the Govt. propaganda on farm reforms is problematic. Are the farmers against reforms? Why would they object to private sector's participation in trading in food products? Why would farmers object to establishment of cold-storage facilities & logistical facilities that they have been demanding for long?

The truth is superficial reportage on the farmers' real grievances is rife and Dhume's piece only misrepresents the farmers' case to US readers.

For the sake of perspective, let me at the outset clarify that the reforms Dhume is talking about have already been carried out in Bihar. The net result of these reforms was that the price of cereals in the State fell by 20 to 30%, and continue to be well below the national average.

Which farmers, in which part of the world, would not be concerned by 20 to 30% fall in their income?

Let us for a moment assume, the Govt. is right in arguing that despite the fall in income, in a few years time, all farmers would be better off. [This is debatable and very unlikely unless other reforms are put in place.]

Should Govt. not have explained to farmers the steps it would take to mitigate the fall in income? Instead, Govt rammed farm bills through Parliament without allowing a debate by the opposition, leave alone farmers.

Agriculture is a subject where the Centre has very limited jurisdiction. The Govt has got around the Constitutional mandate using the dubious pretext that it is merely regulating trade; something that is a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

So the reforms were not discussed with farmers at all, nor with the 26 federating states, or with the opposition. But you can trust Dhume to ignore all that. That is serious misrepresentation.

Sadanand Dhume:

The protests simmered for months before exploding into violence on Jan. 26, Republic Day. Tens of thousands of farmers stormed the national capital, battling cops and marring a national celebration. Protesters hoisted a Sikh religious flag on a flagpole at the Red Fort, a symbolic seat of power. One farmer died when his speeding tractor overturned at a barrier, according to police.

A standoff continues between the government and protesters at three sites on Delhi's borders. Farmers face thousands of police in riot gear behind concrete barriers, coils of barbed wire and iron spikes.

There's nothing wrong with celebrities taking an interest in events half a world away. But when it comes to the farmer protests, celebrity Twitter activism is based on a reductive caricature of complex issues as a faceoff between colorfully turbaned sons of the soil and a thuggish government backed by evil corporations.

Sonali Ranade

There is so much spin packed into these words, that it is hard to know where to begin.Fact is farmers didn't storm Delhi. They were barricaded at the borders, with concrete barriers, deep trenches dug on national highways, armed police, parked buses, and now spiked roads. They were denied their right to enter the capital, were branded as traitors, insulted & humiliated.

The farmers entered the Capital after receiving Govt. permission. True some, very few, given their large numbers, deviated from agreed route, and landed in the Red Fort, where they raised a Sikh religious flag on one of the masts. [Not the main mast.]

It is not at all clear if this wasn't a false flag operation, instigated by some people who are known to be ruling party supporters.

Yet, the entire propaganda machinery of the Govt. including some sections of the media, swung into action to discredit and delegitimate the 2 month old protest, on the basis of that one stray incident, that the ruling party itself may have orchestrated for the purpose.

Shouldn't Dhume at least mention this side of the story to his readers?

Dhume is no newbie to the Indian scene? Has he represented the reform bills in their true perspective? As I shall show, he has glossed over the key aspects of why these reforms, by wrong sequencing, result in an unintended transfer of wealth from farmers to traders.

But here Dhume criticises the celebrities for something he himself is guilty of.

Fact is, these celebrities were simply asking for the issue to be examined and discussed because on the face of it, hundreds of thousands of peasants don't sit in protest for over 2 months, for nothing. But that obvious fact is of no salience for the jaded sensitivities of a Dhume.

Sadanand Dhume:

If you dig into the details, the moral questions become less clear. Protesting farmers may have understandable fears about their futures, but they come mostly from a relatively privileged minority who benefit from an unsustainable procurement system set up more than 50 years ago. India's leading experts on agriculture have urged reform for at least two decades. If implemented, the new laws would likely help many more farmers than they will hurt.

The idea that the government wants to oppress farmers, who make up about half the country's work force, is absurd. If anything, it's trying to help them by allowing market forces to generate prosperity. Should the government back down—it has already offered to delay implementation for 18 months to two years—it will mark a major setback for economic reform in India and narrow opportunities for the majority of Indian farmers, who are not on the streets protesting.

Sonali Ranade

Let us examine the morality of Dhume talking about farm reforms, without mentioning that farmland in India has a hugely depressed sale value because of unfair & indefensible land-use restrictions by the state, which assume the economic value of the land, in estimating the cost of production for cereals, is zero.

Zero. Let that sink in for a bit. It is a nice round number that Dhume needs to imprint into his consciousness before he talks of farm reforms. The economic value of land that a farmer owns is zero.

Shouldn't farm reform begin with reforms of land use? Today, a farmer cannot sell his land in the open market for a fair price because of Govt restrictions on who can buy the land and what it can be used for. Were you to begin reforms with land use, I will argue, a lot of farm land would disappear, over-production of cereals & cane would stop, open market prices of the same would in turn go up, benefitting farmers. And all farmers would welcome such a scenario.

So why doesn't Dhume ask the Govt. why it did not begin farm reforms with land-use reforms? Why does Dhume skirt the issue completely by buying Govt propaganda hook, line, and sinker? Is Dhume so poorly informed about how the farmers are deprived of the true value of their land & income by existing controls? Is his economics so poor that he can't work out their implications? Why is Dhume allowed to misrepresent such a serious issue?

The idea that Govt wants to oppress farmers is ridiculous? Wake up Dhume. India has been doing that since independence through denial of economic value of the land in MSP calculations.

Why not begin with land reforms as in the rest of the world? Why tie farmers' hands behind their backs, bar their exit from farming but have them face open market price for their produce in such a warped environment? Is this morality?

Sadanand Dhume:

What about the environment, Ms. Thunberg's pet issue? India's current agricultural policies have contributed to an environmental disaster. Free electricity has led farmers in Punjab to lower the water table dangerously by pumping groundwater to grow rice in a traditionally wheat-producing region. Fertilizer subsidies have led to the overuse of urea, poisoning ground water. Every winter, farmers across northern India burn stubble left over from the rice harvest, contributing to the world's most polluted air. The new laws don't address these issues directly, but they take a step toward dismantling a dysfunctional system.

On human rights, government critics have a stronger case. Earlier this week, in characteristically heavy-handed fashion, the government forced Twitter briefly to withhold prominent protest-friendly handles from India. Authorities have cut off internet access at protest sites. A clutch of prominent journalists face sedition charges for reporting unverified allegations against the police by protesters. Many supporters of Mr. Modi and his party cheer on this tin-pot authoritarianism. Some of them also tar, unfairly and absurdly, every Sikh who disagrees with them as a separatist.

On the whole, though, the government, wary of voter backlash, has treated the farmers relatively gently. Violent protesters injured hundreds of police on Republic Day. Indian security forces have shot people dead for less. Mr. Modi's record on human rights is undeniably shabby, but if you're looking for abuses, the farmer protests (at least so far) are not the best place to find them.

Sonali Ranade

What about the environment Mr Dhume ! As a smart reporter of WSJ you have surely heard of sugarcane that is abundant in India that we can't find an export market for it? It guzzles as much water as paddy.Now if the intention was serious farm reforms, to save the environment, surely Govt. would have included sugarcane in the calculus. It too comes under MSP but where farmers are not paid their dues for years.So why did Govt. leave sugarcane, a hugely major crop out of the ambit of reforms? Why are you not interested in asking that question?

The answer lies in the diabolic plan to isolate the farmers in Punjab & Haryana, from those in UP and Maharashtra, because sugarcane cultivation is largely confined in these two states, & not in Punjab and Haryana.A broader question of course is not about politics, but economics. Why is MSP good for sugarcane but not for wheat or Paddy?Perhaps you have better answers than the Govt.? Why do you fail to ask relevant questions of the Govt before pretending to know everything before your US readers?

Human rights? Have you heard of serfs tied to the land in medieval times? Peasants/serfs who had tilling rights but could not leave the land without losing them? What happens when you deny a farmer market value for his land when he wants to leave farming?

Not the same? Morality? Human Rights? You??

Farmers have by and large staged the most disciplined protest in history. But it is so like Dhume to miss the woods for the trees.