Several rounds of talks with the Central government have taken place, but the government has insisted it would only consider ‘amending’ the laws.The farmers’ unions have demanded the repeal of all the three laws - The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
National Herald spoke to farm activist Kavitha Kuruganti from Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA). She is also a member of the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC). Kuruganti has been a part of all the meetings held with the government panel since December.
Here are edited excerpts of the interview:
What is the status of the talks between the farmers and the government?
The last round of talks on January 15 went in circles on policy matters. But both sides said that the doors for dialogue will be kept firmly open. The farmers’ unions reiterated that a resolution to their agitation can only be through these dialogues. The courts and committees can do their exercise in their wisdom, but the solution will only come from the farmers and the government talking to each other. The minister, if I am not misquoting, said neither did they ask for the committee, nor did the farmers’ unions. But the minister said that the government was bound by what the court says as they respect the court.
This is a strong message to the world that these two parties are key to finally resolve the issue.
Do you think the government is serious about resolving the stalemate?
Here is an adamant government which is keen on projecting that they know it all, just like they did with Demonetisation. They boast about their firmness. They want to protect that image of themselves rather than being truly pro-reform.
We are also talking about reforms, but the reforms in the macro-economic world, which mean only liberalisation and giving space to private entities is not the reform thatIndia should be looking at. India’s development trajectory is different. Reforms should mean economic viability for farmers because other sectors arenot going to absorb so many workers. We need reforms that move towardsenvironmental sustainability.
Minimum Support Price (MSP)being protected for paddy and wheat is not really what farmers are asking for. What farmers are asking for is legally guaranteed MSP for all crops so that they can shift their cropping patterns, move away from mono-cropping to grow locally suitable crops and still be assured of some returns. We need reforms which will ensure social equity. Today, there are so many farmers who are not even recognised as farmers – women, Adivasis and tenant farmers. The reforms that we are talking about are the ones which will empower the invisible, marginalised farmer and move them towards environmentally sustainable agriculture, while having a decent life.
The debate has to be about what kind of reforms the government should be backing. This blind faith in BJP being pro-reforms and Modi being a bold man so the government will not budge from the decisions is a wrong attitude. Especially for a government which says that it recognises India’s unique trajectory.
The farmers’ unions are very clear that they will not be the ones who will stop engaging with the government. After all, so many farmers have come to Delhi to converse with their elected government, not with a few bureaucrats or the court. Farmers have been repeatedly asking the government for the next plan of action even after the government has been suggesting a court-mediated solution.
You have been a part of the talks between the farmers and the government. What has been your observation of these meetings?
The talks have been happening in extremely cordial settings. There was humour, with the ministers and bureaucrats joking. Coming from an urban Indian background, these talks reflected a rural idiom that not all bureaucrats or even ministers were familiar with. They were almost like the unofficial village Panchayats where spells of silence were acceptable.
Anyone who was a part of the village Panchayats know that there are spells of silences, people weighing what others are saying carefully and not shooting one’s mouth off. All of these were elements of the talks that I have been part of. I joined the talks from December 3, 2020.
The talks began in October. Now, it’s January. What has been happening in these meetings?
The October round of talks should not be considered a conversation at all. Here, some bureaucrats tried to deal with Punjab unions. The farmers had come all the way from Punjab to Krishi Bhavan in Delhi in good faith only to discover that the bureaucrats were trying to talk to them and not the ministers. So, they submitted a memorandum and walked away. That cannot be considered a round of talks at all. So, when people say eight rounds of talks, they are including the October meeting as well.
Then on November 13, both the Minister of Agriculture Narendra Tomar and Minister of Commerce and Industry and Food and Public Distribution Piyush Goyal were there. These talks were mostly with the 31 Punjab unions. In this round, I heard, the government attempted to deal with the farmers as though they didn’t know the basics of the laws and they only had to explain to them what the laws were about and make presentations. The farmers’ union leaders had to intervene and tell them that they understood the law. These rounds of talks were initiated by the government.
Soon after October meeting, the ‘Dilli Chalo’ programme on November 26, 27 was announced. It was clearly split into two parts. The call was essentially for farmers from the six-seven north Indian states to come to Delhi to converse with the government. Farmers in distant places were to protest in their locations. That was clearly the shape of the protest that was planned and executed.
Several people like to point out that only farmers from Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh are protesting. But, it was not planned for all the farmers to come to the Capital.
When the Delhi borders got blocked quickly was when the meeting scheduled for December 3 was advanced to December 1. They added four more names in the meeting to give it an all-India character. This was the second round of talks.
What was the direction of the talks in December?
In the December 1 meeting, farmer unions raised basic issues of the policy direction and perspectives of the laws they were contesting. The attempt by the government to push farmers towards amendments began in this meeting. On December 3, the list got expanded to 40 farmers’ organisations. In this meeting, there were discussions on constitutional validity of the laws, implications of the law and that little changes would not work.
Here, it was discussed that it was too late for the government to discuss amendments because people have reached Delhi determined to stay on for months until the laws were withdrawn. We spoke on each of the three laws and what de-regulation would mean. The Bihar experience was highlighted. All of this was presented to the government.
The government said they understood the issues we were raising, and that they have realised our discomfort with two markets. They asked if we wanted the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act strengthened and not weakened. Then they scheduled the next meeting for December 5.
On December 5, the government said they had culled out a few points from the earlier discussions and they proposed eight changes. But, they did not mention anything about the Essential Commodities Act or the APMC Act. They wanted the farmers to call off the agitation. Then, the farmers’ unions had to point out that minor tinkering would not work.
Again, the government said they understood that farmers had an issue with the SDM-based grievance redressal mechanism. The government said they thought farmers would welcome it because you will spend years in court to get justice. We thought this will be quicker.
In the earlier meeting, we had already said that these kinds of grievance redressal mechanism which try to create an alternate justice system will become rent-seeking mechanisms by corrupt bureaucrats. Whoever has money will get to access justice. So, they mentioned they wouldn’t ‘mind’ giving us access to regular courts too.
What was the basic issue that the farmers were raising, and the government didn’t seem to understand?
The point that we were making is that in the existing regulated markets, the system is that of preventing exploitation of farmers. The objective is to protect farmers and that is why the APMC was created.
When the government quickly says they will give farmers access to courts, they are refusing to understand that the basic problem is the government saying that farmers are now left to the markets on their own to fend for themselves. This is the government saying that they will not do anything to protect the interests of farmers. What is the point of access to courts if there will be no prevention of exploitation? This is just one example.
The December 5 meeting ended with farmers stating that repeal of the laws was the only solution and the government stating that they have listened to the farmers’ issues. They said they needed to consult more stakeholders within the government. Narendra Singh Tomar said he did not have enough power to take a decision on this front. He added that they would get back to us with concrete proposals. It ended on a note of hope as though there was a commitment being made by the government for a serious attempt to repeal. That is how he presented it.
Farmers thought it was a step forward.
Is that why the union home minister Amit Shah met the farmers’ leaders after this meeting?
For no good reason a meeting was organised on December 8 with the Home Minister Amit Shah where all the 41union leaders were not invited. Only eight were called for informal talks.
In a sense, to attend the meeting with Amit Shah, the farmers’ union broke their norm believing that the government was serious in resolving the issue. In this movement, decision making is based only on consensus. It is not a quick show of hands. Hours are spent to discuss every nuance of the development.
We have always engaged in good faith. This is unlike the picture that has been presented in the Supreme Court that the unions were out to embarrass the government, we were not serious, and we were not talking.
The meeting with Amit Shah ended with the government saying that they would send us ‘concrete proposals’ in a day. The meeting was an exact repetition of the December 5 meeting. But, it was obvious by December 8 that the government did not intend to repeal the laws.
In the next meeting, there was a sense that the issue would get resolved. What happened?
On December 9, a courier came from the government to the farmers who were holding a meeting at Singhu on the Delhi-Haryana border. What came in writing was a further dilution of what the Agriculture Minister had mentioned. Here too there was a unanimous rejection of what the government had sent.
Then talks did not happen for a while?
There was a breakdown of talks for a while after that. In the intervening period the government tried various tactics to break the unions. There was an open letter, advertisements, posters and Prime Minister’s Mann Ki Baat and a show where the Prime Minister released the instalment of the ongoing PM Kisan scheme.
Then around December 27, a few letters were exchanged and on December 30, we sat down again.
In the meeting on December 30, the Agriculture Minister said there was progress. Was there?
On December 30, we went with the plan of discussing our four main points. The agenda was sent to the government. We went through all the points. At the end of the meeting, the government said they would agree to two of our minor demands – to withdraw the Electricity Amendment Bill and exclude farmers from the Delhi air pollution penal provisions.
When the minister came out, he said there was 50% progress. The next round was on January 4.
When we walked in on January4, the only agenda we wanted to discuss with the government was repealing of the laws.
The government wanted to speak about amending MSP law to which the farmers did not agree.
Once again, like the December 5 meeting, the minister ended it by saying that he has understood that the farmers do not want amendments and will only want repeal of laws. There was even a show of hands. He said he will hold consultations with other farmers’ union leaders in the country and would get back to us on January 8.
Did the government finally understand the stand of the farmers?
When people ask us why we are not agreeing for amendments, they forget that these laws attack our very existence.
It took this long for the government to understand that the farmers were sure about their demand for repealing of laws. On this point itself, the government tested the farmers a lot. They tried to see if they could push the farmers’ unions on this. As that clarity emerged, the government tried to resort to the Supreme Court as the only solution.
Before January 8, several proposals were floated in the media. On January 8, the government came with an extremely hardened stance. The usual humour was missing.
V
In these meetings, discussions were not only around the four agenda items of farmers. There was a discussion on how the local police in Haryana was trying to infiltrate the protest sites. A few youngsters who were caught had supposedly revealed it. They were trying to create trouble. From the meeting itself, calls were made and action taken. The practical issues of toilets were discussed.
For the ones waiting outside Vigyan Bhawan, it seemed like meetings where nothing got done.
What do you see as a way forward?
At the end of the day, the farmers’ protest is bringing into focus the laws, reforms and issues of federal polity. Questions are being asked whether a democracy is only about voting once or do you make governments accountable to its citizens. Another issue is about how democracy is unfolding. All these debates and the further intensification of the struggle by farmers will have to be resolved.
The farmers will not budge. Either the government will use force to remove the farmers or it will repeal the laws. That is exactly where we are standing now. The government has escalated the tension with the Prime Minister getting in.
The government spent funds for an advertising blitzkrieg to showcase itself as extremely good and that the farm laws as well thought out. The government painted themselves into a corner from where they are finding it difficult to get out. The government has no empirical justification as to why they will not repeal the laws. We have asked them many times to show how with these laws the farmers would prosper, whereas evidence is pointing in the other direction.
From the time these laws began to be implemented, prices have crashed for farmers. We have heard of at least 70% of trading moving to deregulated spaces. We also have reports of traders running away with the farmers’ produce without paying them. We have evidence to show the negative implications of these laws and they have no evidence to show why they will not repeal the laws. The ball has squarely been in the court of the government.
The government’s intelligence must be feeding it with inputs that the struggle is intensifying. If they thought by biding time, the movement will weaken, they have been mistaken.
