It is a good sign that the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) has indicated a cooperative stance towards the ongoing farmers' resistance movement at the Khanouri and Shambhu borders, which is being conducted jointly under the auspices of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) and the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha. The discussions between the leadership are proceeding in a positive atmosphere. It is hoped that learning from past experiences and setting aside differences (if any), all farmers' organizations in the country will unite towards resolving the problems of agriculture.
Just as there is agreement on the major demands of the farmers, it is equally necessary for the farmer leadership to agree on a strategy to get these demands accepted by the central and state governments. The farmer leadership should also develop an understanding so that the energy of the farmers' movement is not repeatedly used in their favor by the players of corporate politics. That is, the farmer leadership should remain continuously committed to the long-term solution along with the immediate solution to the crisis.
However, the biggest task currently before the leaders of both Samyukta Kisan Morchas is to save the life of senior farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on a hunger strike for the last 50 days at the Khanouri border. The SKM leaders who have joined the movement should not allow Dallewal's hunger strike to become a "fast unto death." In the process of indiscriminate liberalization/privatization that has been ongoing in the country for the last three and a half decades, the sacrifices of farmers' lives have not been few. Millions of farmers and agricultural laborers have committed suicide. This सिलसिला (sequence) still continues intermittently. Three farmers involved in the sit-ins at the Shambhu and Khanouri borders have already committed suicide.
However, the biggest task currently before the leaders of both Samyukta Kisan Morchas is to save the life of senior farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on a hunger strike for the last 50 days at the Khanouri border. The SKM leaders who have joined the movement should not allow Dallewal's hunger strike to become a "fast unto death." In the process of indiscriminate liberalization/privatization that has been ongoing in the country for the last three and a half decades, the sacrifices of farmers' lives have not been few. Millions of farmers and agricultural laborers have committed suicide. This सिलसिला (sequence) still continues intermittently. Three farmers involved in the sit-ins at the Shambhu and Khanouri borders have already committed suicide.
According to farmer leaders, 700 farmers were martyred in the year-long farmers' movement against the three farm laws. Many farmers have been targeted by the bullets of security forces in the ongoing struggle for water, forest, and land against their own governments. In the Mandsaur firing incident of 2020-21, which was the trigger point for the farmers' resistance, 6 farmers were killed by police bullets. If giving one's life could solve the problem of land acquisition and low crop prices, it would have been solved long ago. The experience so far shows that the sacrifices of farmers' lives do not affect the ruling class.
Therefore, first of all, Jagjit Singh Dallewal's fast unto death should be broken, and his life should be saved. Saving his life does not mean ending the movement. A new path can be found for the struggle to continue. One way could be a group Satyagraha-fast. A group of a certain number of farmers could undertake a Satyagraha-fast for 21 days (or more or less). After 21 days, another group could sit on Satyagraha-fast. This sequence could continue until a satisfactory agreement is reached with the government on the demands. Farmers in other parts of the country can join the Satyagraha-fast in their respective places.
Therefore, first of all, Jagjit Singh Dallewal's fast unto death should be broken, and his life should be saved. Saving his life does not mean ending the movement. A new path can be found for the struggle to continue. One way could be a group Satyagraha-fast. A group of a certain number of farmers could undertake a Satyagraha-fast for 21 days (or more or less). After 21 days, another group could sit on Satyagraha-fast. This sequence could continue until a satisfactory agreement is reached with the government on the demands. Farmers in other parts of the country can join the Satyagraha-fast in their respective places.
The crisis in the country's agriculture directly affects the lives of agricultural laborers to workers in the organized and unorganized sectors, and to the workers engaged in the service of national/multinational companies that are brand players in the retail sector. Therefore, at least the labor unions of the organized and unorganized sectors can join the Satyagraha-fast. Small traders and entrepreneurs can also participate according to their convenience and strategy. Concerned citizens from the service, trade, and industry sectors can cooperate in the Satyagraha-fast if they wish. If not this, then any other mode of action of resistance can be adopted. But Dallewal's fast unto death must be broken immediately.
Along with a new strategy of resistance, farmers will also have to think about the immediate and long-term solutions to the crisis facing the agricultural sector. Legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, debt waiver, etc., must be immediate measures, but they are not a solution to the crisis. This is a long struggle. The experience so far is that the farmers' movement has been used in favor of neoliberal forces. Kishan Patnaik says that the farmers' movement should also forge its own politics. Kishan Patnaik's intention is to forge a politics of opposition to neoliberalism.
Along with a new strategy of resistance, farmers will also have to think about the immediate and long-term solutions to the crisis facing the agricultural sector. Legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, debt waiver, etc., must be immediate measures, but they are not a solution to the crisis. This is a long struggle. The experience so far is that the farmers' movement has been used in favor of neoliberal forces. Kishan Patnaik says that the farmers' movement should also forge its own politics. Kishan Patnaik's intention is to forge a politics of opposition to neoliberalism.
Whether it was the farmers' movement of the eighties and nineties, or the farmers' movement of the twenty-first century, it has been observed so far that the farmer leadership only goes as far as opposing neoliberalism. The farmer leadership has generally not been interested in forging a politics of opposition to neoliberalism. For politics, it remains dependent on mainstream politics. It also appears trapped in the categories of religion, caste, region, and patriarchy. Nevertheless, the largest area of possibilities for the creation of a new politics can only be the farmer life of India.
The farmer leadership will have to understand the reality that in a country with a neoliberal consensus, a vast sector like agriculture cannot remain autonomous from the neoliberal system. Sooner or later, it has to be integrated with the neoliberal system. To accelerate the process of integration, the Modi government had passed three agricultural laws in Parliament. Due to the long resistance of the farmers, the government had to withdraw the laws, but at the same time, it had also made it clear that those laws would be brought back soon. This will happen. The three agricultural laws, even if in a somewhat changed form, will come back sooner or later.
The ruling class of India sees the solution to the agrarian crisis in the corporatization of agriculture. However, the experience of Europe and America shows that even corporatized agriculture is in crisis. Despite heavy subsidies, farmers there have to repeatedly come out on the streets. The famous Seattle resistance against corporatization at the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference site in November 1999, a decade after the Washington Consensus, is before the world, including India. But the ruling class does not seem ready to think about any alternative model other than the imported corporate model.
This task has to be done by the farmer leadership itself. In India, there are mainly two categories of agricultural economists. One are those who see this crisis from a corporate-centric perspective and believe that the solution to the crisis lies in the corporatization of agriculture. The others are those who see and want to solve the crisis from a constitution-centric perspective, i.e., from the viewpoint of the directive principles of state policy.
The farmer leadership will have to understand the reality that in a country with a neoliberal consensus, a vast sector like agriculture cannot remain autonomous from the neoliberal system. Sooner or later, it has to be integrated with the neoliberal system. To accelerate the process of integration, the Modi government had passed three agricultural laws in Parliament. Due to the long resistance of the farmers, the government had to withdraw the laws, but at the same time, it had also made it clear that those laws would be brought back soon. This will happen. The three agricultural laws, even if in a somewhat changed form, will come back sooner or later.
The ruling class of India sees the solution to the agrarian crisis in the corporatization of agriculture. However, the experience of Europe and America shows that even corporatized agriculture is in crisis. Despite heavy subsidies, farmers there have to repeatedly come out on the streets. The famous Seattle resistance against corporatization at the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference site in November 1999, a decade after the Washington Consensus, is before the world, including India. But the ruling class does not seem ready to think about any alternative model other than the imported corporate model.
This task has to be done by the farmer leadership itself. In India, there are mainly two categories of agricultural economists. One are those who see this crisis from a corporate-centric perspective and believe that the solution to the crisis lies in the corporatization of agriculture. The others are those who see and want to solve the crisis from a constitution-centric perspective, i.e., from the viewpoint of the directive principles of state policy.
It would be appropriate to mention Devinder Sharma here. He is a public intellectual on agricultural issues. He has in-depth knowledge of both models – corporate-centric and constitution-centric. Along with this, he has good knowledge of the agricultural situation in all countries of the world. He also participates in the farmers' movement. His own inclination is towards a constitution-centric solution to the agrarian crisis. The farmer leadership should try to find an immediate and long-term solution to the crisis of Indian agriculture by taking along concerned intellectuals like Devinder Sharma and by discussing with agricultural economists of both the above categories.
---
*Writer associated with the socialist movement, former teacher at Delhi University, and former Fellow at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla
---
*Writer associated with the socialist movement, former teacher at Delhi University, and former Fellow at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla
Comments