In scenes reminiscent of the farmers protesting against three new farm laws in 2020-21, chaos unfolded at the Punjab-Haryana Shambu border on February 13 as farmers faced tear gas from the Haryana police. The farmers, part of a ‘Delhi Chalo’ protest, were met with resistance as they attempted to break barricades at the border. There are reports of protesting farmers being detained by the police. Drones were allegedly deployed to unleash tear gas shells on the farmers as well as observe and record their protest at the Shambu border.
The Delhi Police too has implemented multi-layered blocks at key intersections, including Singhu, Tikri, and Ghazipur borders. The government has left no stone unturned to prevent the protesting farmers from reaching the country’s capital.
The farmers protest is initiated by 200 farmers unions from Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradeshspearheaded by the KisanMazdoor Morcha (KMM) and Samyukt Kisan Morcha. Their demands include a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP), justice for Lakhimpur Kheri victims, waiving off farmers’ loans, and compensation for victims of the farmers’ protest.
Meanwhile, in sharp contrast to the actions by the Haryana Police, the Punjab Police facilitated the farmers’ march, ensuring smooth movement. The Opposition criticized the government for using draconian measures like concertina wires, drones, tear gas, nails, and guns against the farmers.
What are the farmers demanding this time?
Last time around, the farmers wanted the scrapping of the three new farm laws enacted by the government. According to the farmers, the laws were designed to favor large corporations that aim to control the Indian food and agriculture industry, ultimately diminishing the bargaining power of farmers.
This time, the farmers’ protest in India revolves around a 12-point agenda, with the primary demand being the legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all crops, based on the recommendations of the Dr. MS Swaminathan Commission. The report suggests that the government should raise the MSP to at least 50% more than the weighted average cost of production, known as the C2+ 50% formula. This formula includes the imputed cost of capital and rent on the land (C2) to provide farmers with a 50% return. Imputed cost accounts for the opportunity cost of using resources like land, labor, and capital. It ensures a comprehensive assessment of the actual cost incurred by farmers in production.
The additional demands of the protesting farmers include a full debt waiver for farmers and laborers, implementation of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 with farmer consent, and compensation at four times the collector rate (minimum value at which a property can be registered during buying or selling to prevent undervaluation of properties and tax evasion), withdrawal from the WTO and freezing of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), pensions for farmers and farm laborers, compensation for those who died during the 2020 Delhi protest, scrapping of the Electricity Amendment Bill 2020, changes in MGNREGA (an increase to 200 days’ employment under MGNREGA per year, with a daily wage of Rs.700, linking the scheme with farming activities), penalties for fake seeds and pesticides, and the establishment of a national commission for spices.
The Government’s position
After the repeal of the three farm laws in November 2021, the government aimed to address farmers’ concerns through the formation of a committee on MSP. The committee, formed in July 2022, was tasked with discussing MSP, promoting zero-budget natural farming, and deciding on cropping patterns.
Experts point out, and which has the concurrence of the government, that there are several challenges associated with legalizing MSP. Overproduction may occur, leading to resource wastage and storage issues. Distorted cropping patterns may affect biodiversity and soil health. The government may struggle with storage and selling large quantities if no buyers are offering MSP. Disparities may arise between farmers growing supported crops and those growing others. Farmers growing unsupported crops might face disadvantages in terms of market access and government support. Private traders will resist legal assurance of MSP, benefiting from lower prices during peak harvest times.
The government could potentially experience financial difficulties because of the obligation to purchase all crops at MSP, which may result in delayed payments and fiscal hurdles. Distorted cropping patterns and excessive procurement could influence food security, environmental sustainability, and overall economic stability. Instead, these experts suggest providing direct financial support to farmers, ensuring a stable income regardless of market fluctuations. This approach aims to address the broader issue of farmers lacking sufficient funds rather than merely guaranteeing prices for specific crops.
Finding the middle path
In a recent interview with the Indian Express, Madhura Swaminathan, an acclaimed economist and daughter of legendary agricultural scientist, Bharat Ratna awardee late Dr. MS Swaminathan said, “Farmers in Punjab and Haryana are only fighting for better incomes. All they are asking from the government is that “we want better incomes”. This requires new technology, new solutions, and new cropping patterns but also a remunerative price for what they are growing.
“It’s not that farmers are not ready to change but we have to give them a new package. We cannot ask them to stop growing (say rice) without giving alternatives. Farmers in Punjab and Haryana are more vocal as they have gained from Green Revolution whereas farmers in some other states have not gained anything so their voices are still weak.”
The way forward is not easy. To promote crop diversification and decrease the reliance on rice and wheat, the government must exercise the option to gradually increase the range of crops that qualify for MSP support. This will give farmers more options and encourage the cultivation of crops that are in demand in the market.
Finding a solution for the MSP matter requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account the interests of farmers as well as the wider economic impact. By reviewing the calculation method for MSP and establishing a fair and transparent process for determining MSP, some of the concerns raised by farmers can be addressed.