The Persistence of Kisan Andolan 2.0 and the Role of ‘Experts’
The farmers’ protests in India have once again surged into the national consciousness, manifesting as Kisan Andolan 2.0. This burgeoning movement has taken center stage, presenting a formidable challenge to the Narendra Modi administration, especially after its decision to repeal the three agricultural laws introduced in 2020, marking a significant concession to the farmers’ demands. Unlike its usual firm stance on various issues, the government appears to be at a crossroads with this ongoing agitation.
It was anticipated that Kisan Andolan 2.0 would quickly dissipate, lacking the extensive support its predecessor enjoyed. However, the movement’s sustained vigor suggests there are deeper forces at play, contributing to both the resilience of the protestors and the apparent governmental inaction.
Looking back at the repealed laws of 2020, they were poised to usher in transformative changes in agriculture, aiming for liberalization in a sector desperately needing reform. Their withdrawal represented a triumph for certain entrenched interests over progressive policy changes. The cessation of these laws seems only to have emboldened these groups further, leading to an escalation in demands. Current demands include making minimum support price (MSP) a legal right, loan waivers, pensions for farmers and agricultural laborers, abandonment of the World Trade Organization, and resistance to liberalizing policies in sectors like power.
Yielding to such demands would arguably exacerbate fiscal stress, distort market operations, inflate prices, and unfairly burden taxpayers. Despite the apparent irrationality of these demands, a significant portion of the political, intellectual, and opinion-making elites has expressed sympathy with the protestors. This sentiment raises critical questions about the singular privileges accorded to the agricultural sector, especially when compared to other professions where such safety nets are non-existent.
The MSP scheme, while benefiting a minority of farmers engaged in the cultivation of crops like wheat, rice, and sugarcane, has been criticized for distorting cropping patterns and disadvantaging both the environment and the broader agricultural ecosystem. The argument for making MSP a legal right further complicates this issue, suggesting potential for greater inefficiency and inequity at the expense of the larger taxpayer base and the detriment of smaller farmers.
Yet, the discourse around agriculture remains disproportionately romanticized, with farmers often elevated to a near-divine status in political and cultural narratives. This romanticization has significant implications, fostering a political environment wherein myths and populist narratives overshadow empirical realities and reasoned debate. The continuation of such discourse not only perpetuates economic and social misconceptions but also materially impacts millions in the Delhi-NCR region, who bear the brunt of security measures against protestors.
In conclusion, the enduring Kisan Andolan 2.0 and the sympathetic stance of certain ‘experts’ towards it highlight a complex interplay of politics, economics, and societal values. While the agitation reflects legitimate grievances, the dialogue surrounding it is mired in oversimplifications and idealizations that hinder constructive engagement with the issues at hand. As India continues to grapple with these challenges, the resolution will necessitate a nuanced understanding that transcends populist sentiments and confronts the realities of agricultural modernization and reform.
