Read the original interview published in Hungarian here. Pasted below is a google translation of the same.
„Indiában évente húszezer gazda követ el öngyilkosságot” – interjú Madhuresh Kumarral « Mérce
February 13, 7 p.m.Madhuresh Kumar is the coordinator of the National Federation of Indian People’s Movements. The Alliance, which brings together more than 300 social movements, is actively involved in the country’s ongoing land rights struggles. In the following interview, we asked Madhuresh Kumar about recent protests, the mergers of the agricultural, women’s and green movements, and the extent to which the current protests threaten the power of Narendra Modi, India’s far-right Hindu-nationalist prime minister.
Officially, however, under India’s most populous democracy, Modi, India has “illiberalized”: in recent years, the government has revoked citizenship from four million Muslims, the border conflict between India and Pakistan has worsened , and the government’s extreme capitalist economic policies have escalated . Millions are currently protesting against the new agricultural laws.
Benchmark : Would you explain what the new laws that Indian farmers are protesting against and why they are problematic?
Madhuresh Kumar : On 5 June 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 epidemic, the Government of India hastily adopted three regulations: the Farmers’ Production and Trade Regulation, the Price Insurance and Agricultural Services Agreement and the Commodities (Amendment) Regulation . [1] These were then enacted in September 2020 without proper parliamentary debates and consultation with the representatives of the farmers concerned.The government’s explanation is that Indian agriculture is in crisis, reforms are needed and we must try to increase farmers ’incomes. We therefore need to liberalize the agricultural market so that more investment and investment can come from the private sector and industry, and so that agriculture can be better placed on a business basis.Farmers also agree that Indian agriculture is in crisis, with an average of twenty thousand farmers committing suicide each year due to debt, despair or crop failure.Nearly 60 percent of India’s population is engaged in agriculture and related activities, despite their contribution to GDP being only 18 percent. Eighty percent of farmers who own land own small land. It’s about an acre of land or two, so they don’t even reach one acre. The other broad stratum consists of agricultural workers who have no land ownership and who work under contract.The biggest objections of farmers are the following. On the one hand, the laws will promote contract farming and under this, large companies (such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, or Adani and ITC) will enter into an agreement with farmers.In a contract between two equal parties, producers have room for maneuver, but where a farmer and a giant enter into a contract, there is no power parity, the law does not protect the farmer.The laws enacted are more aimed at protecting contractual obligations to companies.
On the other hand, they help to dismantle the existing support price structure that is currently available to farmers who own land. Suppose that every year the farmer grows wheat and corn, and the government announces a certain minimum support price , called the MTÁ, on the basis of which the state buys the crop. This price guarantees a secure income for the farmer, while the market price would not even bring in the cost of production. In addition, as more companies and players enter the market, prices will continue to fall. As a result, if the input costs are very high, farmers will not be able to produce enough. Yet state subsidies to farmers are slowly disappearing, with the government slowly withdrawing from the market.Third, the way in which these laws were introduced, without any discussion and conciliation, is problematic. In India, the government can make a decree, but then it has to bring it before the parliament. The adoption of larger laws is usually preceded by at least 6-7 months of prior consultation or dispute resolution – committee discussions, parliamentary debates, or the government can consult with the people involved.The laws in question were announced and then voted on without any discussion or conciliation. They could only do this because they have a parliamentary majority. Therefore, everyone asks why, if this is a piece of legislation as beneficial and historic as it is said, why have we not been consulted on this? If we are not convinced that this is so good for us, then why have our opinions not been taken into account? So the whole legislative process was authoritarian.This is the context in which the protests take place.
Standard : According to the news, the protests in the Punjab region are the strongest, what is the reason?
Madhuresh Kumar : Current trade in agricultural commodities takes place through regional government markets. Regional centers or even regional cities have so-called agricultural price mechanism commodity markets , the FTAs. In these markets, the regional government buys from farmers on the basis of MTÁ ( minimum support price ). Agriculture is both a federal and a federal affair, so it can be decided by both the central government and regional governments. The central state, on the other hand, has more power in this regard.In many regional states, such as Bihor and Jharkhand, the MAA systems have already disintegrated. So farmers there are no longer receiving state benefits.In Punjab, Haryana, and to some extent in Maharashtra, the MAA system is still in place, so farmers here are more sensitive to the new laws. The moment they abolish the MAA system, farmers would lose everything.That’s why there are so many demonstrators in these states – they need to be constantly vigilant for existing laws to remain in place.According to farmers, there are problems with the FTA, but they should not be solved in the way the government is trying. So I want to continue to maintain the existing structures of Punjab and Haryana.
Delhi became the center of the protests on 24-26 November. The protests are remarkable throughout North India, having been going on in the Punjab region since August. Even South India is protesting, albeit less because of the distances.
Landmark : In January, the Supreme Court of India suspended the implementation of agricultural reforms. What is the significance of this decision?
Madhuresh Kumar : When the Supreme Court suspends a law, they have to justify why they do it, why the law is not constitutional. This time, the Supreme Court suspended the law without declaring it unconstitutional. In this way, it has exceeded its powers, its decision is in fact politically motivated, it wants to intervene on a non-legal basis.After the suspension, a four-member committee was set up. The task of the committee would have been to negotiate with the farmers, however, the farmers refused to appear before the committee, saying earlier all four members explained that they supported the laws, so the committee could not be impartial. One member has since resigned. And it remains a fact that this committee has no legal authority. Why should farmers negotiate with them? The decision of the Supreme Court is therefore political, having nothing to do with the actual content of the laws.
Benchmark : Was it an attempt for farmers to negotiate instead of protesting?
Madhuresh Kumar : Yes, but they don’t really even want to negotiate. They say look, we’re listening to you, then why should you continue to protest? Farmers say no, we don’t trust you.The reason for the lack of trust is also thatin the last few years, the Supreme Court has failed to meet its obligations, has shown bias. He was unable to stand up for the constitutional rights of the people.The most important constitutional cases have been going on for a very long time, with the court devoting its time to trivial cases.As we talk, the case of a comedian who criticized a Supreme Court ruling on Twitter is underway. Law students have complained about this to the Attorney General, saying it is a violation of the court. And the Attorney General confirmed that proceedings could therefore be instituted. The Supreme Court is now hearing this case. A comedian doesn’t plead guilty, saying if the judges are really such powerful people, how can a humorist threaten them. Where, then, is the sacrament of the institution they are talking about?
Fathom : The Samyukta Kisan Morche [2] of the press release is that on January 18 at the Women’s Day was celebrated as farmers. Is the presence of women in the protests strong?
Madhuresh Kumar : There are tensions in the farmers ’movement and I think the issue of women has remained invisible for a long time. Indian society is still patriarchal, so when someone said “farmer,” we meant a man. However, the women’s and green movement has brought significant changes in this, the definition of a farmer has changed for some time. Some say that the producers of the tribal peoples living in the forest are also farmers, most of whom are women; and due to increased emigration from rural areas, women also perform most agricultural tasks. I think business organizations see this; women farmers, discourse, and even related programs are more widely accepted. However, the problems are still not gone, there are still few female farmers to see as leaders, society is still patriarchal.
Benchmark : Finally, do you think the farmers ’movement may question Narendra Modi’s legitimacy and power?
Madhuresh Kumar : Modi has already suffered a political defeat from farmers, even under the previous Modi government, between 2014 and 2019. When it came to power, it tried to change the land purchase law to make it easier for companies to acquire farmers ’land. This provoked a huge mobilization from farmers and huge protests took place in the next three years (2017-2019). In 2018, about fifty thousand farmers covered almost 300 kilometers from Nashik to Mumbai, which caused a great deal of repercussion. So the protests did not start now.The question is, and everyone is hoping that this will rewrite the narrative. Even in 2019, at the time of the elections, we were hoping for that.The problem remains that opposition political parties are not strong enough to take advantage of the narrative defined by farmers and workers.(Industrial workers also organized strikes of historic significance, first in 2014 and every year since.)It will be hard to say what will happen as Modi has three and a half years left until the next election. Unless something dramatic happens, what will happen now will have an impact. The current events are certainly inspiring, they have an impact on the discourse, they put pressure on the media and the judges. Opposition parties should also put themselves there.
[1] – Since their adoption: The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020; Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
[2] – An organization of forty Indian trade unions formed during the ongoing protests.Featured image: Picture of Madhuresh Kumar
ear to the ground 