Over 30,000 Indian farmers marched 180 kilometers to Mumbai on 12 March to have their demands heard by the state government – a movement that has been called ‘historic’ by many newspapers and media channels.
However, some have pondered over the outcome of the movement. While the state government seems to have placated the farmers for the moment, accepting their demands, several of the mainstream national publications have posed a few pressing questions on the apparent ‘prompt’ and almost ‘knee-jerk’ response of the state government to the agitation.
Will they really keep their word this time around? Is it just a ploy to win over the rural vote-bank? Will it help change their social identities as ‘victims’?
‘Govt’s Promise is Hollow’
In an opinion piece by Jaideep Hardikar titled Why Devendra Fadnavis Govt is Struggling to Placate the Farmers This Time, published on News18, the author discusses in detail the many ways by which the state government has broken its promises to the farming population and overlooked the slow but steady decline in India’s agricultural economy.
There has been a severe dent to rural and agriculture economy this past fiscal, following a 16% drop in long-term annual average rainfall furthering a sharp decline in farm yields across all commodities.Jaideep Hardikar
In 2017-18, the farm economy contracted 8.3 percent due to weak monsoon, causing more distress to the farmers, with the government making promises they couldn’t keep.
CM Fadnavis announced a farm loan waiver that was then pegged at Rs 34,022 crore. It was anticipated that about seven million small and marginal farmers will benefit from the scheme under the prescribed rules. A year has passed, but not all farmers have got a loan respite.
It goes on to say:
The government’s promise on crop insurance, remunerative prices, doubling of income, compensation against pest-attack, and long-term investments in agriculture sector has turned hollow.
‘Govt Should Overturn Priorities to Help Farmers’
An editorial in Times of India, titled Bitter harvest: Maharashtra’s restive farmers represent a larger crisis that must be addressed, speaks about how the government has in fact been adhering to all the outdated and ineffective measures to help improve the farm economy.
Over the last decade, agricultural investment has come largely from farmers while government has spent more on subsidies. Given the increasing risks faced by farmers and their limited resources, government should overturn its priorities and enhance investment.
It also adds that along with investing, the Centre should enhance agricultural technology and should help provide young people with jobs in other sectors, so they get more stable returns.
“The problems besetting restive farmers in Maharashtra may need immediate relief measures. But their children need more job openings in industry and services,” the piece said.
‘Govt Hopes to Win Votes’
In an opinion piece Why Maharashtra Farmers Today Commanded Such A Following, author Mihir Swarup Sharma commends the smooth way the farmers and the government reached a deal by the end of the day, but suggests that the latter’s agenda is less to do with their desire to change the former’s social situation, and more to do with winning the votes from certain sections within them.
In the piece, he mentions that a significant percentage of the protesting farmers hailed from minority groups categorised as scheduled castes and tribes. He says:
It (presence of minority groups) is also a partial explanation as to why this protest has been treated with particular consideration and care so far. The farmers’ vote is usually important, but all four or five main political forces in Maharashtra are particularly interested in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) vote.
‘Reforms Will Only Benefit Certain Class of Farmers’
Adding to this, an article headlined “Maharashtra farmers’ march: No piecemeal solutions to the farm crisis” in Hindustan Times says that the government seceding to accept the demands of the protesting farmers, will only benefit a certain class of them.
“Data released by the Census of India – and published by this paper in February this year – proves that Dalit farmers across the country are not likely to benefit from farm reforms announced by the government as the policies are aimed at owners of farm lands, rather than the agricultural labour force,” the article read.
‘Movement Greater Than Populist Gesture’
In another opinion piece by Pratap Bhanu Mehta published in the Indian Express, titled A claim for dignity, Mehta has seemed to view the farmer’s march in a completely different tangent.
Experts can debate the different measures needed to address these demands (ones put forth by the farmers). But the moral significance of a moment like this is not just about the technicalities, or political partisanship. It is about the terms of the social contract.Pratap Bhanu Mehta
The article also mentions that this protest went beyond the surface demands of loan waivers and increase in MSP. It was a unified movement, in the sense, that unlike most socio-political movements, it was open to everyone, confirming a common goal for all.
The dignity of this protest comes from the fact that it was not just, as is sometimes the case with protest movements, relatively more privileged agrarian castes and groups asserting their power.
Stating that the movement should be looked at as something more than a “populist gesture,” the article also said:
This was not farmers as a mere pressure group wanting more; this was farmers who are being pushed even more to the margins, trying to hold on to a modicum of existence. It deserves moral attention beyond the calculus of bargaining.
(With inputs from News18, Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express and Hindustan Times)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)