Amar KJR Nayak
The farmers’ protest against the three farm laws has been gaining momentum ever since these laws were enacted in September, 2020. The nationwide protest around Delhi has crossed 50 days and over 50 protesting farmers have died so far on the protest sites around the national capital. The ten deliberations between the Union government and the leaders of farmers’ associations have failed to end the impasse.
Also Read
The three laws pertain to the three critical nodes of the value chain of agriculture in India – (a) Production: The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, (b) Procurement: The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, 2020, and (c) Storage and Marketing by market intermediaries: The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
The first of three laws refer to ‘contract farming’. Such a law was introduced by the British government in India over 180 years ago – the Bengal Indigo Contract Act, 1836. Contract farming even in Independent India has not favoured the smallholder farmers.
Through the second law, the farmers fear losing their last resort of getting minimum support price on the last 6 per cent of their agricultural produce; as 94 per cent of their produce is already under free market; a system that has not worked for the farmers. With the current high institutional deficiencies and imperfect market competition in agriculture markets, wishing that smallholder farmers will gain is illogical.
The third law with some caveats; removes the bar for hoarding of food items (including essential items) by market intermediaries. The farmers fear that this law is a potential threat to price rise in food items. It is the biggest concern for the labour class and low-income and middle-income groups. It is also a matter of concern for most farmer families who having gradually been induced to mono-cropping are inadvertently forced to procure a large part of their food items from the open market.
In the above context, the protesting farmers question whether these laws are for the good of the farmers and the people of India as argued by some or a systematic alignment to global trade and business to benefit a few big businesses, irrespective of their country of origin. It has been observed that multinational companies are stateless organisations.
Since the industrial revolution, business enterprises have followed the strategies of economies of scale, specialisation, hierarchical corporate governance structure, capital intensive, technology intensive, high incentive intensity to top management and key stakeholders to operate their engine of growth. Governments across the world have gradually been roped into this model of development. Through the global institutions such as World Bank, IMF, and WTO, developing nations have gradually been induced to reform their state policies for privatisation, globalisation, and international trade. Accordingly, agriculture, the primary sector of developing countries, is gradually being aligned to WTO to ensure capital formation for the so called ‘engines of growth’ (multinational corporations). In other words, our artificial designs, strategies, policies, and individual expectations have gradually and systematically ripped the basic fabric of natural relationships of lives and matter on the planet.
Technically, the three farm laws are in line with artificial industrial production designs under competitive market economy primarily for efficiency of capital employed by large enterprises. ‘Economies of scale’ as in industrial production or mono-cropping in agricultural production is the technique being enforced to ensure artificial efficiency. Over the years, the economic theories, policies, and institutions have made farmers and agriculture over-dependent on external resources and competences in terms of seeds, soil health, water, farm machinery, value addition, credit, and marketing. ‘Economies of scale’ has also been signaled by the government of India in agricultural production through its statement of ‘one district one product’ focus in its 2020 National Policy Guidelines for 10,000 Farmer Producer Organisations.
Caring for others around is the core ecological principle of Nature. The age-old family wisdom, various religions of the world, Ubuntu philosophy, moral philosophy, jurisprudence, constitutional values of various countries including that of India, Gandhi’s Talisman, game theoretic analysis, evolutionary biology, sustainable agricultural systems, agroecology, and systems science reflect this very principle of Nature: that all life and matter are interconnected, interdependent and are in dynamic interactions in Nature. It implies that self-interest of any individual indeed lies in the interest of others in one’s ecosystem; a notion that was best experienced by humans during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The already over-burdened farmers fearing the loss of their land ownership, livelihood, and even their right to life seem to be determined to reverse the three farm laws or die. The others who were either helplessly watching the unidirectional growth or the middle-income groups who were hoping to profit from the gains of capital formation through artificial designs have begun to realise the power of solidarity shown by the farmers and farming communities and have begun to join the farmers on their march to Delhi. The growing farmers’ protest clearly is a manifestation of decades of tensions between the artificial designs of industrial production and market economy for capital growth and the laws of Nature. The tension between artificial human designs with guile and natural laws seem to have been amplified when applied to the primary sector.
The tensions can be resolved if human thinking, practices, theories, and policies could be realigned to the ecological principles and laws of Nature rather than be path dependent to the errors of the past understanding of individual interest, theories of efficiency, business strategies, and state policies to carry forward an agenda that is against the laws of Nature. Indeed, Nature can heal us all. In a planet that is deeply interconnected, interdependent and dynamically interacting, conscious interactions keeping the weak at the center of our theories, policies and practices is the best way forward. The easiest and wisest way forward is to first listen to the voice of the smallholder farmers who have been closest to the Nature by virtue of being in agriculture for generations. Second, adopt a bottom-up constructivist approach for planning and execution to build flourishing ecological systems and habitats.
The writer is Professor of Strategic Management and Chairperson, Centre for Sustainable Ecological Systems, XIMB, Xavier University, Bhubaneswar.
