Farm stir lesson: Reforms sans key stakeholders bound to fail, say experts

The fury of the protest and the momentum it gathered has put a question mark not only on the three farm acts, but also the fate of agricultural sector reforms in general

As one of the biggest farmers’ protests completes six months at Delhi's borders, experts and policy watchers said that the backlash seen over the three acts should be a lesson for all that any big reform in agriculture done without consultating all stakeholders and without taking states on board is bound to face major hurdles in execution.

The fury of the agitation and the momentum it gathered has brought into question not only the future of three agriculture acts, but also the fate of farm sector reforms in general.

It is true that due to the second Covid-19 wave and the general fatigue among the agitators, the protests of late have not been enjoying the kind of media space they did initially. But experts said that unless both the government and the protesting farmers once again come to the negotiating table and re-start the stalled dialogue process, a quick and acceptable solution looks difficult.

The stir, which started as stray protests in some Punjab villages against the three farm marketing acts passed by Parliament in June, gathered strength over time and spread to neighbouring Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The key demand of the agitating farmers has been repeal of the three acts along with a legal guarantee on Minimum Support Price (MSP).

The protests reached a crescendo when thousands of farmers from Punjab and elsewhere marched towards Delhi and blocked the main entry points once they were denied entry.

The Centre on its part held 11 rounds of talks with the protesters and even offered to amend some of provisions of the Acts, but met with little success as the protestors stuck to their main demand of repealing the acts.

The violence of January 26, when scores of agitating farmers deviated from a fixed tractor rally route and forcefully entered the main thoroughfares leading to pitched battle with the police, was seen as a big setback for the stir but the forced eviction of Bhartiya Kisan Union leader Rakesh Tikait and his emotional outburst revived the sagging morale of the agitators.

And within days, western Uttar Pradesh became the new epicentre of the protests, wresting the position from Punjab and Haryana.

“I feel the protests will intensify once the Covid crisis wanes, because tempers are running high as the Centre seems unwilling to re-start the dialogue process in a hurry. But, this time the action could shift to the states which were hitherto seen sympathetic to the protests because of their changed positions like in Punjab,” Prof Sukhpal Singh, chairperson for Centre for Management in Agriculture in IIM Ahmedabad told Business Standard.

Singh, who has been following the protests since its initial days, says that the protests and their intensity has raised a big question as to whose job it is to undertake reforms in agriculture.

“The issue is if you start taking over state subjects then there is no end to it. There is no harm in opening up a sector as has been envisaged by the three acts, but not at the cost of primary stakeholders--the farmers,” Singh said.

He said the contents of the bills are also problematic which is why it should have been thoroughly debated and discussed in public forums before being passed in Parliament.

“Deregulating any sector by itself might not lead to big private investments unless it is supported by supplementary conditions which is missing in this case,” Singh said.

S Mahendra Dev, Director and Vice Chancellor of Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR) said that events of the last six months are a clear lesson for everyone that in agriculture marketing reforms should be best left to the states to undertake.

“Even now in the case of the three acts passed by the Parliament, I feel that the Centre should leave it to the states to decide whether they want to implement it or not,” Dev said.

PK Joshi, former Director South-Asia of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) said that the agitation and backlash surrounding it should not derail the reform path as reforms is a continuous process but henceforth, it should be ensured that the big changes are accepted by majority of people particularly the main stakeholders and the benefits clearly conveyed to them.

Joshi, who is one of the three members of the committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India to find an amicable solution to the impasse between farmers and the Government said that the only way to break the current deadlock between the agitating farmers and the government is to come to the negotiating table and sort all issues out.

“Both sides have to show some flexibility to re-start the stalled dialogue process so that the impasse ends and things move forward,” Joshi said.