farmers’ movement in india essay. The central government has agreed to many of the Indian farmers‘ movement demands, the most important of which is the repeal of the controversial farm laws. Many innocent lives could have been saved if the prime minister had decided sooner. But, as is human nature, lessons are learned later in life, particularly in the case of experiential learning. In any case, it’s better to be late than never. The need to expand legally-guaranteed MSPs to all crops has far-reaching ramifications for crop diversification, land-use optimization, environmental and economic sustainability, and migratory regulation via osmotic sustainability between rural and urban areas.
The farmers’ movement was not an all-India campaign; rather, it was a struggle by a relatively better-off portion of Indian rural society from three states (Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh), who had the economic power and unwavering dedication to their cause to keep the protest going.
The farmers were able to fend off political parties’ clever attempts to steal the movement by parachuting career leaders from “above” and “outside.” The loss of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to serve the “annadatas” is sure to disappoint several political parties. It was a battle (not a class struggle, as no class was pitted against another; rather, policies were pitted against policies) led by an organic leadership that relied on conviction, grit, and determination. As a result, the movement was able to project a sort of non-party politics, similar to the struggle of Kerala’s fisherfolks in the 1980s. Moreover, despite the state’s shady and immoral tactics, the movement was nonviolent (including efforts to divide it along communal lines).
The takeaway is obvious and loud: a struggle does not have to be violent to succeed. After all, peace pays off handsomely. Governments, both at the national and state levels, are being compelled to thoroughly and slowly analyze questions before formulating remedies, rather than seeing them as “law and order” issues to be “dealt with.” The exercise of state power with bravado can be superior to political sagacity and equanimity.
Given the impact of economic policies on India’s socio-economic situations and behavioral patterns; the time is not yet ripe for a “minimalist state. However, rather than being driven exclusively by political imperatives, the state’s “responses from above; must be based on long-term considerations of sustainability and equality. Such a viewpoint necessitates statesmanship rather than decisions based on shifting political instincts. The imperative to ensure widespread economic stability and increase; rural incomes by increasing production and ensuring higher value realization is unquestionable. The fate of the rural economy cannot be left to the whims of the market; while producers should be able to take advantage of market highs, they should not be wholly vulnerable to market downturns. This necessitates governmental initiatives that are precisely calibrated. In policymaking, rhetoric and emotions must take a back seat.
Aside from agreeing to all of the farmers’ demands, the clarity and significance of the vision; that emerges from their perspective must be recognized and utilized. They don’t want to be overrun by “foreign” (read: corporate) forces bodes well for the country. Aside from dealing with the slew of challenges that arise from addressing farmers’ requests, the challenge is to implement a comprehensive centrally-sponsored land reform program and transform the rural sector into a society of self-sufficient producers.