‘Farmers Aren’t Anti-National’

The protest in Delhi against three new farm laws has gone beyond a fortnight and the picketing farmers—mostly from the food bowl states of Punjab and Haryana—are in no mood to leave as negotiations with the government have yet to break the deadlock after several rounds of talks. PM Narendra Modi and his senior ministers have reasoned that the government won’t do anything to hurt farmer interests and fears that the laws would sabotage contract farming, land ownership, and the minimum support price (MSP) for farm produce are unfounded. But the farm unrest is threatening to blow up on the NDA government as speculation swirled after each failed negotiation that it was trying to wear the protesters down, who were also upset over some BJP leaders likening them to Khalistani separatists, Maoist insurgents and the Tukde-Tukde Gang—pejoratives used often against the party’s critics. The protest is unlikely to wind down soon, while there’s every possibility that it could get bigger as farmers from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are marching towards Delhi to join the picketers. The farmers are steadfast on their demand that the laws be repealed. Nitin Gadkari, the Union minister for roads and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), says the government is “open” to changes in the laws. Excerpts from an interview with Bhavna Vij-Aurora:

Six rounds of talks, but no breakthrough yet. Why?

We will take all the time it takes to convince the farmers that the three laws passed by the government are in their favour. Farmers are the only ones in the country’s economic structure who cannot decide the price of their product. It is decided by the dalal, bicholia or vyapari (middlemen or businessmen). A farmer’s tom­atoes sell sometimes for Rs 2 a kg and for Rs 10 some other time. Everyone else, be it a clothes merchant, a restaurant owner, even railways and airlines, can decide the price of their product. A media house owner can dec­ide the advertisement price. Farmers should also be able to sell their produce wherever they get a better price. Doesn’t he have the right to command the price of his produce? Will he continue to be exploited? The laws are for their benefit. They are being misled.

It is not just the farmers of Punjab and Haryana who are unhappy. Farmers in Vidarbha have expressed their reservations too.

Farmers in Vidarbha are not unhappy. Farmers everywhere need to understand the benefits of the laws. No provision of the laws is mandatory. It just gives the farmers the freedom of choice. They can continue to sell their produce in the government-run APMCs (agricultural produce marketing committees) or at private mandis. Here’s an example. I organically produced vegetables in Nagpur and sold them at the APMC. If I sold for Rs 1,000, eight per cent went to the middleman. Now I sell at Shetkari (farmer) market at Pratap Nagar Chowk in Nag­pur. It fetches me Rs 10 more than the market rate, plus I don’t pay the middleman’s cut. I get more money. Ano­ther instance: the famous Nagpur oranges. We recently helped farmers exp­ort six containers to Dubai. The ora­nges sell for Rs 12 a kg here, but they got Rs 32 there. The farmers should get a good price.

If the laws are so good, why aren’t they relenting?

The government has given a written assurance that it will buy the produce as per the MSP. Even fears regarding contract farming have been alleviated. It needs to be und­erstood. In Vidarbha, for example, where farmers are committing suicide, there is erosion of working capital. If a new crop has to be grown, then the land has to be prepared using a tractor. Seeds, fertilisers, water for irrigation are needed. If the farmer doesn’t have money, his land will remain barren. If another farmer with res­ources offers to use the land, it can be under different arr­angements. He can offer a regular payment to the farmer, or there can be a profit-sharing agreement. It is to ensure that farmers will benefit and help them pay their debts, if any. So many success stories will come from this. From where do Adani and Ambani come into the picture?

The farmers fear it may be a different story in reality.

The fear is misplaced. No contract is permanent. The ownership of land doesn’t get transferred. The farmer will not lose ownership. When people don’t get convinced, there is an effort to confuse things.

All the ministers are explaining the laws now. Shouldn’t the effort been made before the bills were rushed through? Shouldn’t there been more debates and discussions?

Both Houses of Parliament debated when the bills came up. They were discussed and all the parties gave suggestions. They were passed after everyone’s approval. It’s not as if they were brought in unilaterally. There are some leaders I will not name now who have asked for such a law and are now opposing it. We are saying even today that we are open-minded and ready to discuss the laws clause by clause. We are ready to accept whatever suggestions that benefit the farmers. Tomarji (agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar) has said it too.

Their demand before was mainly the MSP. Will that be included in the law?

Let me explain the procedure. Every year, a cabinet note comes on the MSP, recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). It is to determine how much the MSP should be increased. Everyone’s opinion, including that of the NITI Aayog, is taken, and the MSP increased accordingly. We have inc­reased the rates every year for the past six years.

But it cannot be included in the law?

The existing procedure is the law. The MSP is the government’s responsibility and it has given the assurance that it will not allow any sale below the MSP.

Have the protesting farmers hardened their stand in view of remarks like Khalistanis, Maoists?

Whatever comments have been made, they are not about the farmers or their unions. The statements are about elements that have tried to misuse the movement.

The farmers believe the government is systematically trying to discredit their movement…

The farmers are not anti-national and there is no attempt to discredit them. It is a democracy and everyone has the right to protest. We respect their right to protest and their demand. They also have to be mindful of certain elements trying to take advantage of their movement.

Do you think a mutually-agreed solution arrived at?

We clarified some of their iss­ues and I am confident the farmers will understand and take back their protest.

The laws are not going to be repealed?

We have offered them a clause-by-clause discussion. Whatever clause they think is not in their favour, they can explain and we can make changes. We are open-minded.

Is ending subsidy in the agriculture sector the ultimate motive of the laws?

Not at all. We are not ending subsidies.