100 days of the farmers camping at Delhi’s borders & what the expert committee on farm laws has been up to

As the mercury rises in Delhi, farmers camping at the borders of Delhi who braved the harsh winter are now getting ready to cope with the heat. On March 5 they completed 100 days of a historic protest. “This protest is no longer only about farm laws,” they have emphasized. They are now protesting against repression of activists, journalists, dissenters and also against labour laws.

“Since this government doesn’t seem to understand anything beyond elections, farmers would now campaign in election-bound states against the BJP,” said Yogendra Yadav during a panel discussion.

There are signs of a thaw however as both sides, weary and worried, look for a way out. Summers in northern plains can be as harsh as the winter and with many of the protestors being elderly citizens, there is rising concern about their health. But there is also simmering anger. Farmers are far from amused at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) serving notices to farmers, transporters and journalists. As many as 22 notices were sent by the NIA, they claim. While the government denied having sent any notices, the NIA clarified that it had only summoned witnesses for questioning. Farmers refuse to buy it and point out that the ‘witnesses’ were subjected to intimidatory interrogation, often for as long as nine hours.

They are also wary about the government’s next step. They remember the plight of farmers from Tamil Nadu who came to the national capital in 2017 with their grievances. They camped at Jantar Mantar for over 107 days but received no hearing. And with the Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister repeatedly saying that there would be no change in farm laws, farmers now seem resigned for the long haul while the government hopes to weary them down into retreating.

There seems to be no meeting ground even after 100 days of camping by farmers. The laws, from the farmers’ point of view, provide for contract farming, ensure higher prices mostly for big business facilitated by larger markets and unlimited storage. The laws take away farmers’ choice and make them vulnerable to the interests of the corporate lobby. They also ensure that agriculture doesn’t effectively remain a ‘state’ subject, that prices are determined by private business houses and farmers are denied the right to contest and dispute decisions.

“It is like the government listing the advantages of private hospitals. You get AC, piped music, big LED TV, good looking nurses, a sofa in your room, intercom and a wide array of cuisine—but all at a price,” says a farmer with a chuckle.

All eyes are also on the Supreme Court appointed committee of experts. The apex court in its order on January 12 had tasked the committee to start deliberations within 10 days and submit its recommendations within two months of its first sitting. Since the first round of meetings by the committee was held on January 21, chances are that its report will be submitted on or before March 21.

Another indication that the committee is in the process of finalizing its report is that since the third week of February, the website of the committee has stopped accepting suggestions from the public.

Curiously, several farmers’ unions protesting at the borders of Delhi since November 26 do not seem to be aware of the website or of the deliberations by the committee. The central coordination committee of 400 farmers’ unions spearheading the protests does not seem to have appeared before the committee either.

The confusion persists because while the website lists 15 meetings including two preparatory meetings by the expert committee, only one farmers’ organization, namely All India Kisan Coordination Committee (AIKCC), is named in one of the nine press releases issued by the committee till now.

Curiously again, the committee appears to have held three meetings with farmers’ unions and two more meetings with ‘farmers’ groups’. While the press releases, short and cryptic, mention that “10 unions from 8 states, 17 organisations from 11 states and 32 farmers’ organisations from nine states” participated in deliberations and shared their opinion and suggestions, their identity is nowhere mentioned on the website. Indeed, the press releases do not even explain the difference between farmers’ unions and farmers’ groups.

The committee also met with the representatives of state governments online. But curiously again, names of several significant states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh seem to be missing from the solitary meeting the committee had with the states. The committee however met with industry representatives from AMUL, Venkateshwara Hatcheries, ITC besides procurement agencies like FCI, NAFED and central organisations like NABARD.

The three experts, the fourth backed out before the committee could meet and the court did not name anyone in his place, also held a meeting with professionals and academicians; but once again their names are conspicuous by their absence.

Several protesting farmers allege that the website was not publicized; that no mention was made of the website in Parliament and they had not come across prominent public notices calling for suggestions.

But will the committee of experts, who had helped the government frame the laws, depart significantly from them? What kind of face-saving escape routes will they suggest and what will the Supreme Court then direct? With international support growing for the farmers’ protest and the British House of Commons slated to discuss the issue on March 8, how long can the government allow the impasse to last?