More than thirty years after hundreds of thousands of farmers led by Mahendra Singh Tikait brought Delhi to its knees, a new agricultural upheaval has once again rocked Delhi. A government concerned that it could be seen as ‘anti-farmer’ agreed to reconsider recent farm laws, which promised to open rural markets to private companies, even though agitators are still dissatisfied.
However, the success of the agitation may still be short-lived, even if the government now capitulates to the demands of farmers. As Tikait discovered three decades ago, it is difficult to sustain agricultural movements for long.
Farmers across the country have generally found it difficult to unite for a cause, and even when they do, unity is short-lived. Most farmer-leaders carry weight only within their own castes and communities, and have historically struggled to build broader coalitions that can change electoral agendas and outcomes.
In the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, we regularly hear stories of rural distress and farmers’ distress. However, the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition was able to increase its vote share among farmers more than among other voters in major states, an analysis of Lokniti-CSDS post-poll survey data shows.
To be sure, there were exceptions like Punjab and Chhattisgarh, where stronger opposition was able to capitalize on farmers’ disenchantment. But nationwide, the NDA’s vote share among farmers increased 8 percentage points between 2014 and 2019. The increase in their overall vote share was slightly less, at 6 percentage points. A Farmers Income Support Plan (PM-KISAN) announced ahead of the 2019 elections may have calmed things. More importantly, however, problems related to agriculture were displaced by national security concerns once the Balakot terrorist attack took place.
Unlike terrorism, which creates a nationwide appeal and unites disparate castes and communities, agricultural issues have not gained similar prominence in elections despite the fact that most indigenous people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Like other occupational groups, farmers have often given greater preference to caste and community considerations when voting.
Apart from caste differences, the wide divergence in the lot of farmers in different regions of the country works against the pan-Indian unity. Average land size, for example, is much higher in the northwest belt than in other parts of the country.
Even large protests by farmers tend to focus on the north and northwest of the country. It is not a coincidence that states in this region, such as Punjab and Haryana, are home to most of the large farmers. In other states, the proportions of large and medium farmers are relatively small.
Even an issue like Minimum Support Prices (MSP), which has been a focal point of ongoing protests, affects farmers in states like Punjab and Haryana far more than other states. While the majority of farmers in these states benefit from the guaranteed prices guaranteed by the MSP regime, only a small minority of farmers in this country can derive any benefit from the MSP regime. Producers of fruit and vegetables, generally small farmers, are completely outside the scope of the PEM scheme.
These factors have ensured that farmers have rarely been able to come together across the country to shape election results. One politician who rose through farmer-led movements to make a mark on national politics was Chaudhary Charan Singh, who formed Bharatiya Kranti Dal in 1967 and became the leader of Bharatiya Lok Dal in 1974. Even Singh represented a section: rich and middle class peasants belonging to the middle and backward castes — and they found some success in making their voices heard.
Singh then formed the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) in 1978, and after his death in 1987, Tikait resurrected the organization in Uttar Pradesh. The BKU took an apolitical position, which continues to this day, to gain broad support. The protests led by Tikait in the late 1908s were against high energy rates and erratic supply. Its success was limited due to its narrow social base. The movement largely represented the interests of surplus grain producers and was dominated by large landowners. It failed to voice the demands of small farmers and agricultural workers, and it did not evolve into a broader rural movement capable of framing electoral agendas.
There are some reports now suggesting a broader coalition behind the current wave of protests, but the dominance of one state (Punjab) and one class (large and medium farmers) farmers is unmistakable. As long as the farmers’ movement represents only a section of India’s vast countryside, it is unlikely to alter the status quo.
.
