How the Law Hurts - An Investigation into the Indian Farmers

Marhamah Sohail
Jul 15, 2021
7 min read

In September 2020, the President of India, Ram Nath Novind, approved three bills that were passed by Parliament a few weeks prior, essentially turning them into laws (1). Since then, nationwide farmers’ protests have taken place in opposition of these laws, as many believe that they cause harm to farmers. Even in Canada, protests have taken place in British Colombia and Winnipeg, with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (2), which can also be seen in many pictures throughout Indian-wide protests. Passing these laws have been a controversial choice by the Indian government, with opposition from many perspectives, but how exactly did we get here? What is it about these laws that the farmers see as harmful? To answer these questions, we must first look at the laws themselves, and try to understand them. For the purposes of this article, the laws will be referred to as bills henceforth.

The first bill, the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce Bill, is designed so that farmers can go directly to companies to sell their produce (1). This, in turn, allows companies to set their own prices and deal with the legality beforehand. However, a key concern is that 82% of farmers are small farmers – they have less than 5 hectares of land – so big businesses can take advantage of them (1). Being a small farmer under this law means that there is no guaranteed protection if they are not satisfied with the price of their produce or feel that the legal issues cause harm to them, as many cannot afford to go to court against massive supermarket chains (1). This law begs the question of protection; how can farmers be protected when they are open to exploitation in the agricultural market, if everything is decided beforehand without their essential input? How can farmers be guaranteed an adequate price for their labor and produce?

The second bill, the Farmer (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Prices and Farm Services Bill is designed so that state governments can set up Agricultural Produce Market Committees (ACMPs), allowing them to set up markets throughout the state (1). The goal of this is to provide farmers with the opportunity to do business with firms for future years at an agreed price, while also transferring market unpredictability to the sponsors (1). This law, however, also allows farmers to sell their produce outside of the ACMP marketplaces, so they can now sell anywhere, even online (1). However, a problem that arises from this is that outside of ACMP marketplaces, farmers are not guaranteed their usual Minimum Support Price, which once acted like a safety net, by giving a promised price that cannot be altered (3). This price was usually an exploitative amount (1), and the removal of it in other marketplaces can be seen as even more exploitative for the farmers selling their produce.

The third bill, the Essential Commodities Bill, is an amendment from 1955, when it was first brought in (1). This is arguably the most controversial bill, as it seeks to control production all the way to distribution of certain products that are deemed essential, with the idea being that stores cannot hoard these items for future use (1). However, with the 2020 Amendment, certain items like cereals, onions, and potatoes are removed from essential products, meaning that stores can hoard them for future sales (1). Furthermore, this Amendment also removes government power from enforcing hoarding or stockholding limits (1). The problem, then, is that this means that stores can hoard and artificially increase prices if they wish, causing problems for poorer people who rely on these food products, that they would not be able to afford henceforth (1).

The Seventh Schedule within the Indian Constitution is cause for the legal controversy around these agricultural laws (4). Within it, there are three lists where power is distributed between the Centre and the states (4). There is the Union List, which is under Parliament’s jurisdiction exclusively, the State List, under state jurisdiction exclusively, and the Concurrent List, under both Parliament and State jurisdiction, allowing both powers to legislate (4). Parliamentary law triumphs when there is conflict (4).

Agriculture comes under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (5).

Under the Concurrent List, Entry 33 is what the Central Government used to bring enact these laws (5). Entry 33 was amended in 1955 to bring in more products (5), with its current form reading:

“33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,

The products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and important goods of the same kinds such as products;
Foodstuffs, including edible oil seeds and oils;
Cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates;
Raw cotton whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seeds; and
Raw jute” (6).

As mentioned, Entry 33 under the Seventh Schedule, which is under the Concurrent List, has an amendment history associated with it. With the amendment in 1955, points (b) and (e) were introduced to Entry 33 (5).

The bills that were passed have a new interpretation of the law, and as Amit Jaiswal writes

the Union government has tried to it as a standalone provision and it conveniently ignored the context, object, and historical background of the sub-entries (5)

Within the first bill, the Central Government also seeks to control sales within states, though agriculture largely falls under state government jurisdiction (5). In their current form, the two first Bills do not fall under Constitutional law, as per Entry 33. This is a controversial topic, as there are people in support of the bills, and people who oppose them in light of the Seventh Schedule. Farmers see them as exploitative and have gone to massive protests in opposition.

Since November 2020, thousands of farmers are protesting these controversial bills (7). Between September to February, talks between the government and farmers unions have taken place, with no set solution as of yet (7). Though we have outlined the legal concerns, the farmers’ concerns revolve around being vulnerable to the free market, and the end of wholesale markets and fixed prices (ie. The Minimum Support Price) (7). As such, massive protests have broken out, and the January 26th protests are set to be the longest in world history (8). If so much controversy comes with these laws, we can then ask what the government has done to amend them, or to repeal them.

In January, the Indian government offered to suspend the Farm Laws for 18 months, but the farmers rejected them (9). The exploitation that the farmers currently face is not going to go away with the suspension of these laws. The openness to the free market that the farmers believe will leave them susceptible to exploitation by big businesses and supermarket chains will not end with an 18-month suspension, creating the possibility for this to happen again, perhaps even turning into a cycle.

The plight of the Indian farmers, however, did not start in 2020 with the introduction of these new bills. In fact, the suicide rate of the farmers accounts for 10% of all suicides in the country, with over 12,000 farmer suicides reported every year since 2013 (10). There is no one set reason that causes the high suicide rates, but rather, it stems from many areas, such as input costs like equipment and chemical costs, the distress caused by loans, and even a water crisis (10).

When understanding the way these laws can be exploitative to the farmers by giving them no fallback and no guarantees of protection and coupling this with the low literacy rate that stops farmers from seeking out full governmental policies (10), one can see how these laws pave the way for a heightened farmers crisis, manifesting through suicide. The concern for India’s farmers is not just concentrated to India but must be sought globally, for both the protection of farmers’ livelihoods, and their lives.

In a global context, Simran Jeet Singh says that

essential workers across the world are suffering. The farmers in India represent all of them, and their resistance to unjust legislation that privileges the uber-wealthy corporations is a resistance that speaks to so many of us all over the world (11)

With the exploitation these farmers face by large market players, global attention and awareness must be mobilized in their support. However, not all of us can relate, because not all of us are essential workers. Instead, we benefit from the Indian farmers daily. India is the world’s largest exporters of spices, exporting 68% (11). The country is also largest exporter of Basmati rice and milk producer (11). When so much of what we have comes from the Indian farmers, down to some of the clothing we wear, there is just cause to mobilize to support them, through organizations like Khalsa Aid, or simply raising awareness.

The farmers crisis is one that speaks to all of us, either as essential workers, or as everyday people, because we owe them so much. Leaving them to market susceptibility with no way out will only make this crisis worse, and an 18-month suspension of these laws will not help them.

Endnotes

Business Standard, “What are the Farm Bills,” Business Standard, 2021, https://www.business-standard.com/about/what-is-farm-bills#collapse
Samantha Beattie. “Why Are Canadians Rallying Behind Farmers Protesting In India?,” Huffington Post, December 10, 2020, https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
India Today Web Desk. “Explained: What is MSP and why farmers are protesting over it?,” India Today, September 29, 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/explained-what-is-msp-and-why-farmers-are-protesting-over-it-1726658-2020-09-29
Faizan Mustafa. “An Expert Explains: The arguments for and against the three central farm laws,” The Indian Express, September 29, 2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/an-expert-explains-farm-acts-and-federalism-6622769/
Amit Jaiswal. “What Will the Legal Challenge to the Modi Government’s Farm Bills Look Like?,” The Wire, October 5, 2020, https://thewire.in/law/farm-bills-legal-challenge-constitution-seventh-schedule-supreme-court
Legislative Department. “THE CONSTITUTION (THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1954,” Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, n.d., https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-third-amendment-act-1954
BBC. “Farm laws: Are India’s new reforms a ‘death warrant’ for farmers?,” BBC News, February 16, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54233080
Chris Zukowsky. “World’s Largest Protest Creating the History Farmer’s Protest in India,” CUPW VANCOUVER, January 26, 2021, https://www.cupwvancouver.org/worlds-largest-protest-creating-the-history-farmers-protest-in-india/
Al Jazeera. “Indian farmers reject government’s offer to suspend new laws,” Al Jazeera, January 22, 2021, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/22/indian-farmers-reject-governments-offer-to-suspend-new-laws
Clear IAS Team. “Farmers’ Suicides in India – Reasons and Responses,” Clear IAS, January 6, 2021, https://www.clearias.com/farmers-suicides/
Alisha Ebrahimji. “Thousands of people are protesting with farmers in India. This is why you should care,” CNN, December 11, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/world/farmer-protests-india-protests-hnk-trnd/index.html