24 Farmers’ Movement in India

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Objective

3. Organization and Leadership of Farmers’ Movement

3.1 Major demands of the Farmers’ Movement in India

3.2 Features of Farmers’ Movement.

4. New Social Movement Theory.

4.1 Farmers’ Movement as New Social Movement

4.2  Counterclaims of Farmers’ Movement as New Social Movements

5. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Emerging in 1970s and gaining farther momentum in 1980s, the farmers’ movement in India has exposed some newer contradictions of Indian agrarian society. Participated mostly by the middle and rich farmers of different Indian states, the farmers’ movement represents a distinct phase in the history and tradition of agrarian unrest in India. Unlike the earlier mobilizations of the small and marginal peasants along with the landless agricultural labourers against the zaminders and landlords, the farmers’ movement, concerned mostly with the demands of the upper stratum of the rural society, poses certain interesting questions about the relatively long tradition of mobilization of the peasantry. Questions arise whether the farmers’ movement is an aftermath or more developed stage of the peasant movements in India or whether it can be considered as the denial or rejection of the fundamental dynamics characterizing the peasant mobilization against the landed gentry of the rural society.

Here a note on the difference between the two terms peasants and farmers seems necessary for conceptual clarity. This is more so to understand the range of debates concerning the difference or similarities between the peasant movement and the farmers’ movement in India. Ghanshyam Shah (1990: 32) argues that the term ‘peasant’ is ambiguous though it is used for those agriculturalists who are homogeneous, with small holdings operated by family labour and who produce mainly for his family purpose. There are however some scholars who would prefer to use the term broadly to refer to all classes of people engaged in agriculture. But going by recent trends in classifying different classes of agriculturalists, we would use the term ‘farmer’ to refer to a person ‘who owns or manages a farm’ and produces for the market. In other words, the term farmer would be used to refer to propertied and well-established agrarian strata of the rural society.

2. Objectives

Scholars, researchers and social analysts are divided on their opinion about the character and pattern of conflict-core of the farmers’ movement. While some of them see in it a continuation of the earlier tradition of peasant movements, others consider is as a disjuncture. Students of the sociology of social movements need to focus on both these orientations to develop a critical understanding about the nature of farmers’ movement in particular and that of the agrarian struggle in India, in general. The present module is an endeavour towards this.

3.  Organization and Leadership of Farmers’ Movement

Since its emergence in the 1970s, farmers’ movement has operated under the aegis of different organizations and leadership in different states of India. The most important ones being the ‘Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, led by Sharad Joshi; the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), led by M.S. Tikait in Uttar Pradesh (UP), and by Ajmer Singh Lakhowal, Balbir Singh Rajwal and Bhupinder Singh Mann in the Punjab; the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh in Gujarat; the Tamil Nadu Agriculturalists’ Association {Tamilaga Vyavasavavigal Sangham or (TVS)} in Tamil Nadu, led by Narayanaswamy Naidu; and the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association (Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha or KRRS) in Karnataka, led by M.D. Nanjundaswamy’ (Brass 1994: 3).

3.1. Major demands of the Farmers’ Movement in India 

In spite of having subtle differences in ideological and strategic aspects, these organizations have stressed on the following demands of farmers in their respective territories

1. Lower prices on inputs like seeds, fertilisers, pesticides.

2.  Lower tariffs on electricity and water.

3.  Abolition of land revenue and imposition of tax based on output alone.

4.  Waiving of loans owed by farmers to the government, banks and cooperative societies, which are the offshoots of the unjustified levy system and low prices imposed by the government.

5.  Reduction of rate of interest on fresh loans.

6.  Removal of tax along with other restrictions on the use of agricultural implements like tractors and tractor-trailers.

7.  Fixation of agricultural prices realistically keeping into consideration the input prices and man-hours spent for production.

8.  Higher output prices with respect to products of grains, cash-crops, vegetables, milk and so on.

9.  Introduction of crop insurance.

10.  The removal of discrepancy in the terms of trade between industry and agriculture which has been largely in favour of the former at the cost of the latter.

A close scrutiny of the demands mentioned above, however, reveals a central tendency toward an increase in output prices of agricultural products and lowering of the input costs which are the demands of a typical farmer. Certainly this would benefit the farmers by enhancing agricultural profitability, which the Green Revolution, in spite of its resultant increase in agricultural productivity, failed to ensure to them (Dhanagare 2013). Although provision for social security schemes like old age pensions to every farmer and extension of reservation benefits in educational institutions and employment for the farmers’ children have featured in their charter of demands (Nadkarni 1973), but, interestingly, the age-old issues of peasant movements like implementation of land reform laws, distribution of surplus land, protection of small peasants or tenants, cause of the agricultural labourers, or for that matter, the demand to raise the minimum wages of the farm labourers have not been taken up by these farmers’ organization very seriously. Gupta (2005: 754) also maintains that, ‘Except for certain pockets in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, the concerns of the agricultural worker do not get political expression anywhere else.’ This is quite obvious since in these mobilizations, he continues, ‘…it was clearly stated that anyone who did not own land was not really a farmer’ (ibid.: 754). Against the background of the tradition of earlier peasant movements in India, which had espoused primarily the causes of the landless labourers and other marginal section of the peasantry, this, perhaps, can be considered as a pointer to the bias of the farmers’ movement towards the classes of rich and middle farmers.

3.2. Features of Farmers’ Movement

Dhanagare (2013) in his analysis of farmers’ movement in Maharashtra has pointed out the followings as some of its notable features:

1.  Pan Indian scope: In contrast to the pre- 1950 peasant movements, which were largely region or district specific or at best had one or two states as their field of operation, the farmers’ movement of the 1970s and 80s has drawn their support, though not well coordinated always, from the farmers all over India except few states like Kerala, West Bengal and the North- East. Hence, farmers’ movement has an almost universal presence throughout the length and breadth of the country.

2.  Uniformity of demands: Farmers’ movements in different states have uniform demand for ‘cost-based agricultural prices for the farm produce and other related economic demands of farmers’ (ibid. 173). As is evident from the list of important demands of the movements mentioned earlier, it can be easily discerned that everywhere protection of the interest of the farmers by increasing agricultural profitability has been the central concern of the movement.

3. Common strategies of agitation: Farmers’ movements in different states have exhibited similarities in their strategies or methods of agitation. There have been massive demonstrations (dharnas, gheraos) involving lakhs of farmers. Blocking of road including highways and railways (rasta roko) has also been there. Often the entry of the politicians and government officials into the villages has been barred (gavband). Their strategy also includes boycott of mandis (local agro-business hub) either in the form of refusal to sell farm produce especially onion, cotton and tobacco in market or in the form of refusal to sell farm produce at low prices. Such refusal to sell farm produce in the market has resulted in sharp price rises (Lindberg 1994). Farmers of different states have often organized protest marches in the form of rallies (morchas) to make their demands felt. They often have also refused to pay tax arrears and electricity bills along with the refusal to pay the interest of the loans taken from banks and credit cooperatives. In a much similar vein to Dhanagare’s (2013) characterization of the movement as non-violent, Lindberg (1994) also believes that the strategies of the farmers’ movement in different states have exhibited close resemblance with the civil disobedience movement. But since the dying phase of the 1980s, farmers’ movement has deviated from such a path of non-violence. Sharad Joshi, one of the prominent leaders of this movement, put the onus on the growing influence and strength of the communal forces. Joshi thus said, “We were prepared to die one by one for our cause, but they are sending thousands to death. Violence dominates the political scene today, and there is less room for our type of confrontation with the state” (cited by Lindberg 1994: 96).

4.  Intellectual and charismatic leadership: The farmers’ movements of different states in most cases have found their leaders from among the farmers themselves. Besides being farmers themselves, some of these leaders are truly intellectuals having the necessary theoretical and analytical capability to articulate the demands of the farmers with all sorts of ideological justifications. Perhaps, such intellectual ability has been responsible to elevate some of the leaders of the farmers’ movement to the stature of charismatic leadership (Lindberg 1994). This is especially true for Sharad Joshi, a retired UN official, and Mahendra Singh Tikait, a Jat peasant and clan leader who have the analytical skill to theoretically situate the demands of the farmers along with leading the agitations from the front. Such a quality of leadership is indeed very rare and Dhanagare (2013: 174) rightly points out its impact when he says, “For the first time in the history of protest movements in post-colonial India, the new farmers’ movements were advancing not only new agendas but also presenting new ideas in theoretical and ideological discourses.” This is reflected in the leaders’ analysis of the penetration of global capitalism into the farm sector of India and the response of the state towards it, the imbalances and crisis induced by the Green Revolution in farm sector etc. What is noticeable is their capability to formulate and articulate the demands of the farmers in a language which is well within the range of perception of the latter. Careful consideration of the issues, concerns, values and modes of action of the farmers’ movement often has led many scholars to characterize it as a new social movement. Perhaps, the claims and counter claims pertaining to the importance of class in the movement and the nature of identity politics involved in the ontological construction of the concept of ‘farmers’ along with the ‘rural’ as the mobilisational field of the movement have been instrumental for it. Before examining the validity of such claims a brief focus on the new social movement approach seems necessary here.

4. New Social Movement Theory

New social movement theory attempts to analyze contemporary forms of collective action in the western societies which many scholars believe to have entered into the post-industrial phase. This approach has emerged in large part as a response to the inadequacies of classical Marxism in grasping the nature of collective action in such type of societies. Keeping aside the debate with classical Marxism which is, however, beyond the scope of the present exercise, an attempt is made here to note the cornerstones of the new social movement approach.

One of the foremost attempts to characterize the new social movements is made by Cohen (1985), who has outlined four important features of new social movements. According to him (p.669) the, first feature pertains to the aim of the participants who, ‘… do not seek to return to an undifferentiated community free of all power and all forms of inequality.’ In more concrete terms, they want to protect and, ‘extend the spaces for social autonomy (ibid.: 669).’ Second, the participants, ‘…struggle in the name of autonomy, plurality, and difference, without, however, renouncing the formal egalitarian principles of modern civil society or the universalistic principles of the formally democratic state (ibid.: 669)’. Hence, their striving for autonomy does not violate the principles of egalitarianism and universalism of the civil society and the state respectively. Third, the actors to a certain extent are willing to, ‘…relativize their own values with respect to one another… (ibid: 669-70)’ implying their readiness to accept value differences by denouncing absolutism. Fourth, ‘Many contemporary activists accept the existence of the formally democratic state and the market economy (ibid.: 670)’. Hence they do not find any contradiction between the operations of the free market in a democratic state. Buechler (1995:442) has mentioned some of the common themes running through the various theories of new social movements, which are as under: ‘First, most strands of new social movement theory underscore symbolic action in civil society or the cultural sphere as a major arena for collective action alongside instrumental action in the state or political sphere (Cohen 1985; Melucci 1989). Second, new social movement theorists stress on the importance of processes that promote autonomy and self-determination instead of strategies for maximizing influence and power (Habermas 1984-1987; Rucht 1988). Third, some new social movement theorists emphasize the role of postmaterialist values in much contemporary collective action, as opposed to conflicts over material resources (Inglehart 1990; Dalton, Kuechler, and Burklin 1990). Fourth, new social movement theorists tend to problematize the often fragile process of constructing collective identities and identifying group interests, instead of assuming that conflict groups and their interests are structurally determined (Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994; Johnston, Larana, and Gusfield 1994; Klandermans 1994; Melucci 1989; Stoecker 1995). Fifth, new social movement theory also stresses the socially constructed nature of grievances and ideology, rather than assuming that they can be deduced from a group’s structural location (Johnston, Larana, and Gusfield 1994; Klandermans 1992). Finally, new social movement theory recognizes a variety of submerged, latent, and temporary networks that often undergird collective action, rather than assuming that centralized organizational forms are prerequisites for successful mobilization (Melucci 1989; Gusfield 1994; Mueller 1994)’.

What is evident from the foregoing is a shift in focus of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements. This is primarily revealed first, through the greater emphasis placed on the cultural sphere as the locus of collective action by the new social movement approach instead of the economy or ‘productivism’ of the ‘old’ ones. Second, new social movement theory highlights the importance of grass-root, non-institutional and non-conventional action of everyday life moving beyond the limits of conventionalities of the ‘old’ social movements. Third, the new social movement approach is anchored in the process of identity construction and contestation thereof in and through the movement itself. To this orientation, identities of the participants are constructed gradually with gradual unfolding of the movement. Hence, construction of identity in and through the conflictual social process becomes the central theme of the new social movement instead of the emphasis of the conventional social movements on class or related structural determination of the participants. Finally, considered from the specific standpoint of the institutional political discourses of the old movements, new social movements are seemingly apolitical. It is true that there has been considerable uncertainty regarding the political status of new social movements which can be most prominently found in Touraine’s insistence on direct political counter offensive to achieve the appeals to identity. Habermas (1981: 33), perhaps, has come with a possible answer when he argues that the new social movements are associated with a new politics which is concerned with ‘…problems of quality of life, equality, individual self-realization, participation, and human rights.’ As the new conflicts ‘arise in the areas of cultural reproduction’ rather than ‘material reproduction’ so ‘they are no longer channelled through parties and organizations (ibid.: 33)’. Moreover, Habermas (ibid.) maintains that compared to old politics, new politics finds is support base more among the middle class and younger generations and those with higher levels of formal education. Obviously, such a different connotation and nature of politics takes it away from the scope of conventional institutional political parties.

4.1. Farmers’ Movement as New Social Movement

Now the question is can the farmers’ movement in India also be classified as an example of new social movement? The answer of the question is indeed complex. As a matter of fact, the act of typifying social movements is very difficult since by nature social movements are of the kaleidoscopic variety. As an expression of the internal dynamics of any given society, social movements are ever changing since no society is stable along the dimension of time. Often a single social movement through the course of its gradual unfolding can acquire infinite range of variable properties which makes the task of classification problematic, if not impossible. This is equally true of the farmers’ movement in India. Perhaps, due to this there has been range of opinions regarding the newness of the farmers’ movement. Let us reviews some of these arguments.Byres (1995: 1-2) have found four senses in which the farmers’ movement in India can be thought of as a new social movement. In his words these are, ‘…agency had passed from ‘peasants’ to ‘farmers’; the central focus of rural agitation had shifted from land to prices; the essential agitational form was a non-party one; and distinctive, novel methods of agitation were employed… During the 1980s there was a fifth, limited, sense in which these movements might be seen as ‘new’: with a broadening of agenda and ideology to include the environment and women’s issues. .. part of world wide ‘new social movements’ which embrace a new set of post material values…’ Considering the farmers’ movement as a response to the interaction of the Indian state with western capitalism, imperialism, neo-colonialism and later globalization during the last two decades of the twentieth century, Assadi (2002) also finds several grounds for which the farmers’ movement can be thought of a new social movement. In his words, the reasons for this are: ‘…first, unlike the earlier struggles, which were about land, market and prices became the most important issues. Second, the struggle was directed against external agencies such as the state, and industrial capital/international capital. Third, unlike the earlier farmers’ movements, the ‘new’ movements bring together entire rural populations, past and present, irrespective of the economic, ethnic, caste, religious, and political differences. Fourth, they believed in discoursing on a large number of issues. Thereby, they placed emphasis on creating a rational farmer within the larger framework. Finally, they believed in retrieving the communitarian life in the context of capitalism, both western and indigenous, threatening the identities, communitarian life and cultural practices.’ (p. 43)

Dipankar Gupta (2005) also in his discussion about the farmers’ movement in India has put emphasis on its non-class nature. This is apparent when he argues that, ‘Rural agitations today are no longer between agricultural labourer and landlord as used to be the case as late as the 1970s’ (ibid.: 754). With this shift in the nature of contradiction the chief adversary also has changed which in his words, is ‘…no longer local, but supra-local, even the government of India’ (ibid.: 755).

Agreeing with that the basic contradiction in the farmers’ movement is between the state and the ‘peasantry’ instead of the peasantry and the local landlords characteristic of the traditional peasant movements, Lindberg (1994), however, mentions about the organizational aspects of the farmers’ movement, which also brings it close to the new social movements of the contemporary period. Citing the example of the Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, he argues that the organizational form of the farmers’ movement is, ‘…anarchic or ‘post-modern’ in the sense that, much like new social movements in the West, it builds structures around actions rather than routine organisation. There is no fixed membership, no fixed rules of organisation, or strict tiers between local, intermediate and top levels in the organisation. Anybody who wears the badge, who participates in agitation… is a member’ (p. 112).

Along with the newness of the farmers’ movement traced in its non-political form characterized by the anti-urban/ anti-state/anti-capitalist ideological content, Omvedt (1994), like Lindberg, also finds its similarities with the new social movements as far as the informal organizational pattern is concerned. She points out that the organizational structure of the farmers’ movement, ‘…is informal, with a good deal of adhocism and flexibility. There is no formal membership but a badge with the name of the organisation written in white on red…” (ibid.: 137).

Hence, in all these assertions about the nature of farmers’ movement in India we can find the echo of the new politics occupying the ‘non-institutional’ space which Habermas (1981) and Offe (1985) have attributed to the basic character of the new social movements. To substantiate it further all these scholars have also stressed on the non-class or post-class orientation of the farmers’ movement which has largely been a quest for the farmers’ identity within the larger structural binaries of rural versus urban, agriculture versus industry, colonized versus colonialist, indigenous versus non-indigenous or more broadly east versus the west. This has been clearly epitomized by Sharad Joshi’s powerful slogan of ‘Bharat against India!’ Joshi (1981) also clarifies the duality when he says,

‘India corresponds to that notional entity that has inherited from the British the mantle of economic, social, cultural and educational exploitation while Bharath is that notional entity which is subject to exploitation for the second time ever since the termination of the external colonial regime. In brief, the Black Britishers have replaced the white ones to the benefit of Bombay rather than that of Manchester’ (Joshi 1981 quoted in Assadi, 2002: 44). 

Here Joshi appears to be invoking the internal colonialism thesis in a quite vociferous manner, which is the substance of identity formation in many instances of ethnic conflict situation and oppression of the Dalits and minorities especially in Indian context. It is clear from his message that the indigenous rural ‘Bharat’ has become the colony of the urban ‘India’. The power of such a process of identity construction over that of class is clear from Joshi when in another occasion he comments, ‘The real contradiction is not in the village, not between big peasants and small, not between landowners and landless, but between the agrarian population as a whole and the rest of the society’ (Interview, March 1989, mentioned by Lindberg 1994: 96). 

Identity assertion of the farmers has also found expression in M.S. Tikait of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (B.K.U.) who claims that he has been fighting ‘…to safeguard the honour, dignity and self-respect of the kisans…’ as says, Zoya Hasan (1989: 2663). In a much similar vein to Sharad Joshi in Maharashtra and M.D. Nanjundaswamy of the Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha or KRRS, in Karnataka, he has strongly articulated the widespread feeling of discrimination of the kisans in countryside by the urban based politicians, bureaucracy and the government. Tikait, after some of his visits to Delhi, has expressed explicitly his feeling of such discrimination when he argues, ‘Let’s talk about land reforms when there is a ceiling on urban property – look at those skyscrapers!’ (Quoted by Lindberg 1994: 97). Moreover, alike the trend of new social movements like peace, human rights or environmental movements, the BKU under Tikait has consciously maintained distance from institutional politics marked by the competition of political parties. In the words of Hasan (1989: 2665),

‘Neutrality was perceived as crucial to establish the credibility of the BKU in the eyes of the government. Besides, any political choice would have detracted from the organic appeal of the BKU. Political action initiated by a non-party organisation and inspired by a populist kisan ideology, was likely to draw into its framework the full range of identities of caste, clan, community and class.’

From these it is apparent that the farmers’ movement unlike the earlier tradition of peasant movements in India has largely adopted the non-class and non-institutional political path by sticking resolutely to the identity of the ‘farmer’ composed ontologically by the owner cultivators, counterposed ideologically and practically to the industrial/urban working class.

Applying the postcolonial theory to analyze the nature of farmers’ politics and mobilization in India, Akhil Gupta (1998) perceives this process of identity construction as an offshoot of the development discourse which re-inscribes inequalities after the formal end of colonial domination in the postcolonial world. In this discourse, ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘developing’ simply means ‘backward, deficient, inadequate, behind’ (ibid: 11), while, the ‘developed,’ signifies the opposite adjectives. It is needless to mention that, the ‘Bharat vs. India’ contradiction embodies the ‘underdeveloped vs. the developed’ notion constructed by the development discourse, being pursued in postcolonial India, which signifies the rural as backward or lagging behind the more advanced urban sector. In fact, the whole gamut of identity politics expressed by the farmers’ mobilization is rooted in a kind of populism that characterizes the state as the chief opponent since it has been catering to the interest of the industrial / urban sector, neglecting the rural. Certainly, this feeling of discrimination against the rural has its genesis in the Nehruvian model of development which accorded highest priority to the growth of the industrial sector as the chief marker of development of independent India. Instead of increase in investment, agricultural development was seen in this model as a factor of institutional reform pertaining to land reform and collective or cooperative farming. Some leaders of the Congress Party, who were opposed to the idea of institutional reform in agriculture, quit the party and formed a new outfit – the Swatantra Party under the influence and direction of C. Rajagopalachari in 1959. Their opposition to the reform strategy in agriculture had a particular focus on the imposition of the land ceiling measures, which, to them, was an onslaught to the interest of the landed farmers and was also against the guaranteed ownership of private property, accorded by the Constitution of India.

However, the first organized political party to articulate a counter-populism to that of the Nehruvian and later, Indira Gandhi led state’s developmental populism focusing on industrialization and collectivization, was, the Bharatiya Kranti Dal (BKD), founded by Chaudhary Charan Singh. Earlier a veteran Congress leader, he was instrumental in the passing of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act (1952), which scaled down the power of the large landlords considerably, and consolidated the interest of the small landlords and the well-to-do occupancy tenants. In fact, these groups, composed of the owner cultivators, have been the backbone of the future farmers’ movement in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere. Charan Singh’s ‘owner cultivator’ centric politics and ideology got the necessary support of the discourse, through which, he characterized the urban industrial model of national development as antithetical to the interest of the rural population, in general. The later unfolding of the farmers’ movement in UP under the leadership of Tikait, although in a non-institutional political sphere, has banked on and pursued the same ‘urban’ vs. ‘rural’ developmental populism against the state through the slogan, ‘Bharat vs. India.’ 

In all his movements in UP and Delhi, Tikait has criticized the Indian state for its ‘step daughterly’ attitude towards the farmers. The rush towards urbanization and industrialization by the successive postcolonial regimes in India, in his opinion, has deprived the farmers of the due share of the agricultural surplus, they deserve. Tikait’s anti-state populism in this fashion has aimed at developing a larger farmer identity who, in his view, are ‘underdeveloped’ and ‘oppressed.’ The overarching identity of ‘farmers’ has been perceived to have the necessary leverage to transcend the structural limits of caste, class, religion and gender or any other form of inequality. But critiques argue that it is far from that. Akhil Gupta (1998) argues that, considerable tension has been there between the Jat farmers and the Harijan labourers and between the owner cultivators and the landless labourers in general, which proved to be detrimental to the broader unity of the farmers. In many instances, he argues, the farmers, by virtue of their relatively superior caste and class position in the rural social hierarchy, forced the labourers to work much below the current market wage rate. Apart from the contradiction between the owner cultivators and landless labourers, there has been differences between the large farmers and small and medium ones since lowering of input prices and increase in output prices for agricultural products benefit the large cultivators more than their small and medium level counterparts (Kohli, 2001; Hasan 1989; Hasan and Pattanaik 1992). Hasan (1994) is also of the opinion that these class divisions along with the growing communalization of UP politics in the 1990s have prevented the maintenance of rural unity, which ultimately has been responsible for the declining tone of the movement in the contemporary period. The BKU’s patriarchal stand has also become clear when Tikait questions the legitimacy of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, for not having a clear and dominant patriarchal lineage (Gupta 1998). Thus, the unity of the farmers, symbolized by ‘Bharat’ has remained a ‘contradictory unity’ (ibid.: 97) with the articulation of different interests and positions and particular exclusions.

The convergence of the farmers’ movement with that of the new social movement can also be found in the presence of multiple traditions within its fold. These have been reflected in the differential strategies of interaction adopted by different state based organizations with globalization. While the Shetkari Sanghatana of Maharashtra under the leadership of Sharad Joshi has widely welcomed the drive towards liberalization and privatization, the hallmarks of globalization, the KRSS of Karnataka under Nanjundaswamy in particular and to some extent the BKU in Punjub and U.P. under Tikait, have tried to resist these. For Joshi trade liberalization under globalization would result in the lessoning of state control over agriculture and thereby increasing the freedom of the farmers. The same has been opposed strongly by Nanjundaswamy, and to some extent by Tikait too, as antithetical to the interest of the farmers since such policies adopted by the World Bank is of full potential to impoverish the developing countries. In Karnataka, the KRSS has organized huge rallies and satyagrahas named as ‘Bij or Seed Satyagraha’ to counter the perceived ill impact of the multinational corporations (MNCs) (especially Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Cargil India, and Monsanto) on Indian economy, culture and biodiversities. The existence of different traditions is also apparent in the response of the farmers’ movement of different regions towards other independent mobilization like those of the women’s, the Dalits’ and the environmentalists’. While the Shetkari Sanghatana has been quite sensitive to the cause of the women and dalits by recognizing and allowing space to their mobilizations within its network and to the cause of the environmentalists albeit in a lesser degree, to KRSS the cause of the protection of environment and biodiversity have been of pivotal importance.

The conflict and contradiction of the farmers’ movement with external agencies like the MNCs, operating under the aegis of World Bank within the framework of globalization, has also been instrumental in bringing it into broader alliance with other social movements nationally as well as internationally. The farmers’ movement of India now is in alliance, as says Assadi (2002: 51), with the, ‘National Fishermen’s Movement, Navadanya, Mukti Sangharsh, Timbuktu Collectives, Indian People’s Front, Rajasthan Kisan Sanghatana, Alternative Communication Mukti Sangarsh, etc. Meanwhile, their strategies and struggles have gone beyond national boundaries. They have become part of the larger collectives at the global level; these collectives are Via Campensia and People’s Global Action.’

While Via Campensia is a collective which voices the various demands of the farmers, small and medium peasants, agricultural labourers, rural women, and the indigenous community of Asia, Africa, America and Europe, the Peoples’ Global Action (PGA) is a global platform of the different human rights organizations, farmers’ organizations, indigenous peoples, students, environmentalists, unemployed, fisher-folk, anti-racists, peace mobilisers, animal rights activists etc. (source: https://www.nadir.org/ nadir/initiativ/agp/en/pgainfos/bulletin1.html#a2 ). Such an alliance with global organizations combating the ill-effects of global capital has been, perhaps, made possible by the presence of a distinct intellectual leadership and local level activists who often happen to be the farmers’ sons studied at colleges and universities, but have returned to take up farming because of the growing unemployment in the urban economy. This is yet another dimension of the movement which brings it close to the new social movements.

4.2. Counterclaims of Farmers’ Movement as New Social Movements

The stated similarities of the farmers’ movement with the new social movement approach, however, are not without contestations. Ramchandra Guha in a special issue of the monthly Seminar in 1989 has dismissed such a claim by terming the farmers mobilization as ‘old’ kulak-rich peasant mobilization which essentially is a class based movement. Dhanagare (2013) and Lennenberg (1988), however, have criticized the position Guha adopts by stressing on the important role played by the middle peasantry in the whole process of mobilization of the farmers’ movement. Arora (2001) also believes that the farmers’ movement cannot be regarded as a new social movement. She has categorically questioned some of the claims of the farmers’ movement to be a new social movement. First, it has been stated that instead of the land issue, farmers’ movement veers around the issue of remunerative price of the agricultural commodities produced. Arora (ibid.) argues that, although in a different form, land has been an agendum of the movement. Lindberg (1994) is also of the same opinion about the issue of land which he believes is a live political issue in the farmers’ movement. Second, Arora (2001) and Lindberg (1994) also question the employment of novel and distinctive agitational methods in the farmers’ movement. To them these are, in fact, old tactics used by the farmers of Maharashtra and the women in the anti famine agitations. Third, by drawing similarity between the ideology of the farmers’ movement and that of the politics and ideology of agrarian populism, Arora (2001) has dismissed the claim of ideological newness of the movement. Fourth, the claim of the movement being apolitical or non-political in nature is also questionable to her. Although, she argues that, until 1989 the movement had no intention to capture political power, but within this period too, as a part of electoral strategy, it had extended support to different political parties irrespective of their ideological standpoints. She even mentions about the contestation of elections by the farmers’ movement in Karnataka and Maharashtra and formation of the Swatantrya Bharat Party, a political party by Sharad Joshi in 1994, which, however, has not tested much electoral success. Fifth, Arora (2001) also is not convinced about the anti-state ideology of the farmers’ movement. Instead of doing away with the state, she believes, this movement engaged only in ‘partial’ and ‘class specific’ antagonism with the state. Moreover, the movement’s collaboration with the state has become apparent in 1991, when Sharad Joshi became the Chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Agriculture with the status of a cabinet minister. Finally, Arora finds little ‘new’ in the movement’s extension of support to the women, dalits and the environmentalists since there had been a number of old movements like the Tebhaga, Telangana and Chipko movement where these sections or their various issues featured quite prominently.

5.  Conclusion

The farmers’ movement in India is, perhaps, a signal of the growing crisis in Indian agriculture emanating primarily from two major sources of transformation, viz. adoption of the Green Revolution technology during the mid 1960s and later more decisively the forces of liberalization, privatization and globalization unleashed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) that dictated implementation of the policies of structural adjustment programme in the 1990s.The demand for remunerative price, a typical farmers’ demand should be viewed in the background of falling income and profit from agriculture, paradoxically, in a post green revolution scenario. The promise of green revolution pertaining to increase in productivity and profitability has remained a factor of sizeable investment in improved agricultural technology which, save a tiny section of rich farmers, was, perhaps, beyond the capacity of the large section of middle farmers. Coupled with this, the liberalization of Indian economy resulting in the withdrawal of state subsidies to agriculture leading to its integration with the market, has dealt a severe blow to the future prospect of a profitable agriculture. The increasing rate of farmers’ suicide in the green revolution belt of India is, perhaps, a pointer to this. The point to be noted here is that a certain sections of farmers are also not able to compete and sustain under volatile market condition. Farmers’ movement, whether, new or not, certainly is a desperate attempt on the part of the farmers, especially those at the middle and upper rung having considerable dependence on the market and its vagaries, to safeguard them and for that matter, agriculture and food security of the nation. Such desperations are also perceived in the quick transformation of class based agrarian movement to communal, ethnic or regional movements. The future of farmer’s movement in India depends largely on the possibility of forming wider network of different stakeholders against both the state and global market forces. The extent to which the present leaders of farmers’ movement will be able to cope with such a strategy and sustain their movement is a million dollar question.