 |
|
The recent clearance of farmer protest sites by the Punjab police marks the end of a 400-day sit-in demonstration at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana. This action highlights the differences between this agitation, often referred to as Kisan Aandolan 2.0, and the massive farmers' protest of 2020-21, known as Kisan Aandolan 1.0, which compelled the Central government to repeal three controversial agriculture laws. Understanding the nuances between these two movements – their origins, demands, public support, and modes of protest – is crucial to grasp the evolving dynamics of agrarian unrest in India. Kisan Aandolan 1.0, staged at the Singhu, Tikri, and Kundli borders of Haryana-Delhi from November 26, 2020, to December 9, 2021, was a powerful display of collective action. The primary objective was the repeal of the three farm laws, which farmers feared would dismantle the existing agricultural system and leave them vulnerable to corporate exploitation. After 380 days of relentless protests and the tragic loss of over 750 farmers, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the repeal of the laws on November 19, 2021. The dharna was officially lifted on December 9, 2021, when the government provided written assurances regarding the repeal and other demands, including a legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) for certain crops. The success of Kisan Aandolan 1.0 was largely attributed to its broad-based support. Farmers from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan participated under the umbrella of Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), a coalition of over 500 farmer unions across the country. The movement also garnered significant backing from trade unions, civil society organizations, and the general public. The protests were characterized by peaceful demonstrations, community kitchens (langars), and widespread media coverage, which amplified the farmers' voices and concerns. In contrast, Kisan Aandolan 2.0, led by Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) and SKM non-political, took place at the Shambhu and Khanauri borders on NH-44 and NH-52 between Punjab and Haryana. The main demand was a legal guarantee of MSP, along with 11 other demands. While SKM extended support, it was not directly involved in the protest. SKM non-political is an offshoot of SKM led by Jagjit Singh Dallewal, while KMM is primarily led by the Punjab-based Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMSC). Notably, KMSC had maintained a separate dharna at the Kundli border during Kisan Aandolan 1.0. The recent protest witnessed the loss of approximately 45 farmers at both locations during its 400-day duration. One of the key differences between the two movements was the level of public support. While Kisan Aandolan 1.0 enjoyed widespread backing, Kisan Aandolan 2.0 faced criticism and resistance, particularly from urban populations and businesses affected by the highway blockades. The Punjab Pradesh Beopar Mandal even labeled the farmer unions as a parallel government, calling for stricter laws to prevent protests that disrupt transportation. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had actively supported Kisan Aandolan 1.0, found itself in a difficult position as the protests impacted Punjab's economy and the state government's image. Multiple rounds of talks between the government and the farmers failed to yield a resolution. Another distinguishing factor was the mode of protest. While both movements employed the "Dilli Chalo" strategy, aiming to protest in Delhi, the farmers in Kisan Aandolan 2.0 were largely confined to the Punjab-Haryana border, primarily impacting Punjab's economy. The inner roads of villages near the Shambhu and Khanauri borders suffered damage, and local businesses struggled due to the disruptions. Furthermore, the protests were met with a more aggressive response from Haryana security forces, who used tear gas shelling on multiple occasions, resulting in injuries to hundreds of farmers and the loss of eyesight for some. The stark contrast in public support, government response, and the movement's overall impact contributed to the different outcomes of the two Kisan Aandolans.
The contrasting approaches to the protests and the diverse reactions they elicited from the public, businesses, and the government underscore the complex interplay of factors that shape agrarian movements in India. Kisan Aandolan 1.0, with its inclusive umbrella of farmer unions, widespread public support, and strategic focus on the national capital, effectively mobilized public opinion and exerted pressure on the Central government to address the farmers' grievances. The movement's success was also aided by the government's initial missteps in handling the protests, which further galvanized public support for the farmers' cause. In contrast, Kisan Aandolan 2.0, while driven by similar concerns regarding MSP and agricultural policy, faced several challenges that hindered its effectiveness. The lack of broad-based support, the disruption to Punjab's economy, and the aggressive response from Haryana security forces created a different dynamic, making it difficult for the movement to gain momentum and achieve its objectives. The forced eviction of farmers from the protest sites by the Punjab police marks a significant turning point in the ongoing agrarian struggle. While the leaders of KMM and SKM non-political have vowed to continue their fight, the recent events highlight the government's resolve to prevent prolonged disruptions to economic activity and maintain law and order. The future of agrarian movements in India will likely depend on the ability of farmer unions to adapt to evolving circumstances, build broader alliances, and effectively communicate their concerns to the public and the government. The lessons learned from both Kisan Aandolan 1.0 and Kisan Aandolan 2.0 will be crucial in shaping the strategies and tactics of future protests. The need for a more inclusive and sustainable agricultural policy that addresses the concerns of small and marginal farmers remains a pressing issue in India. The government's response to this challenge will have a profound impact on the future of agrarian relations and the overall well-being of the agricultural sector. The ongoing debate over MSP, crop diversification, and access to markets underscores the complexity of the issues at stake. Finding a solution that balances the interests of farmers, consumers, and the economy as a whole will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders.
Examining the Kisan Aandolan 1.0 and 2.0 reveals crucial insights into the efficacy of protest movements in India. Kisan Aandolan 1.0 achieved its aim of repealing the three farm laws due to several interconnected factors. The widespread participation of over 500 farmer unions under the SKM banner created a unified and powerful front. This unity allowed for a cohesive message and strategy, amplifying the farmers' demands and concerns. The strategic location of the protests at the borders of Delhi, the nation's capital, ensured maximum visibility and media attention. The protests disrupted supply chains and transportation, exerting economic pressure on the government. Widespread public sympathy and support were crucial. The perception of the farm laws as anti-farmer and pro-corporate fueled public anger and prompted many citizens to rally behind the farmers' cause. The peaceful nature of the protests, despite occasional instances of violence, further enhanced the movement's credibility and appeal. Kisan Aandolan 2.0, on the other hand, encountered a different set of circumstances. The focus on specific demands, such as a legal guarantee of MSP, narrowed the base of support. The lack of unity among farmer unions weakened the movement's overall strength. The protests were primarily confined to the Punjab-Haryana border, limiting their economic and political impact on the central government. Reduced public sympathy arose due to disruptions to daily life and economic activity in Punjab. The perception that the protests were primarily impacting Punjab's economy, rather than the central government, diminished public support. More aggressive tactics employed by some protesters led to clashes with security forces, potentially alienating some segments of the public. The different outcomes of the two Kisan Aandolans highlight the importance of unity, strategic location, widespread public support, and non-violent tactics in successful protest movements. The article clearly demonstrates that the context and execution of protests play a significant role in their ultimate outcome. The government's response, shaped by political considerations and economic realities, is another critical factor. The Punjab police's action to clear the farmer protest sites at the Shambhu border concludes a chapter in the ongoing agrarian struggle. However, the underlying issues related to MSP and agricultural policy remain unresolved, signaling that this is unlikely to be the end of such agitations. The success of future movements will depend on the ability of farmers and their organizations to learn from past experiences, adapt their strategies, and build broader coalitions to effectively advocate for their demands.
The examination of these two movements provides valuable lessons for future social and political activism. Success depends on unified leadership, clear objectives, broad-based public backing, and skillful navigation of public sentiment and government responses. Both movements employed the 'Dilli Chalo' strategy, underscoring the symbolic importance of Delhi as a focal point for national-level protests. However, their differing approaches to protest tactics and levels of community involvement had distinct implications for their reach and impact. The contrasting outcomes of these movements underscore the nuanced relationship between protest and policy change. While Kisan Aandolan 1.0 effectively mobilized public sentiment and brought about the repeal of contentious farm laws, Kisan Aandolan 2.0 faced significant challenges in garnering widespread support and achieving its desired policy outcomes. This highlights the crucial role of public perception and the skillful management of narratives in shaping the trajectory of protest movements. The government's responses to both movements reflect the delicate balancing act between maintaining law and order, safeguarding economic stability, and addressing the legitimate grievances of its citizens. The contrasting approaches employed by the central government during Kisan Aandolan 1.0 and the Punjab government during Kisan Aandolan 2.0 reflect varying degrees of political will and strategic considerations. The clearing of the protest sites marks a decisive shift towards the maintenance of order and an effort to minimize economic disruptions. The recent events emphasize the urgent need for inclusive dialogue between farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. The future of agricultural policy in India hinges on the ability to bridge the gap between the needs of the farming community and the broader goals of economic development and social equity. This process should include an open exchange of ideas and a willingness to compromise on all sides. Ultimately, the lessons from these two Kisan Aandolans provide valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors that shape the landscape of protest and policy change in India. These learnings can equip activists, policymakers, and researchers with a richer understanding of the dynamics that drive social and political movements in the country. In doing so, they can contribute to a more informed and constructive discourse on the future of agriculture and rural development in India.
Source: Punjab police clear farmers’ protest sites: How this agitation was different from the one in 2020-21