How the farmers’ movement redefined ideas of public spaces and protest culture in contemporary India

One significant impact of the farmers’ movement that hasn’t received considerable attention is how it redefined the idea of public spaces and protest sites in contemporary India. A vacuum has occurred in Indian politics in the recent past due to the state takeover of various protest sites. Such sites evolved out of a vibrant politics of opposition and resistance after Independence. Existing spaces like Jantar Mantar, Ramlila Maidan and India Gate were the usual sites where agitations got the attention of some media channels, though many people did believe that the moment a movement reached Jantar Mantar, it lost its relevance. Protests at Jantar Mantar were often seen as elitecentric events that spoke to the state’s power and not the people. This essentialisation of protest sites in Delhi had marginalized their relevance, especially in the aftermath of the rise of right-wing populist politics.

Contrary to this elite notion of a protest site, the farmers’ movement innovated the sadak (road) as a site for protest. Even before this movement, sadaks had become a site of active protest, but usually, it was the case only when an accident happened, and the dispute usually got resolved with an assurance of state attention or monetary compensation. The road as a site for an organised movement of this magnitude had never happened in the past. Farmers had not only refused to use the conventional spaces, they had also created their own political spaces. The site developed a life of its own, with everyday household activity to political activity like cooking, bathing, sleeping, delivering lectures, sloganeering, reading circles, etc. taking place on the concrete roads of the national capital. Rural life in other ways was enlivened on the national highways of India.

These spaces were not merely concrete anymore but given a compelling political meaning. It wasn’t simply a projection of political movement and its objectives. One could see banners, posters and photographs of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Ambedkar, Bharat Mata and Bajrang Bali on the canopies the farmers had set up at various borders. Displaying emotions through poetry, songs and other performances made the sadak a lively political space. Every village that participated in the movement had its tent and setup. None of the tents were ever empty. If one set of people went back to the village, backup came. Others joined in place of those who had left. This routine of rotation continued till the end of the movement. The entire highway was emblazoned with the names of villages, slogans, banners and posters. India’s political diversity was visible in the space. One could see hundreds of flags. Some were of a political ideology, some were of the established national parties, some were not clearly identifiable and a few were of local gods or deities.

India’s religious diversity was also clearly reflected in the space. On the Shahjahanpur border, along with respective Sikh groups and their langars, Muslim groups had joined from the Mewat region. They served snacks, tea and coffee throughout the day and night, free of cost. One protesting farmer said that these protest sites accurately represent the bhaichara (fraternal) culture that is the backbone of India’s culture of peaceful coexistence.

Unlike the Parliament Street protests, where a simultaneous political economy of chairs, mic system, sound system, water distribution, tea, samosa, etc., has been institutionalised, everything was free and part of the service at these borders. Sucha Singh Gill wrote:

This revived the tradition of Guru Nanak’s common community model at Kartarpur, where three vital components defined it. These components were: Kirat Karo (participate in free labour), Vand Chhako (share the earnings with fellow beings), and Naam Japo (devotion to god by remembering him).

All communities followed these teachings and served people at the borders with this commitment. These were new ethics of protests that were emerging in the Indian polity.

The state response to this new mode of protest was also unique. As highways became sites of protests, the government started moving towards expressways. Unlike highways, accessible from nearby areas, expressways were elevated roads. They are 10–15 feet above the level of the nearby land. Besides, expressways are barricaded throughout with cameras and other modes of surveillance. They are not so conveniently accessible as there are limited entry and exit points. Unlike highways, where people could join the protest or mobilize, expressways are restrictedclosed spaces that could be monitored and regulated in the name of security. In all those spots where the protesters had garnered popular support and encircled the capital city, the government began the process of building expressways.

An elevated highway is being constructed on the Tikri border. The purpose of such a highway is that in the future, in case of an encirclement, access to the capital city and its connectivity could still be ensured. In this sense, the Indian state has begun innovating newer methods of depoliticizing the questions raised by farmers during this movement.

Agrarian politics in India is a highly complex policy domain. Agriculture involves various economic, social and political actors with mutually antagonistic interests. These diverse interest groups consider multiple policy measures and government actions as a trade-off. Such complexities also result in a clash of interests, making a unified struggle for agricultural development a complicated political project. This movement was also not an exception. Though it tried to develop a more unified, holistic agenda, many unsolved issues didn’t find adequate space in this agenda. The two major issues were of sustainable agriculture and of marginal groups within agriculture, especially women and landless labourers. These issues demand a different approach to agriculture in India.

The existing approach, adopted during the Green Revolution, revolves around protecting modern agriculture and assurance from the state to the protection of farmers’ interests. The farmers’ resistance was in defence of this model. The emerging concerns of climate vulnerability, energy transitions and sustainability demand more innovative solutions. Besides, governance issues require a more participatory and equity-based agricultural society. However, a status quo-centric developmental model may not accommodate these new concerns.

Another question that was not discussed was about female farmers. Even though there were women who actively participated in these protests, their number appeared more symbolic. Only on the Singhu border was the number of female farmers quite sizeable. On other borders, women were almost missing from the protests.

Similarly, the issue of landless labourers or agricultural labourers also didn’t receive much attention. Though their names and concerns were flagged for inclusion, little was discussed. Nodeep Kaur, who works for the industrial and agricultural labourers’ concerns in Haryana, supported the protesting farmers. During the protest, she was arrested by the Haryana Police. The SKM leadership didn’t show an empathetic approach towards this. Only after it was criticized for this by many quarters did the SKM decide to take up this issue. Even after taking it up, the leadership wasn’t proactive in getting bail for her.

With increasing global concerns about declining soil fertility, pollution of water resources and increasing chemical levels in food, the Green Revolution model was gradually being challenged worldwide. There was an increasing demand for more sustainable, environment- and climate-friendly agriculture with less usage of chemical inputs. In its National Action Plan on Climate Change, the Government of India also emphasised organic farming, natural farming, etc. In other words, there was an apparent contradiction between the government’s commitment to protecting the environment and what farmers in India were demanding.

The farmers’ movement in its agenda didn’t discuss any of these concerns. The new agricultural requirements necessitate the emergence of a new set of debates. They also demand that a new set of questions be debated, aimed at transforming the Indian agriculture sector. Given the limited nature of state support available for agriculture in India, such a transformation could be challenging. Although in the budget speech of 2019, the finance minister allocated a budget for promoting natural farming, the scope of such initiatives has been limited. There were only a few states in India where an efficient state support system has been developed for the agriculture sector. Most states, especially in eastern India, still lack such facilities. Besides, the states that had created such capacities had also witnessed the emergence of an agricultural class whose interests were closely attached to the chemical farming-based model. As a result, none of the farmer unions were willing to take up this question.

Moreover, there was another debate regarding how the global problem of climate change would impact Indian agriculture. Would the impact be uniform across India, or would there be regional variations?

In the case of western UP, the mobilisation happened on caste lines. The Jat farmers of Haryana also responded to Rakesh Tikait’s call owing to a cultural caste affinity. Western UP does have a deep history of perpetuating caste-based inequalities and the rise of the BKU is closely associated with it. The landless labourers of the region had spoken against these inequalities in the backdrop of rising farmer mobilisation in the 1980s. Jagpal Singh, in his work, had juxtaposed some of these mobilisations amongst Dalit landless labourers against the Jat farmer mobilisation demanding more state support for agriculture.197 The left-wing farmer unions were aware of this fact and concerned about supporting such forms of mobilisation. The intermediary caste–class mobilisation eventually leads to more caste inequalities, violence and even religious polarisation, as has happened in western UP. Supporting Khap Panchayat-led mobilisation was to endorse the traditional dominance and hierarchy that such organisations defended and perpetuated. Left-wing unions couldn’t overcome this dilemma as it was this form of mobilisation that finally saved the movement.

Excerpted with permission from Farmer Power: The 2020–21 Movement, the State and Agricultural Reforms in India, Sudhir Kumar Suthar, Penguin India.