Farmer the umbrella term with deep inequalities- landless farmers, Dalits, Adivasi, women, whose interests don't always align with landowning farmers. In India, 68% of agricultural landholdings are under marginal farmers. Who holds less than one hectare of land, has control over only 22% of total cultivated land. Majority of the Indian farmers own almost non land, and recent economic policies made their situation worse. They are the farmers without savings, without credit access, without storage infrastructure and without seed sovereignty. sovereignty means farmers can save and reuse their own seeds. when companies control the seeds farmers will lose the right, every year they must buy new seeds.
International organizations like world trade organization, through agreements such as Agreement on Agriculture (AOA,1994) along with IMF structural adjustment programs and government economic reforms opened the market to world trade. They argued that this will improve the agricultural sector through improved technology and efficiency of production. In India the reforms began in 1991. The government reduced control over trade and by 2001 many restrictions on importing and exporting goods were removed. Two or more countries decided to make buying and selling of goods between them easier by reducing or removing the custom duties and other trade barriers. This is called free trade agreement (FTA). One of such trade agreement is India signee with ASEAN countries in 2009 and enforced in 2010 January. India’s most important trade agreements because ASEAN is one of the large and fast-growing market close to India. India reduced taxes over 80% products and 10% of product line got 5% tax reduction to ASEAN countries. In return ASEAN countries also reduced taxes for Indian products. FTA opens world market for the farmers, farmers who cultivate crop such as Basmati rice, spices etc got less duty access to the ASEAN countries. Along with that the agreement promotes import of farm machineries, and other agricultural inputs, so the farmers can get these in cheaper rate. After this agreement lots of farmers shifted to exotic fruits and vegetable cultivation because of the access to the world market. FTAs encourage foreign companies to invest in food storage and processing, helps to reduce post-harvest losses. However, the reality of what the ASEAN- India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) produced on the ground tells a very different story. one of a widening trade deficit that directly harmed domestic farmers rather than helping them. India’s trade deficit widened from $4.8 billion in 2010 - 11 to over $43 billion by 2022 - 23. India becoming a net importer rather than exporter, created an imbalance in agriculture sector. Palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, rubber from Thailand and Vietnam, pepper and spices from Vietnam, and coconut products from the Philippines imported to Indian markets at reduced or zero tariff rates. Kerala’s rubber farmers provide one of the examples for this. After the import duty reduction, rubber prices in India crashed. The Kerala government repeatedly demanded safeguard duties and import restrictions, but the central government’s commitment to the FTA framework made intervention difficult. India’s failure to secure robust safeguard mechanisms left the marginal farmers unprotected.
India’s agriculture problems are primarily- low productivity, poor infrastructure facilities, less access to supply chain and inadequate support to farmers. Trade liberalization exposes these weaknesses more sharply. Here begins the problem, the concept is designed for the farmers with surplus production, storage facilities and access to market information. What about marginal farmers? The liberalization produced for them was price volatility, import surges and dismantling of procurement infrastructure.
Global commodity prices are driven by future markets, which have completely different situations in India. When the price rises the benefits will reach the traders and exporters. But when the price crashes, losses fully transferred to the farmers. The abolition of minimum export price (MEP) and import tariff reduction exposed domestic markets to under-pricing. The onion and tomato price crashes of the 2000 and 2010 were the examples of this. The reduction of import duties on edible oil affected mustard, groundnut soybean farmers. Between 1996 and 2002, palm oil import surged and marginal farmers faced price collapse. The national commission on farmers (Swaminathan commission, 2006) identified this as a factor for agrarian distress. Liberalization gradually destroyed the state procurement and public distribution system. Procurement through FCI (food corporation of India) at minimum support price provided, a security to the marginal farmers. Even though there is corruption and inefficiency in APMC (Agricultural produce market committee), at least the farmers would know the buyers. The free market offers unknown buyers with unknown prices with no legal recourse. The farm law, 2020 also framed "free market". The laws were seen as a total surrender to corporate interest. The farmers protest of 2020-21, over 700 farmers died. Different farmers organizations united under Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) resisted the privatization of the agriculture sector. The left front organization played a key role in this protest.
Beyond farming material seeds have a cultural and historical value. They carried farmers knowledge, selection and breeding. Farmers used to save and share seeds from generation to generation. This system makes agriculture adaptable. Its privatization is the least debated political change of the late 20th century. The TRIPS agreement (Trade related intellectual property rights, 1994) insists its member states to provide protection to plant varieties through patents or sui generies systems. India through Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Act (PPVFRA, 2001) tries to protect both Farmers and breeders right. But in practice corporatization of seed leads to a different track. For example, in the case of Bt- cotton, introduced through Monsanto's licensing with Mahyco, later more than 40 companies were following the path. By 2014 about 95% of the cotton area was with the Bt cotton hybrid. By design itself hybrids do not breed true type in the next generation. So, farmers need to purchase fresh seed in every season. The replacement of local landraces and open pollinated varieties by hybrids has reduced agro biodiversity. Traditional diverse seed systems have reduced disease and pest population. The Hybrid monoculture seed system made the crop susceptible and emergence of resistant pests such as Bt- resistant cotton bollworm. This conversion of free input to paid liability affected the marginal farmers cost of production. Unlike open pollinated varieties, hybrids are input intensive, requiring specific fertilizers and pesticides. Which created a dependency on the supply chain. According to NCRB data over 3.94 lakh farmers suicides in India between 1995 to 2023, with many cases concentrated in cotton growing regions. This is the number of suicides happen in India, even in the situation of delayed reports by years and downplay in suicide numbers and the government is trying to distort the suicidal statistics. Most farmer suicides happen because of debt. They borrow money from private money lenders at high interest to purchase seeds and fertilizers. If the crop fails or price drops, they cannot repay. There are many schemes in different name to “help” farmers. But what happens in the ground corruption and bribing from the start to end officers. The seed and fertilizer subsidies go to companies not to farmers even the compensation is claimed in fake names. No solid action against the corruption and no transparent system to complain. When we review about the schemes, PM – KISAN gives 6000/- per year (500/ month), this is not enough for a farmer even to buy seeds for a season. The government provides electronic marketing facilities for the farmers the name of e- NAM scheme, do you think an illiterate village farmer with poor internet connectivity will be able to access it.
The government reduces the control over agriculture and allowed private companies to interfere in seeds, trade and markets. This created genetically modified seeds and private seeds expansion favoured corporate interest more than farmers. The farmers protest 2020-21 exposed this political dimension with rare clarity. They opposed the not because the APMC are good. But because they identified the risk of transferring price setting power to corporate, without an alternative protecting system. The laws were passed without detailed discussion in Parliament, without proper consultation with farmers and without proper study how it affects the small farmers. The withdrawal under protest was a political victory for an organized movement.
The green revolution varieties and to some extent corporate hybrids, have increased the productivity of crops. But higher yield is achieved through input intensive cultivation which eliminates the margin gains. 20% yield increase requires about 40% increase in input cost, that reduces net income. Only the farmers with better connectivity benefited by expanded market access. But this is a case of the minority, what about the majority of farmers who live in rural areas? A policy should not be evaluated by its best-case beneficiaries but its worst cases. Trade liberalization and corporatization of seeds are not just economic reforms; it is a political decision. Marginal farmers are not against the innovations in the agriculture sector; they oppose the policies made without considering their needs. The question is not just whether the market is open or protected, but who makes the decision? and whose interest they serve? Until the question is addressed the agricultural policies in India continue to show economic growth only in papers while the ground continues to suffer.
