What political parties get wrong about agriculture : Valley Vision

Farmers harvest rice saplings at a paddy field in Panipat, Haryana.
| Photo Credit: Bloomberg

Contrary to exit poll predictions, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defeated the Congress in the Haryana Assembly elections, winning 48 out of 90 seats. Haryana is adjacent to Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh and was one of the prime locations of the farmers’ protests. These protests were one of the main issues during the Assembly elections. The Congress and other Opposition parties were confident that farmers’ protest against the three contentious farm laws aimed at liberalising India’s agricultural sector, which were were later repealed, and their demand that legal assurance be provided for the Minimum Support Price for all crops would translate into votes in their favour.

However, this did not happen. The BJP returned to power in Haryana for the third consecutive time. The party’s performance in the western part of U.P., another prime location of the farmers’ protest, in the 2022 Assembly elections was also surprisingly good. Despite the odds, the BJP managed to secure 85 out of 126 Assembly seats in western U.P. In the 2024 parliamentary elections too, while the BJP did lose a significant number of seats in U.P., it performed relatively well in this region, securing 13 out of 26 seats. This indicates that the Opposition parties were not able to gain from the farmers’ protests. While there have been various political explanations for the BJP’s “surprising victory”, one explanation informed by the complexities of agricultural systems in emerging economies such as India and their entanglement with the harsh realities of caste remains missing.

A complex system

India’s agricultural system is going through a transition. The configuration of agro-food sectors in Haryana and western U.P. have changed in many ways over the last few decades. These changes began with the Green Revolution and were accelerated by liberalisation of the Indian economy, technological advancement, and the rapid diffusion of processed food. Consequently, agriculture is no longer a practice in these areas; it operates as a complex system. Multiple elements constitute this system, including different commodities, stakeholders, practices, technologies, value chains, policies, and institutions.

In this complex system, the roles of farmers, who traditionally hold political power, and traders, who hold economic power, as well as the relationship between them is also changing. Along with traders, a significant portion of economic power is now held by suppliers of logistics, transporters, processors, retailers, and so on, who may not have a confrontational relationship with farmers, as is generally assumed in the case of farmers’ relationship with traders. The agricultural farms of dominant castes are no longer the only employment-generating sites for lower caste workers. The employment generated by logistics suppliers, transporters, processors, and retailers, who predominantly belong to the Hindu and Punjabi baniya community, have changed traditional labour relations. No one can ignore the crucial role that they play in keeping the agro-food value chain functional.

However, political representations of the farmers’ protest did not capture this complexity and ongoing churning in India’s agricultural system. The engagement of political parties with different stakeholders is often influenced by the caste identities of the latter. The Opposition mostly engaged with the farmers, who predominantly belong to the Jat community, and did not hold enough deliberations with other stakeholders belonging to different castes. This sparked anxiety among these stakeholders and built a strong foundation for the BJP’s ‘Jat versus other castes’ narrative. This narrative also supplements the rural (farmers) and urban (non-farmers) divide that usually benefits the BJP.

Involving other stakeholders

Although the basic configuration of the agricultural sector in India is changing, India is still an agrarian country. A significant section of society continues to be dependent on agriculture and allied activities. This means that while farmers need protection, political parties need to follow a systemic approach by engaging meaningfully with other stakeholders in the system. We need to recognise not only in business and policy, but also in political campaigning and strategy, the transition that the agricultural system is experiencing and the contribution of various actors in this transition.

Farmers’ issues are at the centre of politics even in developed countries such as the Netherlands, which is a world champion in agriculture and food processing. The approach in these countries is to enhance the capacity of involved stakeholders as well as learning among them rather than positing one against the other. The discussions on farmers’ welfare should not lead to a binary where the customary ‘farmers versus traders’ narrative overtakes the debate. Unfortunately in Indian politics, because of the caste identities of these various stakeholders, this binary of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is becoming even more rigid. All non-farm stakeholders engaged in agricultural systems are not private money lenders, as is the popular conception.

It is time that India’s political parties recognise these qualitative changes that agricultural systems are going through. They should lead the debate on how to protect farmers and enhance the capacities of other stakeholders through policy interventions rather than treating agriculture as an emotional issue for political gains.