Canada’s Relations With India Remain Aloof Amid Historic Farmer Protests
Written by: Morgana Adby
Canadian leaders' humanitarian concerns for India deepen during historic farmers protests. Late November, the world watched as police clashed with farmers trying to enter New Dehli. They protest against three newly adopted pieces of legislation which impact their industry. Things escalated when police used tear gas, water cannons and batons. Meanwhile, Canadian Sikhs express horror at alleged violence and intimidation.
Dec. 18, police report 25 protesters are dead. These deaths are resulting from accidents, illness, heart attacks and suicides, police say. Weather is not on the protesters side now, and many are facing additional challenges from the cold.
On Dec. 17, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the farmers protest is constitutional. The court was non-committal on whether the police should prevent farmers from entering New Dehli, leaving the police to decide. The court encouraged settlement talks between the BJP-headed government and the demonstrating farmers. They also endorsed the creation of an independent committee of agricultural experts hear each side’s concerns.
“There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens ... We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace,” said Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobde.
This ruling contrasts with the central government’s response, which has placed an emphasis on security. Many have seen the protest signs reading, “I am not a terrorist, I am a farmer.” Those signs directly address a narrative present in Prime Minister Modi’s BJP, that minority groups are a threat.
Meanwhile, diplomatic tension has made headlines, as India expresses frustration over Canadian leaders' commentary. Opposition leaders Erin O’toole and Jagmeet SIgnh, expressed their support on twitter.
The drama followed Prime Minister Trudeau’s statement, "We're all very worried about family and friends… We believe in the importance of dialogue and that's why we've reached out through multiple means directly to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns." He reinforced the importance of the right to peacefully assemble.
India’s foreign ministry said these remarks were, “uninformed.” Further, it warned Canada that these comments threaten the health of India-Canada relations.
“Such actions, if continued, would have a seriously damaging impact on ties between India and Canada,” the High Commissioner to Canada, Ajay Bisaria, said in a statement.
As observed by The Diplomat, there have been interesting inconsistencies in the messaging to Canada from different Indian officials. Two days before the scathing statement opposing Canada’s alleged, “unacceptable interference,” India’s minister of external affairs did not seem invested in such hardball. In an interview with the Hindu, his statement was brief.
“Well, a number of Canadians spoke up, not just the Prime Minister. But you saw what the social media had to say on the subject. We made a statement, which lays out our position very clearly,” Minister Jaishankar said. There are many reasons the messaging could have sharpened between Dec 2 and Dec 4, statements of positions update frequently during periods of unrest. However, it could be attributed to the strained context of Canada and India’s relationship.
Trudeau’s government has not made much progress with the Canada-India relationship. While some have argued this is a consequence of the BJP’s ongoing perception of Canada as, “sheltering Sikh separatists,” others have pointed to alleged Canadian diplomatic blunders. Poor luck or poor strategy, this is the context our countries are in.
An estimated 250 million Indian farmers have participated in the 2020 strike. Farmers fear these policies trend away from the backbone of their way of life, the Minimum Support Price (MSP). Former Chief economist at the World Bank, Kaushik Basu agrees with the demonstrating farmers. He posted to Twitter, “Our agriculture regulation needs change but the new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers. Hats off to the sensibility & moral strength of India's farmers.”
But it is not just about economics, it is about autonomy over a way of life. Farmers worry that they will lose control of land that they have farmed for generations. This theme of tension between provinces and the center, relating to autonomy over local resources, frequents recent history.
There is a general agreement India’s agricultural sector requires reform. One reason is ongoing water depletion in Punjab’s water tables. Another concern is lack of crop diversification, coupled with uncompetitive wheat prices. Many say these factors keep farmers from making the incomes they should. However, it is unclear to what extent these problems will actually be solved by these policies recently passed. Also unclear, the cost to farmers. While the experts disagree on the economics, the demonstrating farmers oppose the laws outright. Many farmers believe that the government is trying to push them off their ancestral farm land.
Supporters say the laws will benefit farmers, not make things more difficult. The current Executive Director for India at the International Monetary Fund, Surjit S Bhalla, says the reforms are positive. He argues that only the wealthiest farmers would be impacted. His perspective is distinct, in that he sees the reforms as a decolonial issue. It is worth noting he has also spoken out against public health lockdowns, as he believes in encouraging free commerce.
He wrote, “The old farm produce laws ... came into existence almost 150 years ago to feed the colonial masters raw cotton for their Manchester mills—the output of these mills was then sold to the “natives” for a hefty profit. The farmer was obligated, required, forced to sell to the masters in a regulated market whose regulation was set by, you guessed it, the colonial masters.”
India’s Green Revolution in the mid-20th century saw the groundwork for today’s model. Associated policies, such as MSP, did increase food production. Yet, food security continues to be an ongoing challenge. Also, per capita availability of food grain has not significantly improved since. Malnutrition remains a problem, as the most prolific crops are low- nutrition, like rice and wheat.
The current day structure causes many sustainability issues, noted above. On water depletion, supporters of the legislation have condemned farmers for choosing water guzzling crops.
And yet, as of January 2020, Punjab was asking the central government to ensure that the state river water is not transferred from designated basin areas. The inter-state water conflict has great historical impact on current relations. Punjab contested the center’s agreement with Haryana and other regions to transfer a portion of the river’s water to their basins. So, there is reason to believe many farmers in Punjab feel like their water scarcity problem is the responsibility of the central government.
Meanwhile, banking expert, professor Milind Sathye says the protests are, “uninformed and unwarranted.” He wrote that the minimum support price will still remain an option if farmers choose to continue selling to madis for MSP. He also disagrees that the reforms will enable big businesses to overtake smaller farmers.
On the potential for big farming to take over, “this is wholly unfounded since the laws are only about the sale of agricultural produce. They enable farmers to act together and join hands with the private sector… The new farm laws would boost farmer income and help rural smallholders extricate themselves from precisely the traps that bind them at present,” Sathye wrote.
Dr. Shreya Sinha, with Cambridge University, disagrees. “Small farmers too benefit from the security of the MSP. It provides them with an estimate of expected income against which household expenditure, including consumption and repayment of debt, can be managed.” Sinha wrote.
The conception of the impacts of these laws vary in the public discourse. Yet, many agree the public messaging to farmers has been a nightmare. Bloomberg columnist Andy Mukherjee explains, “A compromise solution would require consultation—something woefully lacking when Modi’s government rammed the bills through a dubious voice vote in parliament in September.”
Bad policy or bad communication, either way the unrest is prolific. Canada, with a broad and diverse Sikh community, will likely remain invested in the wellbeing of protesting farmers. Canada has not walked back comments endorsing the right to peaceful protest.
At this point, there is not a clear path to the strengthening of India-Canada relations. That is not to say it is impossible, just that patience is necessary. If India’s Supreme Court recommendation for an independent agricultural committee is adopted, perhaps it can identify reforms that work for the farmers and the central government. As such, Prime Minister Modi may prefer to forget about Canada’s ‘intrusiveness,’ and move onto rebuilding the relationship.
More Articles
