The three agricultural reform laws forced through Parliament during the pandemic lockdown provoked this wave of protest. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) insists that those laws are necessary to modernize an archaic and outdated system of farm production. Farmers, however, rightly see the dismantling of regulations, price controls, and public procurement commitments as a threat to their livelihoods.
They fear that opening up the world to corporate agribusinesses and financial interests will cause greater polarization of landholdings. This successively will cause a large-scale displacement of farmers and laborers into an off-the-cuff sector that already accounts for quite 90 percent of the entire workforce and is incapable of providing enough employment or renumeration.On January 26 this year, India’s Republic Day, some five hundred thousand people went on a procession along designated routes that had been prescribed earlier. it had been meant to symbolize the very fact that the day belongs to them the maximum amount on anyone else. However, a couple of thousand were surprisingly ready to take an unblocked, unplanned route. They ended up at the Red Fort within the center of the town . A Sikh religious flag was hoisted, and there have been some clashes between protestors and police.
Narendra Modi broke his silence to declare the Red Fort incident an insult to the country and demand that the reforms proceed unabated. The police arrested many protesters and brought charges against journalists reporting on the events. The authorities then moved to blockade the farmers’ encampments with razor-sharp concertina wire, steel spikes implanted within the ground, and concrete walls.
However, when the Uttar Pradesh government threatened to evict farmers by midnight of February 28, thousands more flocked to the occupation sites after a leadership appeal, first from Uttar Pradesh then from Punjab and Haryana. At a juncture , even as the govt was getting to continue the offensive, the farmers’ struggle got a strong second wind. The occupations and resistance still today .Those laws denied them the proper to settle on another, more militant union led by Datta Samant in situ of the sole officially recognized union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. Led by the Congress Party and supportive of the owners, the established union had done little or nothing for the workers.There were quite 58 million workdays lost as a results of the strike, compared to the 29 million workdays within the course of British miners’ strike of 1984–5. However, in spite of their numerical strength, objective circumstances weren’t in favor of the workers.
The strike was directed against big and medium mill owners, and, indirectly, against the state. Many mill owners were looking to shift production to power looms outside the town and expected substantial compensation through land sales. For its part, the Maharashtra government had its eyes on deindustrializing the town in order that it might become a commercial-financial center. The state’s intransigence also reflected its awareness that any concession to the Samant union would encourage militancy by workers in other industries.