The ongoing efforts to unify various farmers’ organizations across India have hit yet another roadblock, highlighting the deep-seated divisions within the movement. Despite multiple attempts at reconciliation and the formation of a cohesive front, ideological differences, leadership disputes, and regional priorities continue to hinder progress. The stalemate raises concerns about the future of farmers’ movements, especially at a time when agrarian distress, policy changes, and government negotiations demand a unified voice.

Background: The Need for Unity Among Farmers’ Organizations

Farmers across India have been struggling with issues such as low crop prices, rising input costs, climate change impacts, and policy shifts that affect their livelihoods. While the farmers’ protest against the three now-repealed farm laws in 2020-21 brought them together under a common cause, sustaining that unity in the absence of an immediate external threat has proven difficult.

The success of the protests led to the emergence of several prominent farmer leaders, each with a different approach to negotiations and activism. While some leaders advocate for direct talks with the government, others prefer a more confrontational approach. These ideological differences have now translated into divisions within the movement, making consensus-building difficult.

Recent Efforts at Unity and Emerging Roadblocks

Efforts to unite the various factions of the farmers’ movement gained momentum earlier this year, with several meetings held to bring different organizations onto a common platform. However, these talks have repeatedly stalled due to multiple challenges, including:

1. Leadership Disputes

One of the primary reasons behind the failure of unity talks is the lack of consensus on leadership. Several factions within the farmers’ movement have influential leaders, including Rakesh Tikait (Bharatiya Kisan Union), Darshan Pal (Samyukta Kisan Morcha), and other regional figures.

Many groups feel that leadership should be rotational or based on democratic consensus, while others believe that the leadership should remain with those who led the initial 2020-21 protests. This disagreement has led to mistrust and an unwillingness to merge under a single umbrella organization.

2. Ideological Differences

While most farmers’ organizations agree on key issues such as fair minimum support prices (MSP), debt relief, and opposition to corporate control over agriculture, they differ in their approach to achieving these goals. Some groups prefer negotiation and diplomacy with the government, while others lean towards agitation and mass protests.

For example, certain factions favor participating in electoral politics to influence policy from within, while others believe in staying politically independent. These differences have made it challenging to form a unified front.

3. Regional Priorities and Conflicts

Farmers from different states have distinct concerns based on their local agricultural practices, climatic conditions, and political landscapes. While Punjab and Haryana farmers focus on MSP and procurement issues, those in Maharashtra and Karnataka emphasize drought relief and loan waivers.

These regional variations have made it difficult to create a single charter of demands that satisfies all stakeholders. Farmers’ groups from some states feel that their issues do not receive enough attention in the broader national movement.

4. Government Strategies and Political Influence

The government has been keen on engaging with individual farmers’ groups rather than dealing with a unified body. This strategy has further widened divisions, as some groups are willing to negotiate with the government while others remain skeptical.

Additionally, political parties have attempted to capitalize on the movement by extending support to different factions, further complicating efforts at unity. Some groups have accused others of being politically motivated, leading to internal mistrust.

Key Issues at Stake

Despite the divisions, the core issues affecting farmers remain unchanged. Some of the key demands include:

• Legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP): Farmers want the government to enact a law ensuring that all crops are purchased at a fair price.
• Comprehensive debt relief: Many farmers are trapped in a cycle of debt, leading to suicides in some regions.
• Fair crop insurance policies: Farmers seek better implementation of insurance schemes that provide relief during crop failures.
• Reduction in input costs: The rising cost of fertilizers, seeds, and electricity has put immense financial pressure on farmers.
• Land rights and protection from corporate influence: Many farmers fear that policy changes will lead to the loss of their land to large corporations.

What Lies Ahead for the Farmers’ Movement?

With unity talks stalling, the future of the farmers’ movement remains uncertain. However, there are several possible paths forward:

1. Continued Fragmentation and Smaller Protests

If unity efforts continue to fail, we may see smaller, region-specific farmer protests rather than a large-scale national movement. This could reduce the bargaining power of farmers, making it easier for the government to negotiate with individual groups rather than addressing the movement as a whole.

2. Creation of a Broad Coalition

Some leaders have proposed forming a broad coalition where different factions work together on common issues while maintaining their independence on regional matters. This approach could allow for a coordinated effort without forcing all groups into a single structure.

3. Political Entry and Electoral Strategy

A section of farmer leaders believes that entering electoral politics is the only way to ensure long-term policy changes. If farmer-backed candidates enter state assemblies and Parliament, they could push for reforms from within the system. However, this strategy is controversial, as it could further divide the movement along political lines.

4. Government-Led Reforms and Policy Shifts

The government may take proactive steps to address some of the concerns raised by farmers in an attempt to reduce unrest. This could include policy changes related to MSP, loan waivers, and crop insurance. However, without a strong and unified farmers’ movement, these reforms may not go far enough to satisfy all stakeholders.

The failure of the latest round of unity talks among farmers’ organizations underscores the deep divisions within the movement. While the issues they face remain urgent and unresolved, internal conflicts over leadership, strategy, and regional priorities have prevented the formation of a cohesive front.

Without unity, the farmers’ movement risks losing its influence and bargaining power, making it easier for the government to implement policies without significant opposition. However, if the various factions find a way to collaborate on common issues while respecting their differences, they could still create a formidable force capable of advocating for long-term agrarian reforms.

For now, the future of the movement remains uncertain, with both opportunities and challenges ahead. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether farmers’ organizations can overcome their differences or continue to operate as fragmented groups with limited impact.