Farm laws: Are India's new reforms a 'death warrant' for farmers?
Three contentious laws that will change the way India's farmers do business have sparked one of India's biggest protests and a months-long standoff with the government.
Since November, tens of thousands of protesting farmers demanding repeal of the laws have been camping out on highways on the outskirts of Delhi.
The parliament passed the three bills in September, which were then signed into law by the president.
Opposition parties accused the government of flouting parliamentary procedure by passing the bills hurriedly and not listening to their demand of sending the bills to a parliamentary committee for further deliberations.
But beyond the political fracas, the bills have also split opinions - while Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the reforms a "watershed moment" for Indian agriculture, opposition parties have termed them "anti-farmer" and likened them to a "death warrant".
Angry and worried farmer groups see them as unfair and exploitative. Pro-reform economists have largely welcomed the move, saying the new laws will help improve farm incomes, attract investment and technology, and increase productivity.
Nearly a dozen rounds of talks between the 30-odd farmer unions and the government have yielded no results.
What exactly do the bills propose?
Taken together, the reforms will loosen rules around sale, pricing and storage of farm produce - rules that have protected India's farmers from the free market for decades.
They also allow private buyers to hoard essential commodities for future sales, which only government-authorised agents could do earlier; and they outline rules for contract farming, where farmers tailor their production to suit a specific buyer's demand.
One of the biggest changes is that farmers will be allowed to sell their produce at a market price directly to private players - agricultural businesses, supermarket chains and online grocers. Most Indian farmers currently sell the majority of their produce at government-controlled wholesale markets or mandis at assured floor prices.
These markets are run by committees made up of farmers, often large land-owners, and traders or "commission agents" who act as middle men for brokering sales, organising storage and transport, or even financing deals.
It's a complex system underpinned by regulations, and a host of personal and business relationships.
The reforms, at least on paper, give farmers the option of selling outside of this so-called "mandi system".
So, what is the issue?
The issue is that it's unclear how this will play out in reality. For one, farmers can already sell to private players in many states but what these bills do is offer a national framework.
But farmers are mainly concerned that this will eventually lead to the end of wholesale markets and assured prices, leaving them with no back-up option. That is, if they are not satisfied with the price offered by a private buyer, they cannot return to the mandi or use it as a bargaining chip during negotiations.
"First, farmers will feel attracted towards these private players, who will offer a better price for the produce. The government mandis will pack up meanwhile and after a few years, these players will start exploiting the farmers. That's what we fear," Multan Singh Rana, a farmer in the northern state of Punjab, said.
The government has said the mandi system will continue, and they will not withdraw the Minimum Support Price (MSP) they currently offer. But farmers are suspicious.
"This is a death warrant for small and marginalised farmers. This is aimed at destroying them by handing over agriculture and market to the big corporates. They want to snatch away our land. But we will not let them do this," Sukhdev Singh Kokri, a farmer, told BBC Punjabi.
The protests have been the strongest in Punjab and neighbouring Haryana state, where the mandi system is strong and the productivity is high - so only the government has been able to buy that volume of produce at a set price.
"Giving the freedom to the farmer to sell outside the mandi system, to whoever, is a welcome step, in unshackling the farmer," says economist Ajit Ranade.
"But you need the mandi system to coexist with private trading system. Perhaps the government needs to come out with a written law that they will not withdraw the MSP or the mandi system."
Other analysts also say that much greater reforms - in land use for instance - are needed to give private players any real clout.
India still has stringent laws around the sale and use of agricultural land, and high subsidies that protect farmers from market forces.
Why do India's farmers feel insecure?
On the face of it, India's farmers shouldn't be complaining.
The government provides them generous subsidies, exemption from income tax and crop insurance. They are guaranteed prices for 23 crops and debts are often waived when they are unable to pay off loans.
But farmers have been on the boil for some years now.
Although more than half of Indians work on farms, farming accounts for barely a sixth of the country's GDP.
India's farmers are mostly small or marginal: 68% of them own less than one hectare of land. Only 6% of them actually receive guaranteed price support for their crops, and more than 90% of the farmers sell their produce in the market. More than half of the farmers, in the words of an economist, "don't even have enough to sell".
From low productivity to fragmented landholdings, lack of storage infrastructure and high indebtedness, there are several reasons for persistent agrarian distress in India.
Declining productivity and lack of modernisation have long hobbled progress.
Plot sizes are shrinking, as are incomes from farming. Prices can be wildly erratic and middlemen form cartels gobble up much of the profits.
"The anger over injustice to farmers was brewing. Now it's getting channelised through this protest against the new laws," says Devinder Sharma, a food and trade policy analyst.
"Leaving farmers to the tyranny of the markets would be akin to putting the sheep before the wolf. There are leakages in the current system, and it needs to be reformed, but replacing one failed model with another is not the solution," says Mr Sharma.
There are no easy answers. But experts agree that in a country where agriculture employs so many millions, leaving farmers' fates to the vagaries of the market cannot be the only answer.
What has the government proposed?
The government suggested tweaks to the laws, and later offered to suspend them altogether for up to 18 months even as negotiations continue.
But the farmers have remained firm, saying they will not settle for anything less than a repeal of the laws.
Why did the protests turn violent?
On 26 January a rally against the laws turned violent, after protesting farmers broke through police barricades to storm Delhi's historic Red Fort complex.
On foot and in tractors, the protesters were part of a huge rally planned for India's Republic Day. Many protesters diverted from agreed routes and clashes broke out with police.
One protester died and some 500 policemen were injured.
Farm union leaders condemned the violence and blamed the chaos on rogue elements among an otherwise peaceful march.
Many said the protests have lost their legitimacy after the violence. Others said the farmers should accept the government's offer to put the reforms on hold and return home.
Since early February, iron nails, rods, barbed wire, boulders and makeshift walls have been used to barricade the capital's borders against the protesters.
But the farmers have refused to leave and not budging from their demand. The protest is now in its third month, and there is no solution in sight.
