Tag: Indian farmers

Understanding the MSP Issue, India and WTO

By Jasdev Singh Rai

One of the farmer leaders called for India to exit the World Trade Organisation. India is engaged in tactical bargaining at WTO to retain minimum support price (MSP). The WTO is desperate to reach outstanding issues of the current Agreement on Agriculture while many ordinary supporters of farmers are accusing the Indian Government of siding with corporates. In this article we explore the facts and how each is stuck in a complex muddy field from which there are few ways out.

Let us start with MSP, or Minimum Support Price. A simple fact of agriculture is that farming is no longer a subsistence occupation. Subsistence farming used natural fertilisers such as manure and farmers practised crop rotation, keeping the soil healthy. Farmers mostly produced for themselves and sold some in the market.

However, as population and life spans grew in India, traditional farming could not meet the growing demand. India had to go to international markets to buy staple foods such as grain and rice to feed its population. Often, India didn’t have enough money and borrowed it or went with a begging bowl for cheaper grain. It was ridiculed and was open to pressure by donor countries. An empty stomach is at the mercy of the provider.

The Green Revolution was a kick-start to move towards food security and self-sufficiency. The prerogative was to produce enough basic foods to feed all of India and keep enough in store for difficult times and even export. India was willing to subsidise this juggernaut of self-sufficiency drive. It changed small farmers to become small commercial farmers.

Farmers now use nitrogen-based fertilisers, all year supply of water with ever deeper mechanised wells (tube wells), and seasonal labour. Now they farm to sell rather than just feed the family. They have mostly abandoned rotation farming, growing 2-3 crops a year on the same plot of land, almost sucking life out of the land.

The inputs such as water, diesel, electricity, labourers, seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, hiring tractors or owning one on hire purchase etc all amount to considerable expense. India’s farms are small, with about 86% of farms ranging from 1-3 acres. They are family owned.

There are about 125 million farmers in India. About 58% of the Indian population depends directly or indirectly on farming sector with jobs ranging from farmer, farm labourers, traders, labour for traders, truck drivers, assistants and so on.

The Government provides many support structures and incentives, such as a well-developed procurement system called the mandi system. The Government buys the grain from farmers and ensure a minimum price so farmers can make profit. This is called Minimum Support Price or MSP. Usually it is direct input costs, called A2 and others such as unpaid family time, labelled as F1 plus 50% to 85% top up, depending on the crop, to make farming viable for the family. There was meant to be another factor called C2 which is unpaid rental and interest on fixed capital of the land. This has not been instituted. Farmers still find it difficult to make a reasonable living.

ALSO READ: Understanding the Mandi System in India

In theory, MSP is given to 22 crops products listed as essential commodities. But in reality only a few products get it and not all states provide it. It is mainly Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Himachal Pradesh. Rice and wheat are among leading crops that the Government pays for.

The road to food security is expensive but the country has become self-sufficient. It no longer goes with the begging bowl for basic foods such as rice and grain. In fact it has the capacity to export them.

The alternative is to buy basic foods in the international market from countries like Canada, Australia, United States and some other countries. Farms in these countries are an average 400 acres and in Australia can be as large as 25,000 acres. By economies of scale, these farms can buy fertilisers cheaper, have few labourers per acre of land and much fewer machinery per acre. Only a few tractors are needed for a 400 acre farm, whereas in India every 3 acre farm has to hire a tractor, wait their turn to hire or buy a tractor for their small farm.

It is not difficult to understand why cash crops can be produced cheaper by these countries with larger farms. The farms are bigger partly because these are the new worlds where land was plenty. In India and Africa, farming has been in families for centuries if not thousands of years.

If India buys on the open market and stops subsidising its farming, it will be open to the uncertainties of international politics. Other countries could demand more than money in return for selling cheaper wheat. The recent Ukraine conflict has shown how African countries dependent on Ukrainian wheat nearly faced starvation until Russia stepped in.

The other alternative is for India to go the way of some western countries and drive small farmers out in favour of large corporate Agri Business as USA did. Subsidies can be smaller and production can be cheaper with overheads spread over large area. However, that also means over a 100 million of not more farmers thrown into the job market without any jobs available. And another 300 to 600 million people dependent on the farm sector being made jobless. Politically, it will be suicide for any party to go down this route and nationally there could be unrest with nearly 50% of the population unemployed. MSP supported farming can be considered to be a form of indirect social security for farmers in return for ensuring food sovereignty.

The WTO

However, India faces another pressure, the World Trade Organisation or WTO. It took over from GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, in January 1995. WTO is market orientated and concerned about ensuring international trade being conducted fairly and competitively. It does not like subsidies which it calls market distortion. And it also negotiates and sets limits on tariffs which are taxes on imports.

Distortions occur if two countries, A and B manufacture the same product, for instance a ceramic plate. If production costs in country A is ₹10 a plate and in country B it is ₹8 a plate, then country B is likely to be able to sell more of it. However, country A may decide to subsidise every plate by ₹5 and thus enable the manufacturer to sell for ₹5 on the international market, undermining country B. This is distorting the market with a subsidy.

On the other hand, country A may decide that any plates imported from country B will be taxed ₹5. This pushes the price of country B plate ₹to 13. This will ensure that people in country A will buy the plates made by their own country at ₹10 rather than ₹13 a plate from country B. This is called protective measures and also distorting the market.

The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) first came into force on 1st January 1995. It sought to put limits on subsidies. The AOA has three categories of subsidies. Green subsidies are permitted in fields such as training for farmers, which does not distort the market. Amber Box subsidies are market distorting subsidies. It was agreed that developed countries such as Canada, USA etc can give up to 5% subsidy. Developing countries such as India, China and most of the South can give up to 10% subsidy. The Blue box subsidy is where State subsidises to prevent over production and thus stop market distortion. This could be putting limits on production or giving money for uncultivated land set aside for environmental purposes.

The 5% subsidy for developed countries is a lot of money for a farmer with 400 acres. However 10% subsidy for a farmer with 3 acres of land does not make farming viable. India has been defying this by giving 50% to 85% subsidies. Clearly, WTO is not happy. Or rather some countries in WTO are not happy.

A group of 17 countries, known as the CAIRNS group, want WTO to impose these subsidy limits on countries like India. Leading them are Canada, Australia and USA. Australia brought a case against India on its 85% sugarcane subsidy. India lost that.

USA, Canada and Australia particularly want to bring a case on wheat subsidy in India. These countries know that the agriculture sector could collapse in India and India may be forced to buy wheat from them. They want to penetrate the big Indian market.

WTO and INDIA

Under Dr Manmohan Singh and now Narendra Modi, India has resisted this pressure. India wants WTO to allow it to continue with high subsidies. Its food sovereignty depends on that. The Modi government has been withholding consent on some other agreements until these concessions are agreed, particularly on tariffs for e-commerce. In the current 2024 round at Abu Dhabi, Piyush Goyal, the Industry and Commerce minister, scuppered any agreement on fishing stocks as India cannot afford not to give subsidies to fishermen and farmers.

WHAT NOW

There has to be 100% consent for a WTO agreement to become binding. India will no doubt continue to resist any pressure to reduce subsidies. One way forward is for the Agreement on Agriculture to come out of WTO and be handed to UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. WTO is not obliged to be cognisant of human rights, sustainable development goals, right to family life, right to education etc as it is not a UN body. But UNCTAD is a UN body and its policies and agreements have to align with those conventions.

WHAT SHOULD INDIA AND FARMERS DO.

Some farmers are arguing that there should be MSP for all crops. This is not feasible and is not really part of a food sovereignty approach. The Government is mindful of the impact on environment and water. Farmers and Indian government need to work together internally to achieve sensible policies and internationally to force changes at WTO or take Agreement on Agriculture out of WTO.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Why Are Indian Farmers Protesting Again

The Anatomy of an Agitation: Why Are Indian Farmers Protesting Again?

By Sanjoy Narayan

The irony is dark. It has been barely two years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Kisan Drone Scheme in India. In the beginning, the scheme, which assists farmers to deploy drones for spraying fertilisers, nutrients and pesticides more efficiently on their farmlands, was launched in 100 places across the country, and later, expanded to more areas. Last week, however, drones were deployed against farmers for an altogether different purpose. They were used to bombard them with tear gas as thousands of farmers converged upon Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) in what is seen as a reprisal of the protests in 2020 and 2021 against the government’s policies.

Back then, in what became one of the biggest and longest mass movements in India’s history, hundreds of thousands of farmers, mainly from the agrarian states of Punjab and Haryana, had agitated for around a year against three new farm laws of the government. That movement had coincided with one of the worst phases of Covid that had hit India and it was a period of tumult. In the end, the Modi government had to repeal the three laws and accede to the farmers’ demands.

What then is the fresh wave of agitation all about? To understand that we need some recapitulation.

The farm laws and why they were repealed

The three laws that were passed in 2021 and then repealed after the protests were aimed at first, giving farmers more freedom to sell their produce outside the regulated markets or mandis; second, they enabled contract farming when farmers and buyers could pre-agree on pricing and other terms; and third, they relaxed the restrictions on storage and movement of some farm commodities such as cereals, pulses, oilseed, onions, and potatoes.

The laws led to massive agitations and clashes with the government’s security forces and police. Farmer leaders said over 700 people died during the year-long protests but the government did not confirm any deaths. The farmers opposed these laws because they feared that they would lose the protection of the government’s minimum support price (MSP) system, which guarantees a fixed price for certain crops, and that they would be exploited by big corporations. They demanded that the government repeal the laws, withdraw the criminal cases against the protesters, provide compensation to the families of the farmers who died during the protest, and ensure a legal guarantee for MSP. They also had other demands, such as pensions, debt waivers, and stricter regulation of fake seeds, pesticides, and fertilisers.

In December 2021, Prime Minister Modi announced the repeal of the laws after which the farmers temporarily suspended their protests. Why then has the agitation begun afresh and what are the issues this time round?

What do farmers want now?

Last week farmers renewed their protests as hundreds of them, mainly from the two northern states, Punjab and Haryana, marched towards the capital and the NCR. The timing of the protest was significant as it came only a few months before parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held and in which the Modi regime that is completing its second term is keen to win a third.

This time the authorities were more prepared as they barricaded the capital and adjoining areas. Delhi and the urban sprawl that makes up the NCR has an urban population of around 30 million people and the farmers’ march can drastically disrupt the functioning of the area. This time local and central police had ramped up their efforts to stop that from happening by barricading highways, pouring concrete and stacking shipping containers to halt the advancing tractors and masses of protesters.

ALSO READ: Understanding The Mandi System in India

At the core of the provocation for the renewed protests is the farmers’ demand for a guaranteed implementation of the minimum support price (MSP) for all crops so that they get what they consider fair prices and protect them from exploitation by private companies. The repealed farm bills were aimed at increasing market access and competition, but farmers had feared they would weaken existing structures and leave them vulnerable to corporate control.

About 58% of Indians depend on farming for their livelihood and as much as 68.8% of them live in the rural areas. Considering India’s estimated population of 1.4 billion, those translate into huge numbers. Many farmers are burdened by debt and demand loan waivers to alleviate their financial hardships. They also think that rising costs of fertilisers, pesticides and other inputs put further pressure on their livelihoods.

Among their list of demands is also a call for repealing the electricity amendment bill, which was enacted in 2022, to change electricity distribution rules. Farmers fear that it will increase their costs and further increase their dependence on private companies. 

Government’s view on farmers’ demands

To begin with, although the three farm laws have been repealed, the Indian government still maintains that they were beneficial for farmers and were needed to modernise the farm sector. The contribution of agriculture in GDP of India is 18.3% as per the second advance estimates of national income for 2022-23. This share has been declining over the years as the economy diversifies and grows.

However, the growth rate of agriculture in India is low. In 2022-23, it was 3.3%, which is lower than the previous two years, which recorded 4.1% and 3.5%, respectively. The growth rate varies depending on the monsoon, crop prices, and other factors.

India’s farm productivity, measured by the gross value added (GVA) per worker, which was Rs. 1,00,000 in 2022-23, is much lower than the global average of Rs. 3,60,000. India’s farm productivity is constrained by factors such as small and fragmented land holdings, lack of irrigation, low use of technology, and poor market linkages. According to the government, many of these problems were sought to be tackled by the laws that the Indian government had proposed in 2021.

After the previous round of protests and the repealing of the farm laws, the government has offered what it considers alternative solutions such as MSP for select crops and increased procurement efforts. It has also held multiple rounds of talks with farmers but has not been able to agree on some of the demands such as MSP for all crops. One of the main constraints is the lack of resources to be able to do that.

The problem is compounded by the fact that with a few exceptions, agricultural income is generally exempt from income tax in India. Under the existing laws, even rich farmers with large holdings can be exempt from tax, and this often creates a loophole for tax evasion and inequality.

Is there a solution to the farmers vs. government impasse?

While farm union leaders are demanding guarantees, backed by law, of greater state support or a minimum purchase price for all crops, the government is unable to acquiesce. The central government announces support prices for more than 20 crops every year. However, agriculture falls under the jurisdiction of individual states and their buying agencies can usually buy only rice and wheat at the support level, which benefits only an estimated 7% of farmers.

The procurement of rice and wheat, the two staple foodgrains, is aimed at building a food bank to supply to a massive food welfare system in India that entitles more than half of India’s population (or 800 million people) to subsidised (essentially, free) rice and wheat through the public distribution system. In 2024-25, this food subsidy bill is estimated at Rs 2.05 lakh crore ($24.7 billion). The government has extended its flagship free food welfare scheme, which was announced during the Covid-19 pandemic, for the next five years.

Given the magnitude of the food subsidy bill, the government will find it difficult to extend the MSP to all crops as the farmers are demanding. That is why it is not able to guarantee by law the state support for procurement as demanded by the farmers. The government had, while repealing the three farm laws in 2021, said that it would form a panel of farmers and government representatives to find viable solutions to the issue. Farmers are now accusing the government of going slow on that assurance.

What to expect in the future?

The renewed protests are smaller than the massive agitations that marked the 2020-21 movement but the farmers remain persistent. The government has said it is willing to engage in dialogue but is hesitant in meeting the core demands of legally guaranteed MSP and loan waivers.

The government stresses that alternative solutions and a focus on long-term reforms are the only way to resolve the impasse but farmers are not convinced. The outcome would depend on the government’s willingness to address core demands and farmers’ ability to sustain the movement.

There is, obviously, also a political aspect to it, which is heightened by the coming elections. Further escalation of protests or a deadlock could impact agricultural production and political stability, both highly undesirable outcomes for the ruling regime that is keenly looking to be re-elected for a third term in May.

India Has Violated Its Obligations To UN On Peasant Rights

By Gurdhyan Singh

When the offices of the UN Secretary General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association supported the Indian peasants’ right of peaceful protest and assembly, they were reminding the Indian government of its general human rights obligations under the UN treaties that India has ratified and voluntarily undertaken to enforce at the national level.

These top UN diplomats were cognisant of India’s response to the largely peaceful and unprecedented peasant protests in the form of disproportionate and impermissible law and order measures. Such measures are tantamount to criminalising the current peasant protests and are prohibited by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (the UNDROP).

It took more than seventeen years of campaign by the La Via Campesina, a global network campaign of peasants and rural workers organisations, to reach the milestone of the UNDROP’s adoption by the UN General Assembly on December 17, 2018. At this time, the Indian government has committed to follow the UNDROP which it not only voted for but actually proactively co-sponsored and campaigned for at the UN General Assembly.

The UNDROP brought peasant rights within the ambit of human rights and aimed to strengthen intergovernmental coordination and transnational agrarian solidarity. It is the first ever international law instrument that grants human rights to the majority rural population of global society and provides guidance to the governments on guaranteeing these rights. The UNDROP provides a framework for countries and the international community to strengthen the protection of the human rights of peasants and other rural people and to improve their living conditions.

The UNDROP’s fundamental premise is that the peasant and rural workers constitute 80% of the world’s population and are often victims of human rights violations and suffer from poverty. Peasant and rural landless workers, especially women, do not have equal control over land and other natural resources, or access to education and justice. It recognises the dignity of the world’s rural populations, their contributions to global food production, and their ‘special relationship’ to the land, water and nature, as well as their vulnerabilities to evictions, hazardous working conditions and political repression. 

The UNDROP is a blueprint for potential national legislation dealing with the rights of peasants and rural workers. Although currently it is technically non-binding in a strict sense, it uses the term “shall” implying legal obligations of the countries and is an honour code that all UN members have agreed to uphold and incorporate in their national policy framework. Until it becomes a treaty with its own independent enforcement mechanism, the UN has deferred the UNDROP’s monitoring and instead asked all countries including India to include the UNDROP implementation measures in their periodic reports to the other UN human rights mechanisms.

Importantly, the UNDROP prohibits criminalisation of peasants and rural workers protests and calls upon all countries including India to ensure that it shall not subject them to arbitrary arrest, detention, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments when they exercise their right to freedom of expression and assembly. It also recognises the peasants and rural workers’ right to life, security of persons, freedom of movement, thought, opinion and expression, as well as association.

Despite India’s commitment at the UN not to criminalise any peasant struggle, the government introduced drastic measures in response to current protests such as interrupting access to water and electricity, limiting access to protest sites, barricading and fortifying protest sites, deploying paramilitary forces, disrupting internet services, registering criminal cases, arbitrarily detaining, torturing, and inflicting custodial and sexual violence against the protest leaders, protesters, supporters, and journalists.

From the beginning, the government acquiesced to the ruling party’s political propaganda apparatus that has engaged in a systematic vilification and dehumanisation campaign about the protests. It failed to publicly condemn all off and online attacks, and the use of hateful and misogynistic language against those connected with the protest.

The UNDROP requires India to ensure the primacy of peasants’ rights specified in the UNDROP over all international agreements, including those regulating trade, investments and intellectual property rights. For that purpose, it further mandates India to take legislative, administrative measures with full consultation of its rural populations. The government in drafting three farm laws has not made good faith efforts to facilitate the peasants’ right to actively participate in the legislative process.

The UNDROP states that India is obliged to take measures to favour peasants selling their products in markets and allow their families to attain an adequate standard of living. The measures enshrined in the three farm laws including the government’s unwillingness to give statutory power to the Minimum Support Price (MSP), adversely affecting the peasants fair access to the market and adequate standard of living, thereby breaching its commitment to the UNDROP.

Without any philosophical or ideological shift at government level or its explicit reservation to the implementation of the UNDROP, India’s volte face reveals its apparent intent to not comply with the UNDROP’s key provisions. The Indian governmental leadership understands the gravity of the situation about the agrarian crisis and protests, and understands its obligations to the peasants, yet it is making a strategic decision that dispute resolution and conflict prevention efforts are not worth the political costs.

A very simple understanding of the holistic configuration of the current protest dynamics indicates various imminent warning signs for the protests spiraling into a larger unmanageable crisis, with devastating consequences for peasants, rural workers, police and armed forces, their families, and the whole social fabric. Even now, a staggering number of protesters continue to die.

The government’s continuous failure to resolve the farm bill dispute, may result in one or more different scenarios, such as aggressive law enforcement actions or incidents of random and scattered violence or even a prolonged low-intensity rural armed conflict, with unimaginable human and material loss. 

ALSO READ: Farmers Agitation Is Modi Govt’s Biggest Test

The protest has gradually reached a monumental juncture nationally beyond the strategic encampments at various entry points to New Delhi, with increasing global support. It is slowly starting to receive attention from the UN human rights processes. On February 11, 2021, the La Via Campesina representative spoke at a high-level special event of The UN Committee on World Food Security and said that “thousands of farmers in India are on the streets for over [the past] 75 days demanding a fair support price for their harvest. They are worried because of the entry of big agribusinesses and contract farming models that will push down their incomes further and they will have no chance to bargain.”

Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her oral updates on the global human rights situation in more than 50 countries at the 46th session opening of the UN Human Rights Council, provided much needed and belated impetus to protests when she highlighted that “continued protests by hundreds of thousands of farmers [in India] highlight the importance of ensuring laws and policies are based on meaningful consultations with those concerned. I trust that ongoing dialogue efforts by both sides will lead to an equitable solution to this crisis that respects the rights of all. Charges of sedition against journalists and activists for reporting or commenting on the protests, and attempts to curb freedom of expression on social media, are disturbing departures from essential human rights principles…”

Given the global attention the protest is receiving, it is likely that peasants and rural workers globally may observe the forthcoming International Day of Peasant’s Struggle on April 17, 2021, in support of the Indian protests. This day commemorates the massacre of the peasants and landless workers by armed forces in 1996 in Brazil while protesting for comprehensive agrarian reform.

If the government had been more transparent nationally during the drafting of the three farm bills, upheld its commitments under the UNDROP, and discharged its ethical responsibility and legal obligations to diligently implement them, it could have averted this crisis that continues to bring immense pain, suffering, and trauma to all, and that also has inflamed a toxic socio-political culture of intolerance.

The writer is a former UN human rights monitor in Yugoslavia and Rwanda

Indian Farmers Protest

‘The World Is Taking Note Of Indian Farmers Protest’

By LokMarg

Gurcharan Singh, 54, a teacher in Toronto, says farmers protest has now become a people’s movement. Every weekend, he attends demonstrations before Indian consulate in biting cold

I have been a Canadian citizen for the last 25 years but that doesn’t mean I have forgotten India. My heart is still there and so is my extended family who are all farmers. Before I shifted to Canada 30 years back, I was a farmer in Punjab. I worked at the fields during my studies and even after I had taken up a job in India.

I still fancy farming and look forward to owning a farm in Canada in future. Therefore, I understand the challenges and hardships a farmer faces. I understand how unpredictable a farmer’s life can get and in India, MSPs are the only predictable thing for this community.

Since the matter was so close to my heart I braved the sub-zero freezing cold and the fear of coronavirus to take part in anti-farm laws protest in Canada. Major demonstrations and car rallies are held every weekend in our city outside Indian consulate while sporadic protests take place here and there as well. Each weekend, protesters drove down in various vehicles from cars, tractors, goods trucks, dump trucks, trailers etc, some from as far as 45-50 kilometres, to reach the consulate. I have attended all the weekend rallies since December 12.

A protester in Toronto displays his solidarity with Indian farmers

The protests have been peaceful. On December 19, we gathered at the centre of the city on Dundas Square (Toronto) where we were confronted by a Modi supporter. However, the organizers calmly requested him to go away. Then we were escorted by police and marched on city streets three kilometres to the consulate office. Nothing can stop us.

All three bills are very dangerous. If the first Bill gets passed, the corporates will kill state-run mandis and MSP system. I support MSP for all 23 crops. Even vegetables and fruits should have MSP, if we want to keep our farmers alive.

The second bill about contract farming is worse. Some farmers in Sangrur (Punjab) and Gujarat have already experienced its adverse impact in their dealings with cola major Pepsi. Moreover, the lack of dispute redressal mechanism can prove to be very dangerous for the farmers.

Third bill is about unlimited storage of crops. When under new law only one company (Adani group) will be controlling the storage and distribution to consumers, then they will be controlling the whole distribution process. Artificial shortage will be created and consumers will have to pay five times more prices.

ALSO READ: ‘Govt Wants Farm Sector To Go Telecom Way’

I am glad that Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is openly supporting the farmers movement. Not only him, but the Opposition leader, Erin O’ Toole (Conservative Party) and Jagmeet Singh (New Democratic Party) also support the farmers. The idea of corporatisation of farming was tried in Canada some 40-50 years back and our leaders know what a failure it was, which is why they are standing with the Indian farmers.

A protester holds an anti-Modi placard in Toronto

I feel Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi is running away from his responsibilities. He is bending over backwards to please his corporate friends, Adani and Ambani. I think he is unable to accept his failure. Farmers from Punjab started this protest and now it has become a people’s movement. It has brought people from all religions, all professional backgrounds together like never before. The movement will stop BJP’s engine running on the fuel of Hindutva.

We will keep voicing our dissent in our part of the world. I do not have to take time off from work because most of the protests happen on weekends. I attend the protests with my wife, son (24), daughter (19) and family friends. Even though my children are Canada-born they do understand the ground realities of India.

My daughter drove nearly 100 kms from her University in Waterloo to the protest site just so she could register her voice. She also spent a lot of time making posters for the protests. I was filled with pride to see that first, second and even third generation Indians, including Sikhs, were present at the rallies. This is no longer just an Indian farmers issue anymore; the whole world is taking note of the situation.

Singh (in green turban) and other protesters brave freezing cold to voice their dissent