The Farmers’ Protest in India: Civil Society’s Role in Agriculture Reforms

In November 2020, thousands of farmers from Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh began marching toward Delhi, only to be met with barricades, water cannons, and trenches dug across highways. They did not turn back. Instead, they set up camp at the borders of the national capital and stayed there for more than a year. What started as scattered protests against three agricultural laws grew into one of the largest and longest organised civil movements in independent India’s history. This case study shows how ordinary citizens, working through unions and informal networks, can challenge the decisions of a powerful elected government and force a reversal.

What is civil society and why it matters 🔗

Civil society refers to the space between the family, the state, and the market where citizens organise themselves to pursue shared goals. It includes non-governmental organisations, trade unions, professional associations, advocacy groups, and informal social movements that operate independently of the government. The core function of these bodies is to represent citizen interests, shape public opinion, and act as a watchdog over those in power.

Democracy is not just about voting once every five years. Between elections, civil society gives citizens a way to hold power holders accountable and to influence policy through collective action. India has a long tradition of this kind of mobilisation, from the Chipko movement of the 1970s to the anti-corruption campaigns of recent decades. The farmers’ protest of 2020-21 belongs squarely within this tradition, and it is one of the clearest examples of civil society directly altering a major national policy.

The three farm laws that sparked the protest 🔗

The story begins in June 2020, when the central government introduced three agricultural reform measures through ordinances. These were later passed by Parliament and given presidential assent at the end of September 2020. The three laws were:

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce Act 🔗

This law relaxed restrictions on where farmers could sell their produce. Earlier, much of the buying and selling happened through state-regulated markets called mandis. The new law allowed sales outside these markets, which the government argued would give farmers more freedom and better prices.

The Farmers Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 🔗

This enabled contract farming, allowing farmers to enter agreements directly with private buyers and corporations before sowing a crop. Disputes were to be settled through local administrative officers rather than the courts.

The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 🔗

This loosened rules on the stocking and movement of food items, permitting traders to stockpile commodities that were previously tightly regulated.

The government claimed these reforms would modernise agriculture, increase farmer incomes, and give producers more choice. But many farmers saw something very different.

Why farmers felt threatened 🔗

The deepest fear centred on the Minimum Support Price (MSP). MSP is the floor price at which government agencies buy certain crops, calculated on the average cost of production. For farmers in Punjab and Haryana especially, where wheat and paddy procurement at MSP is the backbone of the rural economy, the absence of any legal guarantee in the new laws was alarming.

Farmers worried that as private trade expanded outside the mandi system, the government would gradually withdraw from procurement, leaving the official MSP meaningless in practice. Their concern was that opening the sector to corporations without a minimum price guarantee would expose them to exploitation and push down the prices they received. In short, they feared being left at the mercy of large buyers.

There was also resentment over the process itself. The bills were passed in the Rajya Sabha by a voice vote, ignoring opposition demands for a recorded vote, and farmers complained that there had been little consultation. A reform that affected the livelihoods of millions had been pushed through with what felt like haste and disregard.

How civil society mobilised the movement 🔗

This is where the protest becomes a textbook study in civil society in action. The movement was not driven by a single charismatic leader or a political party. It was built by farmer unions, village networks, and voluntary contributions.

The role of farmer unions 🔗

The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) had been a significant political force since the 1980s, providing a platform for big and middle farmers across caste and religious lines. It had even played a role in the farmers’ protests that contributed to the fall of the Congress government in the 1989 elections. In 2020, the BKU and its various factions became central to rallying farmers once again.

Small-scale protests had begun in Punjab in August 2020, with farmers resorting to rail roko (blocking railway tracks). After the laws were passed, the agitation spread. On 25 September 2020, farm unions across the country called for a Bharat Bandh, a nationwide shutdown, to register their opposition.

The formation of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha 🔗

The turning point in organisation came in November 2020 with the formation of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), an umbrella body that united dozens of farmer outfits under a single banner. The SKM coordinated the march to Delhi and became the public face of negotiations. It held eleven rounds of talks with the government demanding the repeal of the laws and a legal guarantee for MSP. This coalition-building was crucial. By bringing together unions that often disagreed, the SKM created a unified front that the government could not easily divide.

Methods of resistance 🔗

The protesters relied on largely peaceful methods rooted in the Indian tradition of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance. These included gherao (encirclement), dharna (sit-ins), raasta roko (road blockades), and mass demonstrations. Farmers set up semi-permanent camps at the Singhu, Tikri, and Ghazipur borders of Delhi, complete with kitchens, medical tents, and sleeping arrangements built from tractors and trolleys.

A striking feature was self-sufficiency. The funding to sustain a movement of this scale came largely from the participants themselves. Villages in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh ensured a steady flow of resources through fixed contributions based on landholding, making it a genuinely grassroots effort. Community kitchens, or langar, fed thousands daily, drawing on the Sikh tradition of communal service.

The digital dimension 🔗

Civil society in the twenty-first century also operates online. The SKM’s digital wing, the Kisan Ekta Morcha, was run by a small group of tech-savvy young farmers who managed social media pages, recorded videos, streamed press conferences, and coined hashtags. They posted slogans and videos in the thousands every day, ensuring the movement’s message reached audiences far beyond the protest sites and could not easily be ignored.

The movement endures hardship and pressure 🔗

The protest was not without cost. Farmers braved a harsh north Indian winter, the monsoon, and a deadly wave of the pandemic while camped on the roadsides. There were periods of tension, including the government’s attempt on the night of 27 January 2021 to forcibly remove protesters from the Delhi borders, which many felt wounded the dignity of farmers across communities and only strengthened their resolve.

Hundreds of farmers reportedly died over the course of the year-long agitation from illness, exposure, and other causes. The movement also drew international attention, with global figures commenting on it and a debate even taking place in the UK Parliament after an e-petition crossed 100,000 signatures.

The repeal: a rare government retreat 🔗

On 19 November 2021, on the occasion of Guru Nanak Jayanti, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the three farm laws would be repealed. In his address, he admitted that the government had failed to convince a section of farmers of the laws’ intent and appealed to them to return home. On 29 November 2021, both houses of Parliament passed the Farm Laws Repeal Bill by voice vote.

This was a remarkable reversal for a government known for pushing through tough decisions despite opposition. Analysts noted that the approach of upcoming state elections in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, along with a sense of electoral vulnerability, played a part in the decision. Whatever the precise mix of reasons, the outcome was clear: sustained civil pressure had forced a powerful government to back down.

It is worth noting that the farmers did not immediately disperse. Their demands extended beyond repeal to include a legal guarantee for MSP, compensation for the families of farmers who died, and the withdrawal of police cases. The government gave written assurances on some of these points and agreed to form a committee on MSP. The struggle over a legal MSP continues even today, a reminder that policy victories are often partial and that civil society’s work rarely ends with a single concession.

What this case teaches us about civil society 🔗

The farmers’ protest illustrates several enduring lessons about how civil society functions in a democracy. First, collective organisation matters. A scattered grievance becomes a powerful force only when bodies like the SKM coordinate diverse groups into a unified movement. Second, legitimacy comes from the grassroots. Because the movement was funded and sustained by farmers themselves, it could not easily be dismissed as the work of outsiders or a single political party.

Third, the episode shows the role of civil society as a check on power between elections. The Constitution protects the freedoms of speech, peaceful assembly, and association under Article 19, and these rights gave the movement its legal foundation. Finally, the repeal can be read as a sign of democratic health, not weakness. The full cycle of proposal, protest, participation, and eventual reconciliation is exactly how a responsive democracy is meant to work.

At the same time, the protest invites harder questions. Reforms that may benefit some groups can threaten others, and a government must balance the urgency of change against the need for genuine consultation. Whether the laws themselves were good economics remains a matter of debate among experts. What is beyond debate is the demonstrated capacity of organised citizens to shape the direction of national policy.

What do you think? Was the repeal of the farm laws a triumph of democratic participation, or does forcing the withdrawal of legislation through prolonged protest weaken the authority of an elected Parliament? And how should a government reconcile the genuine need for economic reform with the equally genuine need to win the consent of those most affected?

References

1. https://www.nimbusias.com/civil-societies-and-their-role-in-the-governance-of-india/
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/civil-society-organizations-in-india
3. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9226/
4. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/india-indian-government-withdraws-three-farm-laws-following-months-protests
5. https://www.stimson.org/2021/modis-farm-laws-repeal-a-rare-retreat/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farmers'_protest
7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00380229221116996
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyukt_Kisan_Morcha
9. https://participedia.net/case/indian-anti-farm-laws-protest-2020-21
10. https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/economy-and-ecology/indias-farmers-want-the-agrarian-crisis-to-end-5670/
11. https://www.business-standard.com/podcast/economy-policy/is-legalising-msp-a-panacea-for-india-s-agri-troubles-121113000074_1.html
12. https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/The-Role-of-Civil-Society-Organizations-in-Indian-Democracy