Abstract:
The study aims to examine if the globalisation movement constitutes a novel and distinct type of politics that has arisen worldwide since the mid-1990s. A coalition of diverse demonstrators from many sectors of society joined forces to combat the inequities resulting from globalization. The movement employs highly democratic political methods and confrontational strategies to directly target the economic and political systems of global capital. This study aims to examine the predominant political nature of such movements. The primary question that this study seeks to address is whether the globalisation movement is primarily driven by identity-based concerns or concerns related to economic and political development. This article examines several case studies on direct-action politics and globalisation movements, specifically focusing on farmers’ protests against anti-WTO policies in the Indian setting. This article aims to support this remark by utilizing data from many sources such as literature, official records, and field work. The study picked two prominent farmers’ associations, namely Karnataka Rajjya Rasta Sangha and Bharatiya Kishan Union. Approximately 200 farmers, accompanied by renowned leaders, were chosen during field trips to investigate the entitlement to identity, nature, role, and importance of the study.
Key Words: Globalisation, Anti-globalisation Movements, WTO, Farmers’ protest.
Introduction:
“Globalisation is a double-edged sword; a powerful vehicle that raises economic growth, spreads new technology and increases living standards in rich and poor countries alike, but also immensely controversial process that assaults national sovereignty, erodes local culture and tradition and threatens economic and social stability” (Samuelson 2000)
Currently, there is a widespread discussion about globalisation, and its interpretation varies among individuals. At its fundamental level, globalisation refers to the expansion of worldwide trade. The phenomenon leads to an overall rise in average real incomes across all nations, while the distribution of these gains is uneven both among and within countries, resulting in potential losses for certain individuals (Steger 2003: 43). The nature and impact of globalisation have been extensively debated and sources of significant worry among economists since the mid-1990s. The ongoing arguments regarding globalisation revolve around the topic of whether unregulated market forces would have an impact on the planet. Advocates of globalisation argue that it has facilitated the sharing of knowledge, fostered cross-cultural comprehension, elevated living conditions, bolstered consumer buying capacity (particularly in Western countries), and enabled the prevalence of democracy over communism (“Imade 2003”). However, critics of globalisation, such those who demonstrated against the ministerial gatherings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), argue that the Western world’s benefits have come at the direct cost of poor nations (Rodrik 2011: 81). These adversaries contended that the impacts of globalisation can be advantageous or detrimental, contingent upon many conditions. For example, economic globalisation can yield both positive and negative outcomes. The benefits of globalisation encompass the eradication of regional monopolies and inefficiency, the ability to access possibilities worldwide that were previously inaccessible, and the realization among citizens that they are not fated to be subjugated by local political circumstances. Furthermore, the elimination of local monopolies, inefficient local producers, unscrupulous politicians, and unproductive workers brings advantages to the general population. The majority of adversaries have embraced these favorable advancements. Their resistance focuses on the multiple disparities and injustices that result from neo-liberal policies linked to globalisation (Ulgen et al., 2022).
The article aims to analyse social movements that reject various forms of social, economic, and ecological injustice attributed to globalisation. This movement directly challenges the economic and political structure of global capital using highly democratic political methods and confrontational strategies. My study aims to highlight the protest movements that occurred, particularly during WTO ministerial sessions, with a specific focus on the Farmers’ agitation in India.
Methodology:
The study was based on the secondary data collected from various books, Journal, and statistical sources. Some of the sources of these secondary data include: Ministry of Commerce, APEDA, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) and Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S), Hand book of Reserve Bank of India.etc. Along with the secondary data, primary data employed for the present study. Two types of primary data referred namely published documents like government documents (export and import data), data on agricultural output, and primary survey. The government documents included various bilateral and multilateral treaties, trade policies, export-import policy, etc. The primary data included a survey through a structured schedule from various stakeholders of the study, namely, farmers associations and social activists who are working for the cause of the farmers. After a thorough desk research, a research schedule developed. Before administering the final schedule, a detailed research schedule was developed which was administered among the different stakeholders. The study is essentially an exploratory analysis of interactions among farmers to understand the socio-economic elements influencing the identities of the movements that Indian farmers carry out under the WTO framework.
Notions and Characteristics of Globalisation Movements:
Despite the recent prevalence of the word “Anti-globalisation” in literature and journalism, researchers have not yet reached a consensus on a unified label for the Globalisation movement. However, this term is commonly used by the media. Noam Chomsky, a scholar, and activist, has contended that this designation is as devoid of significance as asserting that the objective of the movement is to universalise justice.[1] The ‘anti-globalisation movement’ encompasses a wide range of groups, such as Farmers Associations, Civil society activists, Human right activists, religious groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists, and others. “Chomsky (2017) has also asserted that the absence of centralisation in this context might really be its source of power”. Certain “anti-globalisation” activists raise objections to the selective nature of current globalisation, which promotes the globalisation of money and companies while neglecting to extend the same treatment to individuals and labor unions. This is apparent from the stringent immigration regulations prevalent in almost all nations and the absence of labour rights in numerous emerging countries.
The ‘anti-globalisation’ movement encompasses a diverse array of groups with various concerns, including the environment, labor and worker rights, human rights, poverty, inequality, neoliberalism, and consumerism, among others. The World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, and the IMF are being specifically targeted by international economic organizations. The slogans “Defund the Fund” and “Break the Bank” have become often repeated chants among the protesters (Kobrin 2001: 2). The pervasive influence and control exerted by transnational businesses is a fundamental and cohesive motif. A significant number of individuals within the anti-globalisation movement acknowledge the existence of globalisation and concur that it is inevitable to have an international system based on rules. Protesters contend that global governance institutions should accurately represent the demands of a broader portion of humanity than they currently do, and that they should be enhanced in terms of democracy and accountability. The primary worry of many individuals in the movement is the perceived reduction in accountability and democratic control when decision-making authority transitions from national governments to international institutions such as the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF (Kobrin 2001: 22). The strength of the anti-globalisation movement lies in its capacity to foster a tangible, rather than purely ideological, political resistance by the global workforce against the objectives of globalised capitalism. Indian farmers, Canadian trade unionists, and European students participated in collective anti-globalisation demonstrations, engaging in marches, discussions, and collaborative organising throughout the past two years. The growing convergence of individuals across many barriers, such as geographical, religious, gender, and political, has posed a challenge to the objectives of both Islamic fundamentalists and capitalist globalisers (Steger & Wilson 2012: 445).
Globalisation and WTO
The process of globalisation is influenced to some extent by the endeavors of the World Trade Organistion (WTO) to promote the liberalisation of closed markets and facilitate the growth of international trade. In general, international trade has the potential to be advantageous for developing nations by improving their living standards. Additionally, it can contribute to the promotion of peace by adhering to globally accepted trade standards and regulations, hence reducing the probability of conflicts or disasters. However, we are worried about the emphasis on corporate interests in global commerce, where national safety regulations, laws, and policies are frequently seen as obstacles to trade. Additionally, a predominantly unelected group of World Trade Organisation (WTO) officials has the authority to make these determinations. Criticism is also directed towards the corporate influence on the formulation and content of trade regulations, as businesses lack democratic processes (Jones, 2004). However, the laws they advocate for through the WTO have wide-ranging implications for all individuals. In essence, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) primarily aims to promote worldwide market expansion with a strong emphasis on maximizing corporate profits. The activities of many civil societies are directly influenced by contemporary economic globalisation, which is driven and governed by the WTO. Many workers and labor unions argue that WTO agreements amplify import competition and jeopardize their employment. In contrast, environmentalists accuse the WTO of promoting pollution and impeding governments from safeguarding national environmental regulations. Additionally, anti-capitalist protesters view the WTO as a mechanism utilised by large corporations (Bhaskar 2011: 21). They have been protested WTO policies in several WTO Ministerial Meetings held time to time in different places of the world as follows:
Table 1: World Trade Organisation Meetings:
Year
Location
Number of Protesters
18th-20thMay, 1998
Geneva, Switzerland
2,000-3,000
13th -20thDecember, 1999
Seattle, USA
50,000-70,000
9th -14thNovember, 2001
Doha Qatar
1,000
10th -14thSeptember, 2003
Cancun Mexico
2,000-3,000
11th -18thDecember, 2005
Hong Kong, China
5,000-10,000
28thNove-2ndDec, 2009
Geneva, Switzerland
5,000-7000
15th -17thDecember, 2011
Geneva, Switzerland
2000-2500
3rd -7thDecember, 2013
Bali, Indonesia
6000-8000
15th -19thDecember, 2015
Nairobi, Kenya
5000-7000
10th -13thDecember, 2017
Buenos Aires- Argentina
5000-7000
12th–16th June, 2022
Geneva, Switzerland
4000-5000
Source: data collected from www.wto.org&https://www.bloomberg.com/ to prepare chart.
The manifestation of globalisation has incited a political opposition, evident in the series of street demonstrations that disrupted the WTO ministerial meetings in Seattle in autumn 1999, Doha in 2001, Cancun in 2003, Hong Kong in 2005, Geneva in 2009 and 2011, Bali in 2013, Nairobi in 2015, Buenos Aires in 2017, and most recently Geneva in 2022. The reaction has effectively brought together various groups of demonstrators from diverse backgrounds to establish a unified front against the disparities resulting from globalisation. For instance, cultural custodians argue that national cultures and identities face ongoing risks because of the proliferation of the Internet, satellite TV, international media networks, and more personal travel. Democrats assert that multinational corporations (MNCs) are gaining more power and influence, surpassing that of democratically elected governments. Ecologists are excessively preoccupied with businesses’ lack of care for environmental destruction. Human rights advocates are expressing their sorrow about the erosion of individual liberties due to the influence of corporate authority. In addition, small business owners are expressing concern over the loss of their market shares to large businesses because of the advantages gained from economies of scale. The proliferation of information technology resulting from globalisation has frequently contradicted the principles of globalisation (“Lucy 2003”). Within the context of this study, anti-globalisation pertains especially to the movement opposing a neo-liberal capitalist model of economic globalisation. Essentially, the movement does not oppose globalisation in its entirety, but rather focuses on a specific interpretation of it.
In general, all the significant protests, such as those in Seattle, Washington, and Davos, were organised and synchronised using the Internet. The movement is intrinsically technological, and the protests might be interpreted as tangible expressions of a digital movement. One reason why these protest movements may appear to have a greater impact on a wider audience compared to previous ones is the increased participation of individuals through electronic means. In addition, the Internet has demonstrated its efficacy in customizing significant challenges and discussing the issues presented by globalisation in a manner that immediately resonates with diverse audiences (Kobrin 2001: 30). It is impossible to undo the significant advancements in technology, the globalisation and integration of production, and particularly the digital revolution and the establishment of a globally connected economy. National governments have experienced a decline in their authority due to their diminished ability to independently address numerous pressing issues of our times. The trajectory of globalisation is unlikely to follow a straight or smooth path. Continued upheaval and unpredictability are anticipated for a significant period.
Protests against globalisation policies in India: An Overview
Globalisation process has made significant impact on India’s economy and society segment since India has warmly welcomed economic liberalisation of 1991. Although it has caused significant demonstrations in several places, it has also boosted economic growth, scientific discoveries, and international investment. Concerns about corporate control, environmental degradation, local industry loss, labor rights, and economic inequality are the main reasons why Indians oppose globalisation policies. Farmers, labor unions, small business owners, environmentalists, and student organisations are among the groups that have opposed policies that support deregulation, free trade agreements (FTAs), privatisation, and foreign direct investment (FDI). Economic disparity, loss of livelihoods, environmental deterioration, and corporate dominance over important sectors are the main issues (Dubba 2016: 81)
There have been various movements happened across the India against globalisation associated policies in response to concerned about injustice, corporate dominance and threaten to local live hood. One of the most prominent protests occurred during 2020–2021, when millions of farmers mobilised against three farm laws that were widely perceived to favour large corporations at the expense of small farmers. This mass movement, which lasted over a year, involved widespread demonstrations and blockades, ultimately leading to the repeal of the legislation (Narula 2021: 94).
Anti-WTO and anti-FTA rallies have also become common after India’s entry into global trade frameworks. There are many diverse groups such as Farmers’ Associations, trade unions, and civil society organisations have repeatedly resisted trade liberalisation under the WTO, as risks to agricultural subsidies, low imports, and unfair competition. Free trade agreements associated with globalisation process has also caused concerns among many small farmers and regional dairy companies, especially after India withdrew from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2019. Another important factor in this larger opposition to globalisation has been protests against land acquisition and Special Economic Zones (SEZs). For Instance, The Nandigram agitation in West Bengal (2007) proved violent conflicts as people opposed land acquisition for a Salim Group-proposed SEZ, which eventually led to the project’s rejection. The POSCO protest in Odisha (2005-2017) was one of the longest anti-globalization movements, with local populations opposing a South Korean steel mill over environmental and displacement concerns, eventually leading to the project’s abandonment (Niranjan 2016: 35). The POSCO protest in Odisha (2005-2017) was one of the longest anti-globalization movements, with local populations opposing a South Korean steel mill over environmental and displacement concerns, eventually leading to the project’s abandonment (Niranjan 2016: 35).
Environmental and indigenous rights movements have also opposed globalisation-driven industrial development. The 2013 struggle against Vedanta’s bauxite mining project in Odisha’s Niyamgiri hills was a watershed moment, with local tribal groups effectively preventing a multinational business from abusing their land and resources (The Hindu: March 17, 2019) These movements show the ongoing fight between economic liberalisation and local economic and environmental concerns, which has influenced India’s approach to globalisation policies. The Singur campaign (2006-2008) also prompted Tata Motors to relocate their Nano vehicle manufacturing due to peasant opposition to land acquisition.
Similarly, there are also many local businesses and small retailers in India have also led protests over foreign direct investment in retail and e-commerce, posed a threat to well-established retail markets. Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), which has taken an active role in these demonstrations, has advocated for policies that protects Indian companies
Indian Farmers’ specific protest against WTO policies:
India joined WTO as one of its original members on January 1, 1995. Agriculture is a significant concern under the WTO that affects the Indian economy, as well as its farmers and marginalised communities. Following the establishment of the WTO and the regulation of agriculture under the scope of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), the discussion mostly focused on the agricultural economy and the long-standing conflict between agrarian capitalism and Western capitalism. The advent of this new discussion resulted in the formation of novel alliances at both local and global scales (Nehru 2012: 17). India consistently advocates for the interests of developing economies in the divergent viewpoints at the World Trade Organisation between rich and developing economies. Farmers’ Associations organise several protests across the India to add to these conversations. These include the Kerala Coconut Farmers Association (KCFA), the South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movement (SICCFM) that spans the states of South India, the Bharatiya Kishan Majdoor from Uttar Pradesh, the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS), the Bharat Kishan Union (BKU) from Tamil Nadu, and the Joint Actions Forum of India People (JIFIP) from Hyderabad. The farmers’ associations are actively engaging in anti-WTO protest movements, claiming on the issue of agricultural products, tariffs, minimum support price for domestic procurement, and the import and export of designated agricultural items (Muzaffar 1997: 32).
The farmers’ protest movement in India receives support from Civil Society activists, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Environmentalists, and human rights advocates. Leaders and members of the Indian farmer organisation have consistently protested the policies of the WTO in several WTO Ministerial Meetings held at different locations across the world.
1.5 Field Survey: Selected Stake Holders of Protest Movements during my Field Work: Table No.1.5.I
Sl. No
Stake holders
Sample Size
1.
Farmers
200
2.
Farmers Leaders
4
3.
Farmers Associations
2
1.5. A. Background of Study Respondents
All the respondents belong to KRRS, BKU are working for the causes of farmers concerns under WTO policies. There are age criteria for the farmers but that they collectively fight for their rights and justice. Most of respondent farmers are in the age of middle (40- 59) ages; few are younger (30-39) and very few belongs to senior (60-above).
Chart 1.1a See Farmers Age Criteria: –
Source: Primary dada collected from farmers of Karnataka Raja Raitha Sanga (KRRS), Mysore, Karnataka.
Based on the age parameters mentioned, it is evident that farmers in the middle age range are more engaged in these matters due to their expertise in agricultural work and their active involvement in cultivation. Furthermore, the involvement of individuals in their middle age also signifies, from a sociological standpoint, that these farmers have no alternative career possibilities and are entirely reliant on agricultural labour.
The respondents primarily consisted of individuals from ligngayath, Nair, Kongu, Velar, Dosa, and Kuruba communities, who belong to Dalit, tribal, and other backward strata within the Hindu community. According to a field survey, majority farmers possess between two and five acres of land. Fewer farmers have between five and fifteen acres, and even fewer are large-scale farmers, with more than fifteen acres under cultivation.
The collected data indicates that the respondents rely entirely on agricultural goods, which determine their livelihood system. Paddy, Coconut, Banana, Tomatoes, Edible Oil, Sugarcane, Turmeric, and Arakanet are among the agricultural goods that satisfy market demands at the local, national, and worldwide levels. The data on the educational qualifications of the respondents reveals that a significant majority (‘Sixty per cent’) have received some level of schooling. Among the remaining respondents, the majority (‘Twenty per cent’) have completed their secondary education, likely up to Class 5 or 10. Small portions (‘Ten per cent’) have completed their education up to the higher secondary level. A very small percentage (‘Five per cent’) holds a graduate degree. Notable senior farmers’ leaders, such as Kannaiyan Subramanian[2] and Professor M. D. Nanjundaswamy[3], possess extensive education and intellectual prowess, which they employ to spearhead and investigate many movements. It is evident from the context that the majorities of respondents are tiny, marginalised agricultural producers, many of whom also belong to the Dalit, tribal, and backward classes.
Chart 1.1b. See Farmers Education Qualification parameter: —
Source: Primary data is collected from…. Mysore, Chamraj Nagar, KARNATAKA, farmers of Karnataka Raja Raitha Sangam (KRRS), BKU
Chart 1.1c. See the Farmers hold lands for cultivating
Source: Primary data is collected from Mysore, Chamraj Nagar, Karnataka, farmers of Karnataka Raja Raitha Sangam (KRRS), BKU
Field Study Findings:
The findings of this study unequivocally highlight two aspects: Unlike other social movements such as environmental or women’s movements, which often engage with civil society, the farmers’ protest movements have focused on exerting pressure on the government for immediate improvements to assist farmers, as well as long-term policy changes. Furthermore, it is worth noting that many farmers’ associations participating in protest movements are affiliated with the South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements (SICCFM). Through my field study, I selected the farmers’ associations of Karnataka Rajya Ryotha Sangha (KRRS) and Bharatiya Kishan Union (BKU) to investigate the level of involvement of middle-aged farmers (aged 40-59) in agricultural concerns. The study aimed to determine if these farmers, who have both experience in agriculture and active involvement in cultivation work, are more engaged in these matters. Furthermore, the involvement of individuals in their middle age also signifies, from a sociological standpoint, that these farmers have no alternative career possibilities and are entirely reliant on agricultural labour. Another significant tendency identified in my study is the respondents’ complete reliance on agricultural products, which determines their livelihood system. Agricultural products such as paddy, Coconut, Banana, Tomatoes, Edible oil, Sugarcane, Turmeric, and Araka net are highly sought after in local, national, and international markets. The study also indicates that most farmers are small landholders, owning 2-5 acres of land. A few farmers possess 5-15 acres, while just a small number are considered large-scale farmers, with more than 15 acres of land for cultivation. Generally, the majority of respondents are tiny, marginalised agricultural producers, many of them belong to the Dalit, tribal, and backward classes. They have been protesting WTO rules that affect agriculture for a significant period.
An important discovery regarding farmers associations is that organisations like KRRS and BKU are actively involved in promoting and instructing small and marginal farmers in alternative agricultural methods. These methods prioritise self-sufficiency, sustainability, and traditional cultivation practices, rather than relying on exports and the global market, which is regulated by WTO provisions. Thus, Farmers Associations have demonstrated that local issues have really taken on a genuinely global nature. It formed international alliances to regain control over the future and counter the progress of an imbalanced World Trade Organisation.
Farmers ‘Interest Vis-à-vis WTO Policy: Role of Indian Government:
Nehru (2011: 76) pointed out that the farmers in developed countries, with massive support of governments through domestic and export subsidies and high tariffs and some other advantages in terms of higher financial resources, access to technology and benefit of modern infrastructure clearly have unfair advantage over the developing countries. On the other hand, the farmers of developing countries like India, does not get such support as developed countries can do. Food and livelihood security of people, protection of the interest of domestic farmers, maximizing export opportunities for Indian agriculture products and permanent solution of pubic stockholding for food sovereignty etc. have been the guiding principles of India’s proposals at the WTO negotiations on agriculture and the various Ministerial Conferences of WTO. The Ministerial Conference is the “highest authority” in the WTO. The Ministers take political decisions on difficult issues and determine new areas of negotiations. The Ministerial Meeting is the body with most control over the WTO. The role of Indian government in the context of agriculture concerns are brought out during the various ministerial conferences of WTO. The participations of different countries’ official counterpart negotiators are trying to raise their urges with convincingly in the assembly.
The role of Indian government for protecting farmers’ interest was not satisfactory. The study have shown that Shri Murasoli Maran was the tough negotiator to get tussle on the table of Doha ministerial meetings so far as he continuing the process of consultations with all stakeholders on WTO-related issues, especially many farmers and farmers’ leader of various farmers Associations and he managed to block the demands to include several issues such as investment, labour standards’ in the Doha round of talks.[4] Though Arun Jaitley in Cancun (2003), Kamal Nath in Hongkong (2005), and Anand Sharma in Geneva ministerial meetings (2009) attacked the developed countries for demanding in the area of market access, tariff rate quotas, lower import duties. tariff simplification, tariff capping and preference erosion, which were issues of great interest to Indian farmers, were addressed in these conferences but clearly the issues were far from convergence. In Bali (2013) ministerial conference, Sri Sharma, in the agenda of food security, managed to earn a “peace clause” and WTO allowed India to fix a Minimum Support Price for farm produce and to sell staple grains to the poor at subsidised prices. But, Nirmala Sitharaman in Nairobi ministerial meeting (2015) and Mr. Suresh Pravu at 12th ministerial meeting at Bunoise Aires (2017), did not reach any permanent solutions of public stockholding for food security purposes. India got a reiteration of a perpetual peace clause till the time a permanent solution for food security concerns is found.
Truly speaking, India government should be successful in persuading high-income countries to open their markets by reducing the agricultural subsidies and convince them to relax the trade barriers imposed by them. In the next round negotiation on WTO to be held on Cameroon, date yet to be confirmed, India should seek clubbing all kinds of support to agriculture in one category and seek more parity among developed and developing countries. Huge investment in agriculture is needed to boost up the productivity and production in general and special emphasis needs to be given on the promotion of production and productivity of the selected export-oriented crops in India. The successive governments at the centre are rightly thinking in the direction of bringing a Second Green Revolution[5] in agriculture.
It is important to point out the developing countries would need more time to bridge the gap in their developmental pursuits as compared to the level of development in advanced countries. The two types of economies would not be able to compete on reciprocal basis for longer period, because the real reciprocity differs from the conventional reciprocity. In real terms, the developing world is far behind of the developed world and the former needs assistance from the latter, if both are to be brought at par. Most importantly, the significant step that needs to be focused of our government as well negotiator before taking decisions, is to consult with our farmers as they are the real architecture in agriculture sector.
Conclusion:
Viewing the protest against globalisation as a network entity consisting of a structure and its interacting components, rather than as a movement of individual protestors, offers a fundamentally distinct perspective on these protests. By employing historical conceptualization, the analysis of anti-globalisation demonstrators can be conducted beyond the confines of conventional frameworks for protest movements.
Applying network language to the anti-globalisation protest phenomenon, rather than using a social movement framing, yields similar observations. The prevailing tendency is an interconnected network of anti-globalisation protest movements actively engaged in formulating and devising policy measures aimed at tackling the issues they perceive with globalisation. Despite their differences, these organisations have an institutional framework and a cooperative network that extends beyond mere street demonstrations. The value of this study lies in its ability to identify and elucidate the organisations that oppose globalisation, employing a novel and interdisciplinary methodology. The political relevance of protest movements lies in their inherent resistance to centralised regulation and institutionalisation. They provide opportunities for societal transformation that are lacking within the framework of the established legal and political systems. The different movements, naturally, have their fair share of challenges. The recent acts of violence targeting neo-liberal administration strongly indicate the necessity for heightened political consciousness among activists. However, it is not possible to purposefully cultivate such consciousness. It must arise from the conflict over principles that occur inside the realm of civil society. The persistent nature of this fight, which encompasses the concept of beneficial uncertainty, is likely crucial for the enduring viability of democracy.
It is evident that the large majority of Farmers’ anti-WTO protest movement is organized domestically or locally in response to global influences. The current conceptualization of the movement treats the anti-WTO movement as a homogenous global entity which is certainly not the case. This is not to say that the anti-WTO protest movement is not global but rather that the definition of global needs to be reinterpreted. In my paper I have tried to show that Indian farmers’ become an important part of confrontation against WTO policies, claiming on agriculture concerns or agricultural related issues such export subsidy, high import tariff, declining purchasing power, terms of trade going against the agriculture, increasing cost of input prices, mounting indebtedness, declining per capita income, destructive imports, MNCs, TNCs entry, poverty, inequality and food insecurity are highlighted by anti-WTO protest movements, which appear to resonate broadly and, more importantly, does so because they reflect some very real, and very reasonable concerns of the population at large. It is very clear that existing institutions of global governance are not meaningful to most people, as they lack political legitimacy. Our dilemma is that a large and growing number of significant problems need to be dealt globally. To do so successfully will require a staggering effort to resolve the perils of WTO policies and set up a governance structure that is responsive to a wide range of needs and concerns and is consistent with the norms of effective participatory democracy.
Reference:
- Assadi, Muzaffar (December 2002), “Resistance to Economic Reforms: Agrarian Social Movement and Alternative Vision from the Experience of Karnataka”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 351-370
- Bhaskar, G. (2011). WTO, Globalization, and Indian Agriculture. New Delhi: New Century Publication.
- Dubba, Ranjith (2016), “Impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) on Indian Agriculture Sector: An Analysis”, International Journal of Scientific Research (IJSR), vol.5, issue: 7, pp. 78-87
- Gill, Singh. Sucha (Jul. 3-9, 2004), ‘Farmers’ Movement: Continuity and Change’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 27, pp. 2964-2966.
- Jones, K. (2004). Globalization and who’s afraid of the WTO? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kobrin, S.J. (2001). Our resistance is as global as your oppression”, Retrieved: https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction
- Lucky, O. Imade. (2003). Globalization: The Two Faces of Globalization: Impoverishment or Prosperity? International Studies Center.
- Muzaffar, A. (1997). Peasant Movement in Karnataka, 1980-94. New Delhi: Shilpa Publication.
- Narula, S. (2021). “Confronting State Violence: Lessons from India’s Farmer Protests,” Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 54-1.
- Nehru, S. (2012). Impact of the policies of WTO on Indian agriculture. New Delhi: Serial Publication.
- Niranjan, Kumar. Sunil, (2016) “Impact of WTO’s AOA on India’s Trade in Agriculture”, Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 8(1). Retrieved from www. informaticsjournals.com/index.php/gjeis.
- Rodrik, Dani. (2011). The Globalization Paradox Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
- Steger, B. Manfred. (2003). Globalization a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Steger, Banfred and Wilson. Erin. September, (2012). Anti-Globalization or Alter-Globalization? Mapping the Political Ideology of the Global Justice Movement. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 439-454.
- Ülgen. S, Inan. C. ed. (2022). From the Local to the Global: The Politics of Globalization. Washington, D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Publications.
[1] Medeiros, A. B. (July, 2017.) Interview with Noam Chomsky, Enervative Grammar celebrating the 60th anniversary of Syntactic Structures (1957-2017) Volume 13 Number 2. Retrieved from https://alessandromedeiros.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/22012018-entrevista.pdf . Accessed on 23.07.2020
[2] Kannaiyan Subramanian is presently a prominent farmers’ leader in SICCFM. He has been notably active in advocating for the rights and welfare of farmers in the region. As a leader, Kannaiyan Subramanian often represents the voice of small and marginal farmers, who are typically the most vulnerable in the agricultural sector. Retrieved from http://siccfm.blogspot.com/
[3] M. D. Nanjundaswamy was a highly influential figure in the Indian farmers’ movement, particularly in Karnataka. A staunch advocate for the rights and welfare of farmers, he is best remembered for his leadership in the fight against unfair agricultural policies and corporate exploitation. Retrieved from https://www.oneearth.org/agricultural-hero-chukki-nanjundaswamy/