Abp Kuriakose Bharanikulangara, Faridabad

Farmers unions of India were on strike from 14 October 2020. A stalemate between the central government and the farmers has been seen for the past months. There has been a court stay on the farm laws since January 2021 and violent acts against them and it protracted to the present day. Six state governments (Kerala, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Delhi and West Bengal) have passed resolutions against the farm acts. Only on November 19 the prime Minister agreed to withdraw the law. What does it tell India and its democracy?
Without entering into the details of the proposed farm laws and farmers strike, I would comment on the Green Revolution and industrialization system of agriculture in India. If this concerns the agricultural production, the proposed farm laws aim at to corporatize the distribution and marketing of producers of goods and services, exporters and importers. The World Trade Organization (WTO), in which India is a member, deals with rules of multilateral trading system. At the WTO negotiations and agreements, India had its unique stand in favour of the developing countries. Whatever be the ultimate objective, the law binding communities, the farmers, were not adequately consulted and prepared for that. In a way, their perseverance and insistence prevailed and the disputed farm laws were withdrawn. In this regard, the all-round wellbeing of the farmers, respect for their contribution to the nation and their mental and physical health should be taken into consideration. There are people who consider that it is the victory of democracy, through peaceful means. Especially in developing countries, what we need, in my opinion, is regionalisation of markets and distribution network, before jumping into nationalization and globalisation. I hope this would strengthen the local marketing system (e.g., the mandiis in Punjab), which is very familiar to me, and would bring back peace and harmony to the farmers community in India.

Pope Francis is speaking of synodality. He says it is more than a parliament; does the farmers protest say anything to the church on issues of dissent?
Farmers strike and synodality? Well, it may sound strange! When Pope Francis is speaking of synodality, it refers to the Church. Synodality presupposes the principle of subsidiarity – what can be done a lower or subsidiary level, should be done there. If a higher instance interferes there and grabs the authority of the lower level, there cannot be synodality there. In the process of decision making – in the case of the farmers – this principle of subsidiarity was not respected. Then it turns out to be dictatorial and imposing. Naturally it provoked reactions and resistance. Fortunately, one party gave in and a positive outcome followed. Synodality means “walking together” – not walking behind a leader or in front of a leader. The primary experience of synodality is in the family where parents, children, small and big, live together and grow together. In synodality, there is no minority and majority – that happens only in the parliament. There we do not put things for voting. Decisions are not taken by majority, but by consensus. Reaching consensus is a negotiation process. It can turn out to be a diplomatic disaster or success. That needs a spirit of dialogue and listening. That should be followed by “understanding” and “respect for the other”. When these elements are not there, it would seem like imposing and interfering and politicize towards a unilateral decision.