Myth of exploitation by ‘corporates’

Big corporations are generally fair in their dealings, for they can’t afford bad publicity either in the media or in the market. In fact, a large number of companies are already dealing with farmers.

With the protesting farmers refusing to budge on their demand for the repeal of the new agriculture laws, it has become evident that the stir leaders are dogmatic rather than rational. It is time the biggest dogma they, and others, adhere to—that big corporations are blood-sucking entities—was critically examined.

“Corporates” will exploit the farmer, they and their cheerleaders in politics and the media scream. “Corporates” is an atrocious Indianism for business corporations. The fear—phobia actually—that is regularly expressed is that big companies will take over the marketing of agricultural produce, form cartels, and then fleece the poor farmer. Many apolitical common people sympathize with the farmers’ stir because they too believe that big corporations are bad. This is the consequence of the decades of indoctrination of socialist principles in our schools and colleges. Thanks to the exertions of academics and intellectuals, socialism has acquired a verisimilitude of veracity.

So, everybody—from Opposition leaders to sports and film stars and wannabe celebrities—is against the farm laws, though they are the best thing that has happened in agriculture since Independence. To open up agriculture and emancipate the farmer from the grip of socialist legislation is indeed the best decision that the Narendra Modi government has taken in almost seven years in office.

But public discourse and folklore in India are generally against corporations, especially multinational corporations (MNCS). Our intellectuals keep slamming big “corporates” for their real and (mostly) imaginary sins. We are told that these companies generally exploit their employees, bribe politicians and bureaucrats, break or mould rules and regulations, evade taxes, and don’t care a hoot about the environment.

Yet, if you ask anybody, even an intellectual, if they would like to work with a big company—or if they want their children to be employed by it—the answer would be a big “yes”. For everybody knows that big companies pay well, have a better working atmosphere, and are not run by the whims and fancies of small, proprietary firms—at least, at the lower and middle levels. They are happy working with big companies.

But when it comes to public policy, everybody says that corporations are ruthless exploiters. What is good for me is apparently not good for the country, the economy, certainly not for the farmer.

Similarly, businesspersons vie with each other to have dealings with big corporations. Supplying intermediate goods to a Tata or Birla company, making a corporate film for an MNC, becoming a vendor for any major corporation—every entrepreneur takes pride in their association with “corporates”. They mention their association with big companies in their brochures.

The reasons are again obvious: a contract with a big corporation gives entrepreneurs not just money but also enhances their credibility. Since corporations don’t accept anything substandard, their vendors and suppliers gain goodwill in the market. And they flaunt it.

Besides, big corporations are generally fair in their dealings, for they can’t afford bad publicity either in the media or in the market.

In fact, a large number of companies are already dealing with farmers. The Tatas, Godrej, ITC, Britannia, Pepsi, and many others have a strong presence in the agriculture sector; many of them are listed. It needs to be mentioned here that the areas in which government interference is minimal, there has rarely been a corporatefarmer conflict. The sugar segment does see conflict, but that is because of statist policies—against the spirit of which the new farm laws militate.

Yet, the canards and calumnies against the government’s move to liberalize agriculture continue. A big one is that it wants to do away with the mechanism of minimum support prices (MSPS). MSPS are presented as the “poor” farmer’s panacea—another fiction. At any rate, there is nothing in the new farm laws that indicates that the government intends to do away with MSPS. But the lies persist.

The dogmatic protesters persist even more so. Out of the 32 unions from Punjab, over a dozen reportedly favoured the government’s offer of shelving the new laws for 18 months, but the majority rejected the offer. The Samyukt Kisan Morcha, which is a federation body of the organisations leading the agitation, said in a statement: “In a full general body meeting of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha today [January 21], the proposal put forth by the government yesterday was rejected. A full repeal of three central farm acts and enacting a legislation for remunerative MSP for all farmers were reiterated as the pending demands of the movement.”

The Morcha “pays homage to the 143 farmers who have been martyred in this movement so far… Their sacrifice will not go in vain and we will not go back without the repealing of these farm laws.” The loss of life is tragic, especially as farmers are so precious to the country, but the real impact of the laws must not be lost sight of. A spirit of accommodation is needed. Ravi Shanker Kapoor is a freelance journalist.

Public discourse and folklore in India are generally against corporations, especially multinational corporations.