The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

New year, New Covid – in the UK

It’s time for government to put the health of the people first – ‘vaccinate, but let infection spread’ is not good enough.


11/01/2022

In early 2020 (how long ago that feels) we were told that lockdown would ‘send the coronavirus packing’. Exaggerated claims were also made on behalf of a ‘world beating’ test and trace system which similarly failed to live up to expectations. Next it was the turn of vaccination – the magic bullet that would put an end to the crisis once and for all. Except…. that in November a new variant, Omicron, appeared on the scene, swept the board and changed the landscape once again. As the new year began, there were 218,724 positive test results reported in the UK in one day.

Nonetheless, Health Secretary Sajid Javid, is proud that we have the least protective measures in place in Europe. He insists ‘we must give ourselves the best chance of living alongside the virus’. The prime minister’s message in the lead up to New Year was ‘celebrate New Year’s Eve but exercise caution and take tests’. Once again the public health message was unclear.  To this problem of ambiguity (what does ‘exercise caution’ mean?) was added a wide unavailability of lateral flow tests (LFTs) as well as a misrepresentation of what they can and cannot do.

Lateral flow tests

Shortage of LFTs was related both to advice to the public that they test frequently before social contact and to the increase in demand through rising case numbers. Hospital staff (who are asked to test twice weekly) were finding it difficult to find tests. As it turned out, Alliance Healthcare, the sole distributor of LFT to pharmacies closed for four days over Christmas just as it received a delivery of 2.5m devices.

The prime minister has previously wrongly stated that LFTs ‘identify people who are infectious … allowing those who are not infectious to continue as normal’. The reality is less clear cut. Studies show that even when the test is done by expert nurses, virus is detected only in 73% of cases, falling to 58% when performed by testing centre employees. It is likely that reliability is even lower in tests performed by members of the public. Preliminary testing in Liverpool of mostly asymptomatic people showed that LFTs only detected 50% of those with a positive PCR (the gold standard for testing), while 30% of those with high viral loads were missed. As the manufacturer Innova advises ‘Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions.’ This is endorsed by the World Health Organization that says negative antigen rapid diagnostic test results ‘should not remove a contact from quarantine requirements.’ Giving people the ‘all clear’ on the basis of a negative LFT is likely to have contributed to the spread of infection, adding to the damage already done by the private laboratory which issued 43,000 false negative tests.

The NHS is now on a ‘war footing’. However, as case numbers increase, plans have been announced not to introduce measures aimed at reducing spread of infection, but to build eight ‘Nightingale hubs’ – these latter to provide additional surge capacity for patients in unused space or car parks of hospitals. Like the original Nightingale Hospitals, it is unclear how these might be staffed. There can be no doubt, however, that the NHS is severely stretched with a reduced number of 90,000 adult acute beds running at 90% capacity and lack of social care already preventing many from being discharged from hospital.

Critical voices

Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, said of Omicron: ‘This is a really serious threat at the moment. How big a threat?  There are several things we don’t know, but all the things that we do know, are bad….and the principle one being the speed at which this is moving, it is moving at an absolutely phenomenal pace.’ Case numbers were in fact doubling in little over two days. Even though there was some suggestion that the disease caused is not as severe as with the Delta variant, the very large numbers of cases risked affecting many areas of the economy and overwhelming the health service. The government, however, decided to continue with a ‘cross your fingers and hope for the best’ approach, relying wholly on booster vaccination as a way of dealing with this new threat.

Members of Independent SAGE, likened the government’s stance to playing Russian roulette. The Independent SAGE advised before Christmas that spread of infection must urgently be reduced by closing indoor hospitality and entertainment; no indoor gatherings held between households; all close contacts of new cases should isolate for 10 days and be given appropriate support (e.g. the two million people not entitled to sick pay). They argued that the overall focus should be on decreasing cases to as low a level as possible in order to prevent disruption to key services and prevent demands on an already stretched NHS outstripping available resources. Increased restrictions in other countries such as the Netherlands were effectively driving down cases. A precautionary approach was justified given the very rapid rise in cases coupled with uncertainty about the overall impact of Omicron. Their warning went unheeded but has proved prophetic.

Reducing viral transmission

A key focus should also be to make the environment safer through air filtration and effective ventilation. This should also be a priority not just in workplaces, but also for schools. The impact of covid-19 in terms of physical illness in children is often played down. But by the start of December, 37 children under 15 years of age had died from covid in the UK together with a further 41 15-19 y olds. Six thousand 6-17 y olds had been hospitalised and 77,000 infected children were reported to have prolonged symptoms of fatigue and cognitive dysfunction. Over 1 million children <16 y have been infected since last September. Current surveys indicate that almost 6% of under 12s are infected, and over 3% of primary school children as of the end of December.

There is an argument for vaccinating all 5-11 year olds to prevent spread of infection, and US experience indicates this is safe. Although this has not yet been approved by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Other needed interventions for schools include reintroduction of face masks (now grudgingly conceded for secondary school pupils); isolation of household contacts until a negative PCR test obtained; reinstatement of bubbles/cohorts; onsite testing – perhaps with saliva samples to monitor for outbreaks; staggering school start times.

It is disappointing that the government see little urgency in any of these measures. While 300,000 carbon dioxide monitors have been sent out to schools to help monitor air quality, distribution has been chaotic and numbers of devices amount to only two per school rather than one for every classroom. Staff also need guidance on how to best use them, since they only monitor air exchange and don’t provide clean air. Filtration units (with High Efficiency Particulate-Absorbing filters) are effective in reducing viral aerosols, but should be paid for by government rather than taken out of existing school budgets as required currently. It has been estimated that the cost for this would be half the money being spent on the recently commissioned Royal Yacht. Insisting on the right to clean air at work as a way of reducing the spread of infection must be a key demand for trade unions and health and safety workplace representatives to take up.

Consequences of current government strategy

Defenders of the current UK public health approach justify their support by pointing out that hospitals have not yet filled up with very sick patients (although of course, if that does happen it will be too late). Claiming not so many people become seriously ill as with the Delta variant is premature. In the US, the respected infectious disease authority Dr Anthony Fauci pointed out that while there is evidence Omicron might be associated with less severe disease, caution was still needed as such high transmission rates could still lead to unmanageable demand for health care.

We have still to find out what the effect of Christmas and New Year mixing will be, although meanwhile there are very real adverse consequences for many. Already in the UK by the end of December, numbers of hospital inpatients with covid had increased to nearly 10,000, up 38% from the previous week (but so far nowhere near as the peak of 34,000 patients one year ago). Numbers dying from covid-19 are currently averaging around 112/day (a staggering one every 13 minutes), somewhat down on figures for November with its peak of 1,176 deaths in one week.

Some seek to minimise the scale of the problem by pointing out that in around 20% of hospital patients with positive covid tests, this is an incidental finding and has not “caused the admission”. This is impossible to tell. Moreover, acquiring covid often makes an underlying chronic condition worse, for example in patients with diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease, and so may precipitate an admission – even if covid is not being the main reason for admission. These patients still add to the overall burden on the NHS and their number should not be disregarded.

Not everyone is vaccinated or can be easily protected

In addition to vulnerable patients (those with chronic medical conditions, including the immuno-suppressed), there are still large numbers of people unprotected. Around 5 million people eligible for vaccination have not been immunised with the unvaccinated accounting for around 60% of London ICU patients. Vaccine uptake is variable, higher in more affluent areas and only around 50% in some deprived areas. For children over 12 years, 90% have had at least one dose, 82% two doses and 56.5% two doses and booster. Immediately before Christmas, 1 in 25 people in England were infected (rising to 1 in 6 20 year olds in London). This emphasises the need for reducing viral spread rather than focusing entirely on the vaccination programme.

Wider impact of surge in cases

Staff absences through illness or need to isolate are badly affecting hospitals, community services and care homes. NHS staff absences totalled 24,632 in acute trusts because sick or quarantining at the end of December; this was double the figure from two weeks earlier. There was a total of 68,000 staff off sick from all causes (many through stress) on 26th December. The British Medical Association has called for cancellation of large social gatherings and limits on social mixing. It has also demanded that staff have access to protective face masks, since, astonishingly, this is still not routine.

The Government appears to base its decision making only on hospital statistics without giving due consideration to the impact on GP and community services and wider society, even though this is considerable. Multiple NHS trusts across England have now declared ‘critical incidents’ (i.e. concerns about no longer being able to offer safe care to patients) amid soaring staff absences, with health leaders saying many parts of the services are in a state of crisis. In Manchester alone, 17 hospitals have paused non-urgent surgery and appointments.

Covid is also having a major effect on other frontline services with 15% of London fire service staff off work on the 27th December. School leaders in England are warning of weeks of disruption owing to high levels of staff covid absences, which could lead to children being sent home to learn remotely. Dr Mary Bousted, the joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said it was ‘alarming’ that the education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, was advocating the infection spreading strategy of combining classes to overcome staff shortages.

Rubbish bins across parts of England are overflowing with household detritus from the Christmas period where collections have been cut back because of staff sickness. Ambulance trusts have begun asking patients with heart attacks and strokes to get a lift to hospital with family or friends instead of waiting for an ambulance, because of high covid absences and ‘unprecedented’ surges in demand. UK train operators have cut hundreds of services due to staff sickness.

Conclusions

The current policy of relying solely on vaccine roll out while letting case numbers skyrocket is very high risk. Further chaos in education is likely to add to the already considerable impact of the pandemic on children. The NHS is buckling under the strain, and even if optimistic predictions of the impact of Omicron in terms of hospital admissions and death prove true, staff are suffering extreme stress trying to keep the system going. Meanwhile many patients with non-covid illness are getting sub-standard care and joining ever lengthening waiting lists.

One commentator with close links to many working in health care spoke in disbelief that: ‘Ministers telling us there is nothing in the data that indicates further measures are required is feckless, stupid, criminal, mendacious-blindness.’

A clearly frustrated Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS confederation, made a heartfelt plea:

‘over the coming days, instead of making optimism and complacency a kind of political virility symbol let’s focus on facts, let’s wait for the data, let’s listen to those trying to cope on the frontline. Most of all, instead of turning the science and policy on COVID-19 into a new terrain for the culture wars, let’s try to get through these next few weeks together.’

Prime minister Johnson, (perhaps modelling himself more on Nero rather than Churchill) predicted that we will ‘ride out this Omicron wave’.

One important question is why the Westminster government is going down this dangerous road? This no doubt is partly due to the internal political differences within the Conservative party, with the Right-wing of the party now holding the prime minister hostage. In addition, we are not all equal in the face of covid, with those like our political class, least affected by social and economic inequalities being least at risk of death. Could it be that the elderly, the poor and the disabled are simply seen as expendable? It is also probable that with an eye to the next election, the government is desperate to protect an already damaged economy and hopes any success here will ultimately deflect from its appalling handling of the pandemic. If the hope is that by avoiding restrictions economic activity will continue unabated, outstripping our European rivals, the prime minister should be made aware that the evidence strongly suggests containing covid versus saving the economy is a false dichotomy. Optimism and complacency will not serve the public well and are likely to cost many more lives in the coming months.

A global ‘vaccine-plus’ response is needed

Coronavirus is a global pandemic and can only be approached on a global scale. Worldwide, only 8.4% of people in low income countries have had at least one dose of vaccine. Poor international planning, vaccine ‘dumping’ by the richer countries of out-dated stocks, in the face of the difficult logistics of keeping vaccine at low temperature during distribution has meant that supplies from COVAX to Nigeria had to be destroyed. The World Health Organization is aiming for 70% of the world’s population to be vaccinated by June 2022. This would need not just the waiver of intellectual property rights by the manufacturers (something blocked by the UK government) but also technology transfer and building expertise to enable local production. For this a global funding mechanism would need to be in place so that vaccine availability could be guaranteed when planning roll out. Without this, there seems every likelihood that further variants will arise and spread rapidly around the globe. Clearly provision of vaccine to lower and middle income countries should be a priority for rich countries, working together with the WHO. Until that happens, we should not be surprised by new variants and should agree in advance on how to respond and what the trigger would be.

It is time for a vaccine-plus approach to be adopted globally (including the UK), based not only on vaccine equity, but also prevention of viral transmission. Advocates suggest that this strategy will slow the emergence of new variants and ensure they exist on a low transmission background where they can be controlled by effective public health measures, while allowing everyone (including those clinically vulnerable) to go about their lives more freely.

John Puntis is the co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public

What Evergrande Can Teach Us About Economic Growth

Despite the geographic and social distance between China and Germany, there are important lessons in this saga for the German left


10/01/2022

The misery of Evergrande, China’s second largest property developer by sales, is an ongoing saga. Although apparently sudden, the “crisis” is, clearly, engineered by Chinese governmental policy with specific aims and intentions. The political economy of China exerts a gravitational force that is felt in every corner of the world.

The Evergrande Crisis and The Middle Income Trap

Chinese policy makers are trying to break a recurring economic ceiling, the dreaded ‘middle income trap’. They believe that the flow of money in the Chinese economy needs to be recalibrated sharply away from ‘non-productive investment’. This would involve building domestic consumption while presumably maintaining a strong export base not unlike Germany’s.

In this regard, the business of buying land and building buildings on it to sell at a mark-up is non-productive. The non-productive aspect arises when the demand for property skews the value of the material inputs of construction to artificially high values. It achieves growth on paper (as the value of assets within the country rises) but incentivises directing the flow of money (from investors abroad and at home) into assets that are extremely overvalued. The demand for these “safe” assets creates an economic bubble and makes housing unaffordable for the subsequent generation. Furthermore, when these practices are carried on the scale of Evergrande, entire segments of the economy reliant on these practices fall with them – a systemic shock. The bursting of the bubble can take with it the life savings of working people and their source of employment.

Evergrande became a behemoth of the market through the practice of borrowing money from banks and investors (in China and abroad) by promising unrealistic returns, buying up land and starting construction, attracting deposits from potential customers, and then starting the cycle again without delivering what was promised. When lending policies were tightened by the state and cash reserve requirements increased, the group that flew too close to the sun was the first one to fall. Since market confidence tends to drop precipitously, a share sell-off began that collapsed its price. Now the state is involved in managing the systemic risks Evergrande’s demise would entail.

Why Now?

The difference between the uncertain real value of assets and their (inflated) market value represents the size of the adjustment. This is the hit that all actors have to disperse between themselves somehow since the money has already been spent. Some actors within the economic ecosystem squandered more money than others however if they were to bear these losses, they too would be bankrupted. For example, a worker losing half the value of their savings invested in Evergrande as opposed to a corporation like Blackrock.

The sooner the state steps in to call time on this speculative bubble, the smaller the adjustment. In short, the best time to deflate a bubble is as soon as the state is ready to absorb the fallout. A chaotic deflation, such as in the 2008 crash in the US, will likely lead to a kind of social collapse.

Lessons For The Left

The collapse and neoliberal capture of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the integration of China in the neoliberal economic order, the end of the postwar social democratic settlement; all these events have their unique character and history yet they were influenced deeply by the rapidly globalising economy of the time. An inability to adapt to these trends contributed to the demise of these states, while China’s technocratically deft evasion of shock therapy left it standing as the last major state flying the banner of communism.

Yet it is difficult to escape the realization that China’s position as the world’s manufacturing hub weakened the power of organised labour across the world. China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001 but there is yet to be a grand unification of Chinese labor with world labor. Critiques of China from the left should focus on this shortcoming. Internationalism is a pillar of leftism after all.

China’s economy must be engaged with on an equal footing with the US economy. A harsh winter in China can rapidly increase demand for gas and the economic effects of this can be felt in Europe. Therefore, when China is trying to readjust its economic model to break through a perceived economic ceiling, we need to think about its implications.

Since the 70’s, oil was the limiting commodity that shaped foreign policy and economics. However, in the next three decades, a catalogue of commodities will become scarce. China’s dominance of the rare earth market has been frequently cited. The semiconductor market is a strategic battlefield, with the US government blocking a Chinese acquisition of a US manufacturer. The EU has been monitoring, with increasing vigour, the supply of what it calls critical raw materials. The aim of this competition is to engineer a consumption oriented and constantly growing economy in defiance of any laws of nature.

Leftists take it as an article of faith that imperialism is the life blood of present day prosperity in the Global North. It is now accepted that this prosperity also comes at the cost of the destruction of the planet’s ability to support life. Therefore, we must regrettably confront that China’s ambitions to achieve, as an example, European levels of per capita income is an environmentally suicidal ambition. Simultaneously, we cannot deny any nation the right to give its citizens a better quality of life.

This is where we on the left need to break with economics as a discipline. The statistics of growth, GDP, trade deficits cease to be useful and require us to articulate an economics of equilibrium and redistribution. China’s economy is extremely unequal, like all capitalist economies. If it remains this unequal, and triples in size, human survival will be impossible.

I believe we need to seriously attempt to do our own economic analysis of what is possible with the resources we have already extracted globally. Perhaps we need to estimate, country by country, how much money each citizen needs to meet their basic needs in addition to a bonus for luxury. The World Bank has long been the gatekeeper of what the poverty line is, setting a ridiculously low threshold (see concluding paragraph of hyperlink). We on the left need to calculate a real poverty line, based on the actual cost of survival in addition to a realistic survival and prosperity line acting as a ceiling. These should become concrete demands that are adapted in struggles across the world. Those above the ceiling must pay for the uplift of those below the floor.

The uplift of the Chinese masses should be welcomed and advocated on the left. But just as we care about the structural effects of inequality on US politics, we need to think about the structural impediments of inequality in China. Saber rattling and trade warfare are the means used to divide the masses whose interests are common. As we continually overshoot the natural ceiling of extraction imposed by nature, we need to calculate with precision the material bounds of those common interests. As ever, in a globalised world economy, global solidarity and cooperation are essential.

The left faces particular linguistic and cultural barriers in building bridges with Chinese workers and activists. All of these efforts are further complicated with rampant Sinophobic propaganda in the Global North, the egregious acts of an assertive Chinese state, and the even more egregious acts of the declining US empire. The left should focus more sharply on understanding Chinese workers, their working conditions, and what can be done to help them improve them.

Radio Berlin International #2 Palestinian artists, Sudan, bell hooks

In this week’s episode, we’ll be checking out a new exhibition by Palestinian artists that opened this weekend in Berlin. We also look at protests in Sudan and bell hooks


 

Episode 2: 9 January 2022 with Ahmed Isamaldin

In this week’s episode, we’ll be checking out a new exhibition by Palestinian artists that opened this weekend in Berlin. We’ll have a live studio guest to tell us about the latest protests in Sudan, and how the German government has been propping up the country’s military regime. Finally we’ll honor the black feminist writer bell hooks, who died mid-December and was a huge influence on justice movements in Berlin and around the world.

This episode’s guest is Ahmed Isamaldin.

The presenter is Annie Musgrove.

The show was produced by Tom Wills and the studio engineer for reboot.fm was Franziska Duchemin.

This episode’s playlist was:

  • Shadi Zaqtan – News
  • Marcel Khalife – The Passport
  • A.G Nimeri – سودان بدون كيزان

More information on the exhibition discussed in this episode here.

We won the housing referendum in 2021. Let’s get it implemented in 2022.

The vote for expropriation must be respected. This requires more direct action, not hope in the courts or the new Berlin government


08/01/2022

On 26th September 2021, parallel to the national and local elections, citizens of Berlin took part in a referendum. 59.1% – over a million people – voted to expropriate the corporate landlords. If this result  is implemented, all flats and houses owned by companiesin possession of 3,000 or more units will be put into public ownership.

The referendum had been called by “Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen” (DWE, expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co) an initiative which targeted large real estate companies. Thousands of activists got involved, doing everything from collecting signatures and attending demonstrations to knocking on doors and joining a cheer leading action group.

The campaign did not come out of nowhere. As in many cities world-wide, housing prices in Berlin have been rising at an extortionate rate. In 2014, a similar referendum prevented houses being built on the grounds of the old Tempelhof airport – now a popular park. Many of the DWE activists had cut their teeth in the 100% Tempelhofer Feld campaign.

In the run up to the referendum, the Berlin government introduced a city-wide rent cap. After pressure from the CDU (conservative) and FDP (liberal) parties, this law was deemed unconstitutional by the courts, even though it was very popular with tenants. This decision only strengthened grassroots support for the new referendum.

Who were the actors?

It was important that DWE was a cross-party initiative, as well as involving many people who felt alienated from party politics. Many more people voted for expropriation than for any individual party. It is likely that people voted in the housing referendum but not in the local and national elections going on at the same time.

All left of centre parties supported the referendum, but with different levels of enthusiasm. Although there was a degree of support from the SPD (social democrat) basis, party leader Franziska Giffey was implacably opposed from the start. The Greens formally supported the referendum, but leading Green politicians insisted that even if there was a vote for expropriation, they would only implement it “as a last resort”. Only the left party, die LINKE, wholeheartedly supported the campaign.

But if support was lacking from the main parties, many other organisations were active in the campaign. Most tenants’ organisations and the Berlin branches of many trade unions supported DWE, as could be seen by the flags at the many demonstrations that were organised.

I would like to pay particular mention to one group – non-Germans. Only German citizens were allowed to vote in the referendum. In a city where nearly a quarter of the inhabitants do not hold a German passport, this excluded nearly a million people. And yet throughout the campaign, hundreds of non-Germans were active in the DWE working group Right2TheCity.

As one of those activists, I was one of the lucky ones as I have dual citizenship. But I can attest to the fact that although people without citizenship were unable to vote, they are indeed affected by the result – non-Germans already pay disproportionately high rents.

What happens now?

Tenants in Berlin have now reached a stalemate. Berlin’s rent freeze has been rejected by the courts. The referendum has been passed, but it has not yet been implemented. And the new Berlin government – led by the aforementioned Franziska Giffey as mayor – will be very reluctant to displease the real estate lobby, which invests a lot of money in supporting politicians and political parties.

On the same day as the referendum, there were elections in Berlin. The result of post-election talks means that the city will continue to be ruled by the SPD, Greens and LINKE, but with die LINKE much weaker than before. Under the previous administration, the housing senator was a LINKE councillor – now it will be someone from the SPD.

Instead of promising to implement the referendum, the new coalition announced that it would set up a “commission of experts” to look at the feasibility of expropriation. This commission will take months to set up, and then has a year to make a recommendation. The government has the option of rejecting any recommendation and doing whatever it wants.

This is a clear attempt by the coalition to demobilise the campaign. The referendum was able to win because of a couple of years of nearly constant activity. We are now expected to wait at least 18 months to see what happens next. Giffey, and her supporters, hope that this will be enough time for us to become demoralised and leave the streets, so that she can implement a shoddy compromise with no serious opposition.

The role of the Left

This is the background to the recent vote among LINKE party members about whether the party should join the ruling coalition. I voted “No”, as did every active member of my local branch in the working class district of Wedding. And yet we were in the clear minority, as 75% of the party members who voted chose to join the government.

I think this is a serious mistake. If necessary, the SPD and Greens can rely on the support of right wing parties to push through policies which protect Big Real Estate. But, as part of the ruling coalition, die LINKE will now discourage independent activity, saying that change can be implemented in parliamentary debates. This will demobilise the mass movement.

The recent case of the rent cap has also shown that we cannot rely on the courts. There may be occasions when strategic litigation is necessary to build other movements, but the courts are not our territory. They largely exist to protect property, and cannot be relied upon to oppose the big real estate companies.

The key to our success is to maintain Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen as a mass movement on the streets and in our local communities. Ten years and more of struggles against gentrification and for fair rents have strengthened our networks. Without a clear focus in the near future, it will be difficult to maintain the current level of activity – but we have certainly not lost yet.

The housing movement is also generalising politically, and starting to address other issues. Right2TheCity is now working with other migrant groups to demand voting rights for people who pay rents and taxes, but who are unable to vote in most referenda and elections. The DWE campaign has taught us that when we unite, we are strong. La lotta continua.

The Heavy Cost of Demanding Basic Rights

Indian farmers and other activists have forced Modi to repeal the Farm Laws, but with over 700 dead the struggle must continue


06/01/2022

On the occasion of the Sikh holy festival of Guru Nanak Jayanti, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an announcement on national television. In an unprecedented U-turn, he promised that the three farm laws that farmers in India had been protesting against would be repealed. The laws were subsequently repealed in the winter session of the parliament.

Since November 2020, a coalition of farmers’ organizations, collectives, farmworkers’ unions and families and individuals working in the agricultural sectors had been camped on the outskirts of the capital New Delhi. They demanded that the government repeal the three farm laws it pushed through both houses of parliament earlier that year. These laws were passed without consultation with opposition parties, stakeholders, and farmers unions and were criticized for favoring free market and business interests at the cost of farmers’ livelihoods. The laws allowed the market and the private sector to play a greater role in agricultural value creation. They included the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

The announcement marked a major victory for the largest democratic protest that we have seen in recent years. Braving the cold, violence from the police, water cannons, and industrial scale barricades at the border, the farmers’ protest finally forced a stubborn government to admit defeat. During this year, the state used a range of tactics to suppress the movement: state-aligned media ran smear campaigns portraying the farmers as terrorists, as separatists, or as wealthy landowners. On social media farmers had to contend with disinformation campaigns and censorship. They faced police repression, physical attacks, intimidation, and had false cases filed against leaders for protesting. Some estimates indicate that during the year-long protest, over 700 farmers lost their lives, even as the government claims it has no record of these deaths.

Agrarian Crisis and Remaining Demands

While the three laws have been repealed, the struggle to rectify the agrarian crisis remains. Neo-liberal policies and practices have hit small and landless farmers hard, causing dwindling incomes and rising debt. “It’s not so much that democracy is working in India as much as the fact that these farmers refuse to acquiesce to the neoliberal takeover of their existences” explains human rights activist Guneet Kaur in an interview.

Even after Modi’s announcement, the farmers announced that they would continue their agitation until their remaining demands are met. These include introducing a law that guarantees Minimum Support Price (MSP), providing compensation, rehabilitation and accountability for the deaths caused by state repression of over 700 protesters, exemption from criminal liability under anti-pollution laws for burning crop stubble, the withdrawal of the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, and withdrawing cases against farmer and union leaders and other persons.

After talks with the government, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), the coalition body of various farmers’ groups leading the protests, received a letter on 9 December from the government with proposals to resolve remaining demands. Following this, SKM announced the suspension for the protests at the Delhi border, whilst stating that a meeting will be held in the middle of January to review the situation.

“…an agrarian-centered network has emerged in the course of these protests which transcends state lines, often transcends class and caste divisions…”

“One of the central questions for the movement now is: what happens to the 700 people who have been killed by an indifferent, arrogant, and belligerent state? Some murderers are ministers and their relatives who are roaming around freely”, said Guneet Kaur referring to the incident in Lakhimpur Kheri where four farmers were murdered by being run over by an SUV. Union Minister Ajay Mishra’s son is an accused in the incident.

New Networks and Alliances

During the course of the more than year-long blockade and encampment, the movement has engendered numerous networks, alliances, and relationships, built around a quasi-city. For one, an agrarian-centered network has emerged in the course of these protests which transcends state lines, often transcends class and caste divisions, and is poised to challenge the attempts of the industrialist-friendly central government to accumulate wealth in the agrarian sector. Secondly, the movement has created a range of relationships, networks, and subjectivities. These include women’s groups fighting for land and against sexual violence, to transnational alliances of farmworkers unions which coordinated actions, protests, and strikes in several parts of the nation state, in addition to international funding and support networks through diasporic and solidarity networks.

“The new alliances formed through the farmers’ protest have to be wary of the current decision to repeal these laws as it is by a government that has time again shown its nonchalance for human lives…”

Several hundred songs, music videos, and thousands of self-made reels and videos focused around sustaining a blockade have been created and circulated over the course of the year. Finally, consciousness about the collaboration between the government, its agencies and executive branches, the media, and industrialist-capitalist interests has become a baseline for anyone associated with the movement.

Although the three laws have been repealed, they have been repealed unilaterally and undemocratically much like most of the decisions made by the Modi government. After the repeal of the 3 farm laws, the SKM wrote an open letter criticizing the Prime Minister’s unilateral declaration which was delivered without direct engagement, despite them having had 11 rounds of talks with the government. That the sitting government’s decision to repeal the laws is hinged on the upcoming elections in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab is very obvious from the force with which it is going through the assembly elections despite fears of an oncoming omicron wave. This is much like the campaigning and elections held across several states in India during April-May 2021 that contributed to the deadly second wave in the country. Although the Election Commission’s inaction at this stage may be the one to blame, the autonomy of most institutions in India currently is compromised. The new alliances formed through the farmers’ protest have to be wary of the current decision to repeal these laws as it is by a government that has time again shown its nonchalance for human lives and disregard of public health for the benefit of its survival.

Despite this, the farmers’ movement brought together multiple groups that can continue to mount a serious challenge to market power and vested government interests to expand the struggle to resist the draconian labor laws, policies, and the struggle for achieving dignified working conditions and rights.

 

This article was written by members of Berlin for India, a collective based in Berlin.