Saturday, February 13, 2021

Black Lives Matter: Looking back at the journey of racial justice movement as a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Raya Tripathi

Article Title

Black Lives Matter: Looking back at the journey of racial justice movement as a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

February 13, 2021

URL

Black Lives Matter Poster on a Street in Washington D.C.

Black Lives Matter Poster on a Street in Washington D.C. | Source: Clay Banks via Unsplash

The killing of George Floyd by a police officer in the state of Minnesota, has confronted the people of the United States in particular and the Western World in general about the existence of deep-rooted racism which has remained even after the Civil Rights movement and many decades of progress.

The years of racial discrimination led to the emergence of the Black Lives Matter (often abbreviated as BLM) movement. The BLM movement has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel peace prize as well.

This article explains the BLM movement, it's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize as well as its symbolics importance in the lives of the black people. In other words, it looks back at the journey of this racial justice movement as a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

What is the Black Lives Matter movement?

The BLM movement started in 2013 after George Zimmerman—a white man—shot dead—black teen—Trayvon Martin—to death in 2012. The term “Black Lives Matter” was taken from the tweet of a woman named Alicia Garza, which turned into a trending hashtag and later into the name of the whole movement, co-founded by herself, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi.

The movement aims at equality and racial justice for Black people and highlights the injustices and oppression against them.

Furthermore, there is also strong resistance from the police and usage of military weapons against the black protestors as compared to the white ones, a kind of systematic racism which was clearly visible during the Storming of the Capitol Hill.

When a black person named George Floyd was killed by a white police officer in Minnesota on 25 May last year, the movement gained momentum and there were solidarity protests not only in America, around the globe—including countries like the UK, France, Australia and Germany. There were even violent protests in some parts of the US, and in some places the right wing groups clashed with these protestors.

The Movement Growing Profusely

A pro-right wing ruling government, where the President himself was criticised for being racist on several occasions and the upcoming elections led to increasing dissent—furthering the growth of the movement. George Floyd became the face of the movement along with many other black people who lost their lives before due to systematic racism—some names in the unfortunately endless list were Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, . The movement also started getting the support of Hollywood celebrities, who supported the movement on their social media handles.

Amidst of all this, a similar killing of yet another black person, named Jacob Blake happened, which sparked the protests further.

“The group has called for defunding the police for at least five years”, Black Lives Matter Los Angeles co-founder Melina Abdullah told CNN. Some of the protestors believe that defunding the police could decrease such incidents.

In June, after pressure from BLMLA and massive protests, the Los Angeles City council unanimously approved a measure to develop an unarmed model of crisis response that would replace police officers with community-based responders for nonviolent calls.

Corrine Basabe, a black woman, started the George Floyd Justice Billboard Committee. Because of that, there are also billboards in cities like Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC, which are made for people to see regarding the Black Lives Matter movement and the killing of George Floyd. This way, many people driving through the roads could be reminded of what happened.

Featuring an oil painting by New York City artist Donald Perlis, a white, the billboards also include a quote from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." His painting was also displayed in New York’s Times Square.

When asked what she hopes for BLM's future, co-founder Patrisse Cullors said she knows the movement will win. "I know this because our work is full of love, healing and dignity," she said. "And we centre Black people's humanity and life over our death and decimation."

Backlash

The movement faced backlash from various right-wing groups like The American Patriot and Proud Boys. There was a slogan “All Lives Matter” from the Anti-BLM protestors, which minimises the problems faced by the black community in their daily lives. The then President Donald Trump also refused to condemn the right-wing groups and he defended the police instead of supporting the Black people’s cause.

In Arizona, Rep. Walt Blackman, a Black GOP member of the Arizona Legislature labelled BLM as a “terrorist organisation” in an interview with Fox News Radio affiliate KFYI.

There are a lot of post-truth narratives defaming the BLM movement.

Nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

As mentioned earlier, the BLM movement has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel peace prize, for the way they spread and called for a systematic change in the world, through non-violent protests. It has been nominated by a Norwegian MP.

In his nomination papers, the Norwegian MP Petter Eide said the movement had forced countries outside the US to tackle racism within their own societies.

“I find that one of the key challenges we have seen in America, but also in Europe and Asia, is the kind of increasing conflict based on inequality,” Eide said. “Black Lives Matter has become a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice. They have had a tremendous achievement in raising global awareness and consciousness about racial injustice.”

He said that one other thing that impressed him about the BLM movement was the way “they have been able to mobilise people from all groups of society, not just African-Americans, not just oppressed people, it has been a broad movement, in a way which has been different from their predecessors.” He has previously nominated human rights activists from Russia and China for the prize.

His written nomination concludes: “Awarding the peace prize to Black Lives Matter, as the strongest global force against racial injustice, will send a powerful message that peace is founded on equality, solidarity and human rights, and that all countries must respect those basic principles.”

Nominations for the Nobel peace prize are accepted from any politician serving at a national level, and they are allowed only 2,000 words to state their reasons. This year’s deadline was February 1, and the committee prepares a shortlist by the end of March. The winner is chosen in October and the award ceremony is scheduled for 10 December. The World Food Programme was the winner last year.

The movement deserves the nomination, and if it is declared the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, then it’s going to be a huge win for the Black people and will give a push towards an ideal where there will be no racism.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

July 15, 2023 10:28 AM

Locating India’s Mandi System in Historical and Contemporary Contexts

Since August 2020, the farmers of India are protesting against three new Agriculture bills (now acts) passed by the Parliament—one of the reasons stated is the potential of the new legislation affecting the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC)’s Mandi system. APMC regulates and manages the agricultural market.

The farmers have covered some major highways around Delhi and have set up camps as well. They demand that the Mandi System should remain the same and want the new legislations to be unconditionally taken back.

Per contra the government claims the bills are good for farmers, Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister of India said about the farm bills “They will liberate them from the clutches of middlemen, and the Modi govt. is committed to keeping its promise of doubling farm income.”

The middleman here is perhaps the arhathiyas who facilitate and manage all kinds of procurement related transactions in the mandis between the seller (farmer) and the buyer (government or private traders) of the APMC Mandi. Arhathiyas thrive due to the current APMC Mandi system, therefore, in order to understand the current discourse on the farm bills, it is crucial to understand how the APMC Mandi system works and locate it in a broader historical as well as contemporary context, which is what this article attempts to do.

The History of APMC: From Royal Commission of 1928 to Implementation Post-Independence

Although, the institution of wholesale Mandis—as described by Harsh Damodaran in his The Indian Express column—is “since time immemorial,” the implementation of exclusively government controlled Mandis is a newer practice. The idea is grounded in the 1928 royal commission report on agriculture that mentioned the following on the need of a regulated market:

“The establishment of properly regulated markets should act as a powerful agent in bringing about a reform which is and much needed, primarily in the interests of the cultivator and secondarily, in that of all engaged in trade and commerce in India. From all parts of India, we received evidence of the disabilities under which the cultivator labours owing to the chaotic condition in which matters stand in respect of the weights and measures in general use in this country and of the hampering effect this has upon trade and commerce generally. Needless complications and unevenness in practice as between market and market tend to prejudice the interests of the cultivator.”

One of the first implementations of the government regulated agricultural markets—now known as APMC—is credited to Sir Chhotu Ram, a farmer leader and the then Development Minister in the provisional government of Punjab. The Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, which sets up APMC in Punjab was initiated by him in 1939.

In the 1960’s, when India was a newly independent country, many of its citizens were starving due to food shortage. Adding on to the already existing hunger—droughts made the situation even worse. To fix this problem, the government started the Green Revolution, in which it tried to modernize the Indian agriculture. The Government took the help of advisors from the United States and introduced several reforms in agriculture. India had a food surplus during the Green revolution. The Indian Government decided to go back to the 1928 report and developed a nationwide food marketing system to ensure fair prices. The system differs from state to state. Farmers take their produce to wholesale markets called APMC Mandis to sell their produce to traders through open auctions with transparent pricing.

In the APMC Mandis—to protect farmer’s interests—the government fixes Minimum Support Prices (MSP)—a price floor—for some crops and makes arrangements from their purchase under the state account whenever prices fall below the support level.

The idea of MSP as well was implemented during the same period. Whereas its implementation is credited to the then-finance minister C Subramaniam, the idea is the brainchild of Dr Frank W Parker.

APMC System: Inefficiencies and Reforms

APMC system as well has got its own set of problems. The “golden period” for APMC markets lasted till around 1991. With time, there was a loss in growth in market facilities and by 2006, it had declined to less than one-fourth of the growth in crop output after which there was no further growth. This increased the problems of Indian farmers as market facilities did not keep pace with the increase in output and regulation did not allow farmers to sell outside APMC market.

The farmers were left with no choice but to seek the help of middlemen. Due to poor market infrastructure, more produce is sold outside markets than in APMC mandis. The net result was a system of interlocked transactions that robs farmers of their choice to decide to whom and where to sell, subjecting them to exploitation by middlemen.

Over time, APMC markets have been turned from infrastructure services to a source of revenue generation for the middlemen.

Furthermore, the market committee has excessive powers to give licences to the traders. A lot of licencing led to a 'licence Raj' kind of situation. The licensed commission agents started forming cartels, to collectively decide the prices at which they would or would not buy the produce from the farmers, so that the farmers aren’t left with any options—leading to creation of what supporters of the farm bill today call “mandi mafia.”

In the year 2003, the government brought some reforms allowing for better liberalization in the Model APMC Act, Indian Economic Service’s online Encyclopedia, Arthapedia, describes the reforms as:

“An efficient agricultural marketing is essential for the development of the agriculture sector as it provides outlets and incentives for increased production and contribute to the commercialization of subsistence farmers. Worldwide Governments have recognized the importance of liberalized agriculture markets. Keeping, this in view, Ministry of Agriculture formulated a model law on agricultural marketing - State Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2003 and requested the state governments to suitably amend their respective APMC Acts for deregulation of the marketing system in India, to promote investment in marketing infrastructure, thereby motivating the corporate sector to undertake direct marketing and to facilitate a national  market.

The Model APMC Act, 2003 provided for the freedom of farmers to sell their produce. The farmers could sell their produce directly to the contract-sponsors or in the market set up by private individuals, consumers or producers. The Model Act also increases the competitiveness of the market of agricultural produce by allowing common registration of market intermediaries.”

The Model APMC Acts were implemented by some states, but not all.

When APMC was repealed: A look at Bihar

States like Punjab and Haryana, which have the richest farmers in the country, have the regulations play an important role in the industry. But Bihar, where markets were eliminated in 2006, has the poorest farmers in India. This clearly shows the failure of the removal of this system.

Before the abolition of the APMC Mandis, Bihar had 95 market yards, of which 54 had infrastructure such as covered yards, godowns and administrative buildings, weighbridges, and processing as well as grading units. In 2004-05, the state agricultural board earned 60 crore INR through taxes and spent 52 crore INR, of which 31% was on developing infrastructure. With no revenue to maintain it, that infrastructure is now in a dilapidated condition.

In a 2019 study by the National Council for Applied Economic Research, it was reported that in Bihar, there was an increase in the volatility of grain prices after 2006, which negatively affected the crop choices and decisions of farmers to adopt improved cultivation practices. It concluded, “Farmers are left to the mercy of traders who unscrupulously fix a lower price for agricultural produce that they buy from [them]. Inadequate market facilities and institutional arrangements are responsible for low price realisation and instability in prices.” Farmers who were in immediate need for money had to sell their produce at the price that was forced upon them by the private traders. Also, there were reportedly high storage costs at private warehouses.

A farmer from east Champaran, Somnath Singh, told Down To Earth, “Earlier we would get a good price for our produce but the situation has deteriorated after the abolishment of the APMC Act. The PACS simply refuse to buy our produce citing moisture; even if they procure them, they take months to pay the dues.”

APMC and Farm Act

Farmers marching to Delhi | Source: Randeep Maddoke via Wikimedia

Coming back to where we started—the farmers protests—right now, the farmers are sitting in the cold on the highways of Delhi, living in tents. They are being provided food by the langars in Gurudwaras and have received support from them. Several farmers in fact died since September—some in the protests; and others due to accidents, illness, or cold weather conditions.

One of the central demands as mentioned earlier is to let the APMC Mandi system stay as it was. Yet, one of the three Farm acts—Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, creates free, unregulated trade spaces outside the markets. The act is actually creating two parallel markets, one being the regular mandis and the other, with free, unregulated trade.

According to data by NSSO, around 6% farmers get MSP (can be even more), who mostly sell their produce in state-government regulated mandis and 94% farmers sell outside mandis. Therefore, already the majority is selling outside the markets. Moreover, in the new act, there will be no tax outside APMC pushing more farmers to leave the mandis and opt for the trade markets, eventually leading to the collapse of the Mandi system.

However, we must remember, the markets outside APMC do not provide MSP—they work on the principles of supply and demand—therefore in case the prices fall to an extent making selling the produce loss making—there will be no safeguards—potentially leaving richer traders farmers to exploit economically vulnerable farmers.

Furthermore, the tax in the APMC Mandis is collected by the state government, if this system collapses, the states won’t be receiving any taxes from the sale of agricultural produce. Moreover, agriculture currently is in the state list, however, the new act gives the center the power to regulate the agriculture across India, making the federal structure of the country in question.

Talking about the arhtiyas (or the middlemen) who are projected as the adversaries of farmers by the government and the supporters of the Act, we have to remember that’s just one side of the story. As Chaba and Damodaran explain in their column on The Indian Express:

“The arhtiya isn’t a trader holding title to the grain bought from a farmer. He merely facilitates the transaction between a farmer and actual buyer, who may be a private trader, a processor, an exporter, or a government agency like the Food Corporation of India (FCI). That makes him more akin to a broker.

The arhtiya, however, also finances the farmer. That, plus his income from commission being dependent on the quantity and value of produce routed through him, aligns the arhtiya’s interests much more with those of the farmer.”

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act will create more problems than to solve them.

Read More