As farmer unions distance themselves from the negotiation table, they may also be distancing themselves from real solutions. Here’s why strategy, unity, and inclusion are more vital than ever. The Central Government’s cancellation of the May 4 meeting with farmer unions has once again highlighted the fragile state of dialogue between policymakers and protest leaders. The decision came after the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) and the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) insisted that the Punjab government be excluded from talks. This refusal to engage unless certain political entities are kept out has raised questions about the direction, unity, and effectiveness of the current farmers’ movement.
Farmer unions have historically played a crucial role in shaping the agrarian discourse in India. From the Green Revolution era to the recent 2020–21 protests against the farm laws, unions have acted as the voice of millions of farmers who often go unheard in the policymaking corridors. Their ability to mobilize peacefully and articulate demands with clarity has earned them both domestic and global respect. However, with great influence comes great responsibility. The primary duty of these unions is to protect and advocate for the economic and social rights of farmers, not to get entangled in political posturing. Their power lies in their credibility as non-political, grassroots-led movements. Any deviation from this principle dilutes the legitimacy of their cause.
The decision by farmer unions to withdraw from the scheduled meeting due to the presence of the Punjab government is not just unfortunate — it is a tactical misstep. Agriculture is a state subject under India’s Constitution. Any long-term reform or support mechanism will require active involvement from state authorities. Insisting on their exclusion makes the unions appear unreasonable and undermines the principles of federalism. Moreover, this rigidity weakens the movement’s ability to negotiate from a position of strength. The Centre now has the advantage of portraying itself as open to dialogue, while framing the unions as unwilling to cooperate. This damages public perception and provides political cover to delay or avoid addressing the demands altogether.
One of the strongest assets of the farmers’ protests during the 2020–21 movement was the overwhelming public sympathy they generated from civil society, youth, diaspora groups, and even apolitical citizens. That sympathy was rooted in the belief that farmers were fighting an honest, issue-based battle. Now, by making participation in talks conditional on political exclusions, that image is at risk. The public, already fatigued by prolonged protests and political drama, may start questioning whether the movement is being hijacked by factional agendas. This perception shift, even if untrue, can be extremely damaging in the court of public opinion.
If farmer unions wish to protect their credibility and revive momentum, they must shift gears. Internal unity is essential — divisions among unions or contradictory strategies erode negotiating power. Public messaging must be sharp, factual, and free from political blame games. And most importantly, the movement must return to the negotiation table with a unified voice and an inclusive mindset. Unions should recognize that strategic engagement does not mean compromising core values. It means being prepared, informed, and composed in the face of resistance. Demands must be backed by data, legal arguments, and economic reasoning. Reaching out to neutral mediators or civil society facilitators can also help rebuild trust and open doors that currently appear shut.
There is still time for course correction. Farmer unions must issue a clear, public commitment to participate in dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, including state governments. They should prepare a formal negotiation framework that includes phased demands, timelines, and accountability mechanisms. This will lend structure and seriousness to their efforts. Additionally, a re-engagement campaign focused on public communication — through town halls, farmer awareness programs, social media, and vernacular press — can help rebuild support. Transparency in internal decision-making, unity among different factions, and the inclusion of younger voices and rural women can also rejuvenate the movement.
The farmers’ demands are just. Their cause remains urgent. But protest without participation leads nowhere. The Centre’s cancellation of the May 4 meeting should be a wake-up call. If farmer unions continue to walk away from the process of negotiation, they may soon find themselves isolated, with little leverage left.This is the time to lead with wisdom, not just resistance. The road ahead must be paved with dialogue, unity, and unwavering focus on farmers’ welfare. The seat at the table is still available — the question is, will the farmer unions claim it before it’s too late?