For the past three weeks in India, farmers from around the country have been protesting a new set of laws that threaten the security of their livelihoods. These laws change the rules surrounding the set prices that the government would previously buy crops from these farmers at. Union leaders from Punjab have begun a hunger strike to further put pressure on Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, to reverse these laws. There have been six meetings between government officials and these union leaders during the times of these protests, but there has been little to no progress on behalf of the farmers. They are growing extremely agitated with their government, whereas leaders try to reassure them that they will gain new rights and opportunities from these new laws.
Considering that India’s economy and population heavily relies and revolves around farming and those who participate in it, it seems in the government’s best interest to listen to their citizens, especially if they’re willing to starve themselves over the issue at hand. Millions of farmers will be affected by these laws, in a seemingly negative way. Job security is a large part of economic security, and if the government goes through with these changes, it will not only upset an extremely large percent of their population, but it could also have a negative impact on their economy. When looking at history, upsets and protests of this size typically don’t just go away. The Indian government will have to make a positive change to appease these protesters.
From a realist perspective, the Indian government is acting in their own best interest, which is to be expected. The government and Prime Minister Modi believe that this set of laws is what’s best for the country and its economy, and is therefore carrying it out. Regardless of what their citizens have to say or think about these changes, it seems like they’re moving forward with implementing these new laws, thus acting in their own best interest. From a liberal perspective, the government’s best interest is to continue buying crops at a fixed price as they have in the past. This continues their reciprocal relationship with their citizens working in agriculture, and ultimately reaches a compromise for both sides, since the way agriculture was being run previously was working.