兩位印度商業(yè)大咖——一位是印度首富,另一位別稱“莫迪的洛克菲勒”——卷入了一場長達(dá)數(shù)個月的抗議運(yùn)動。這場運(yùn)動由印度農(nóng)民發(fā)起,旨在抗議政府為了拉攏大資本家而犧牲普通民眾的利益。
自2020年11月以來,數(shù)萬名印度農(nóng)民已經(jīng)在德里郊區(qū)廣闊的臨時帳篷城搭起了露營地,呼吁廢除三項農(nóng)業(yè)法令。他們認(rèn)為這些法令將取消政府對農(nóng)民的保護(hù),并造福企業(yè)??棺h者認(rèn)為這些親商法令將取消政府的最低價格保障,而這類保障能夠確保農(nóng)民在銷售其產(chǎn)品時不至于無錢可賺。
如今,一些抗議者將矛頭對準(zhǔn)了印度最富有的穆科什?安巴尼和高塔姆?阿達(dá)尼,前者經(jīng)營著印度最大的私營公司信實工業(yè)(Reliance Industries),后者執(zhí)掌印度企業(yè)巨頭阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)(Adani Group)。原因在于一些未經(jīng)證實的傳言:就這些遭到農(nóng)民反對的法令而言,這兩位超級富豪將成為其受益者。
安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的財富分別達(dá)到了812億美元和352億美元,他們并不經(jīng)營該法令所涉及的農(nóng)業(yè)企業(yè)或農(nóng)業(yè)承包業(yè)務(wù),而且這兩位稱自己并不打算進(jìn)軍這一領(lǐng)域。然而,對于那些呼吁開展抵制運(yùn)動的抗議者來說,這兩位富豪是“權(quán)貴資本主義”的象征,意指印度總理納倫德拉?莫迪優(yōu)先考慮的是超級富翁的利益,而不是民眾的需求,倫敦大學(xué)亞非學(xué)院(SOAS University of London)的南亞政治專家古哈帕爾?辛格說道。
在抗議期間,農(nóng)民燒毀了印度總理莫迪、安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的雕像。抗議農(nóng)民大多來自于印度北部的邦府,而這些地區(qū)的信實工業(yè)旗下的電信塔在本月早些時候遭到了肆意破壞。在最近幾周,像#BoycottReliance、#BoycottJio和#BoycottAdani這類話題標(biāo)簽在推特(Twitter)上成為了熱點,其中很多人都與這些標(biāo)簽一道,表達(dá)了對農(nóng)民的支持,并呼吁廢除這些法令。
辛格說:“令人們越發(fā)憤恨不平的是……最終的得利者是安巴尼這樣的資本家以及阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)這樣的企業(yè),而印度普通民眾則忍受了巨大的痛苦?!?/p>
即便印度經(jīng)濟(jì)遭到了新冠疫情的重創(chuàng),導(dǎo)致該國最貧困的人口失去了收入以及失業(yè)率的激增,但安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的財富在2020年共計飆升了410億美元。這兩位富豪海量的財富以及與莫迪的關(guān)系讓其成為了農(nóng)民對政府偏袒舉措發(fā)泄不滿情緒的理想目標(biāo),而有關(guān)農(nóng)業(yè)改革的討論也讓農(nóng)民有機(jī)會圍繞其對經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等現(xiàn)象,以及長期以來令人絕望的土地危機(jī),釋放其滿腔怒火。
權(quán)貴資本主義
有關(guān)“權(quán)貴資本主義”的抱怨可以追溯至莫迪于2014年入主政府伊始。當(dāng)時,這位總理搭乘高塔姆?阿達(dá)尼的私人飛機(jī)前往新德里就職。安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼與莫迪私交甚密,而且這兩位人士的財富額(基于不斷擴(kuò)張的業(yè)務(wù),從能源到國防再到港口基建)自莫迪在七年前上臺之后便一路高歌。
尼赫魯大學(xué)(Jawaharlal Nehru University)社會學(xué)教授、社會系統(tǒng)研究中心(Centre for the Study of Social Systems)主席薩林德?喬達(dá)卡稱,安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼之所以成為眾矢之的,原因在于,“公眾認(rèn)為他們受到了莫迪政府的特別優(yōu)待?!?/p>
安巴尼于2016年成立了Reliance Jio公司,該公司目前已經(jīng)成為印度最大的移動網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)營商。在此之前,有批評家指出,讓該公司受益的多項改革便是特殊待遇的證據(jù)。2019年印度電商領(lǐng)域的監(jiān)管變化加強(qiáng)了對亞馬遜(Amazon)這類外國公司的法規(guī)約束,同時提振了安巴尼的電商業(yè)務(wù)。
2018年,盡管阿達(dá)尼在機(jī)場運(yùn)營方面毫無經(jīng)驗,但他當(dāng)時拿下了印度6個剛完成私有化的機(jī)場的經(jīng)營合約。當(dāng)前,喀拉拉邦政府在印度最高法院起訴,反對阿達(dá)尼掌控其國際機(jī)場,而在此之前,喀拉拉邦高等法院(Kerala High Court)并未受理這一起訴??畹呢斦蟪紝C(jī)場交易描述為“厚顏無恥的任人唯親行為”,而且機(jī)場雇員在上周也發(fā)起了抗議活動,反對該機(jī)場的私有化。
在寫給《財富》雜志的一份聲明中,阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)的發(fā)言人稱,阿達(dá)尼拿下機(jī)場的原因是“公司給出了最高的競標(biāo)價?!?/p>
發(fā)言人說:“在6個機(jī)場的私有化過程中,印度機(jī)場管理局采用了國際化的透明競標(biāo)流程?!?/p>
信實工業(yè)公司并未回復(fù)置評請求。
農(nóng)民的顧慮
有主張稱,這些農(nóng)業(yè)法令的出發(fā)點就是為了造福安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的企業(yè),而這些企業(yè)則牽涉農(nóng)民最為關(guān)心的核心問題,改革將取消各邦的保護(hù)措施,并讓私營企業(yè)獲得農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域的主導(dǎo)權(quán)。
這三項法令包括一項改革:允許農(nóng)產(chǎn)品在私營市場交易,并借此替代各邦政府經(jīng)營的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會(Agricultural Produce Market Committees)。在政府于去年9月進(jìn)行改革之前,農(nóng)民僅被允許通過其所在邦的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會銷售其產(chǎn)品。
14年前,印度北部比哈爾邦的邦政府廢棄了其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會,以刺激私營行業(yè)在農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域的投資,與新全國性立法的初衷如出一轍。在比哈爾邦廢除了其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會法令之后,作物價格一落千丈,農(nóng)民被迫以低于基本保底價的水平出售其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品,幾乎沒有利潤可言。
印度中央政府稱,農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會的全國性變化將為農(nóng)民提供更多交易其作物的選擇。反對這項法令的農(nóng)民認(rèn)為,私營市場的稅收、費用和牌照與政府經(jīng)營的場所不同,前者將設(shè)定產(chǎn)品價格,而且掌握著農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的議價權(quán)。法令的其他變化包括,線上交易條款以及放開對生產(chǎn)、儲存、運(yùn)輸和銷售某些作物的限制。

今年1月中旬,印度最高院叫停了這些法令,并稱將組織一支專家委員會解決政府和農(nóng)民之間的僵局。這兩方已經(jīng)在十個不同的場合進(jìn)行了會面和討論,卻未能達(dá)成任何解決方案。1月21日,農(nóng)民堅持要求徹底廢除這些改革舉措,并反對政府暫停執(zhí)行這些法令18個月的提議。
喬達(dá)卡稱,讓農(nóng)民感到不滿的不僅僅是新改革,他們“的不滿情緒已經(jīng)積壓到了一定的程度,而且有很長一段時間了?!?/p>
世界銀行(World Bank)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,數(shù)十年來,印度的農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域一直在萎縮,而且農(nóng)業(yè)占印度國民生產(chǎn)總值的比重從1967年的43%降至2019年的16%。農(nóng)業(yè)收入的下滑與種子、肥料和其他農(nóng)業(yè)必須物資價格的上漲相關(guān)。即便出現(xiàn)了上述下滑,但印度約60%人口的經(jīng)濟(jì)來源依然是農(nóng)業(yè),而且債務(wù)、破產(chǎn)和地方性自殺問題也讓農(nóng)民苦不堪言。
喬達(dá)卡指出,這三項法令“在一定程度上成為了人們發(fā)泄所有憤怒的導(dǎo)火索?!眴踢_(dá)卡還表示,與此同時,“越來越多的人認(rèn)為,印度政府受企業(yè)利益的影響愈發(fā)嚴(yán)重……人們或多或少有些擔(dān)心各個領(lǐng)域可能出現(xiàn)的壟斷?!?
對莫迪政府的威脅?
在2020年11月26日,約2.5億民眾參加了全國性的大罷工,以支持農(nóng)民的訴求,一些積極分子稱其是歷史上最大規(guī)模的抗議活動。農(nóng)民獲得的大范圍民眾支持引發(fā)了一個疑問:農(nóng)民對安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的批評以及這兩個人與莫迪政府的密切關(guān)系是否會引發(fā)更廣泛民眾的關(guān)注?
辛格說:“‘政府’正在應(yīng)對這個有著眾多民眾支持的大規(guī)??棺h活動。這項運(yùn)動對于政府的危險之處在于,它可能會成為一場道德運(yùn)動,一場反對不平等、任人唯親、權(quán)貴主義的運(yùn)動……我認(rèn)為這可能才是政府最擔(dān)心的問題?!?/p>
辛格說:“‘億萬富翁們’被看作是與政府結(jié)盟的利益集團(tuán)。如果出現(xiàn)廣泛的抗議活動,那么他們的利益肯定會受到威脅?!?/p>

印度阿育王大學(xué)(Ashoka University)的社會學(xué)家米塔?巴威斯卡教授認(rèn)為農(nóng)民抗議活動不大可能會發(fā)展為大規(guī)模的政府批判運(yùn)動。巴威斯卡說,農(nóng)民擁有大量的公眾支持,但這種支持源于“非?;镜睦斫猓骸@些農(nóng)民是我們的衣食父母,他們不應(yīng)該得到這種待遇,因為這會讓他們的生活更加困難?!⒉粫尭嗟娜巳ヅ袑?dǎo)致這場農(nóng)業(yè)危機(jī)的政策?!?/p>
巴威斯卡表示,很多人依然認(rèn)為“政府在安全和社會福利方面做的不錯,因此對權(quán)貴資本主義以及偏袒交易的批評并不能吸引眾多民眾的眼球?!?/p>
巴威斯卡說,很多被看作是任人唯親證據(jù)的所謂“特殊機(jī)會”,例如機(jī)場交易以及在國防、電信和房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的其他交易,都是“有據(jù)可查的”,但“民眾并沒有把這些當(dāng)作是莫迪政府的所作所為?!?/p>
莫迪于2019年連任,其勝出差距較2014年更大。喬達(dá)卡稱,如今,政治反對派的勢力較弱,而已經(jīng)連續(xù)兩次榮獲“人民之子”稱號的莫迪依然有著異常龐大的擁躉,其支持率達(dá)到了76%。喬達(dá)卡指出,對權(quán)貴資本主義的反對之聲依然僅來自于“少數(shù)”群體。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
兩位印度商業(yè)大咖——一位是印度首富,另一位別稱“莫迪的洛克菲勒”——卷入了一場長達(dá)數(shù)個月的抗議運(yùn)動。這場運(yùn)動由印度農(nóng)民發(fā)起,旨在抗議政府為了拉攏大資本家而犧牲普通民眾的利益。
自2020年11月以來,數(shù)萬名印度農(nóng)民已經(jīng)在德里郊區(qū)廣闊的臨時帳篷城搭起了露營地,呼吁廢除三項農(nóng)業(yè)法令。他們認(rèn)為這些法令將取消政府對農(nóng)民的保護(hù),并造福企業(yè)??棺h者認(rèn)為這些親商法令將取消政府的最低價格保障,而這類保障能夠確保農(nóng)民在銷售其產(chǎn)品時不至于無錢可賺。
如今,一些抗議者將矛頭對準(zhǔn)了印度最富有的穆科什?安巴尼和高塔姆?阿達(dá)尼,前者經(jīng)營著印度最大的私營公司信實工業(yè)(Reliance Industries),后者執(zhí)掌印度企業(yè)巨頭阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)(Adani Group)。原因在于一些未經(jīng)證實的傳言:就這些遭到農(nóng)民反對的法令而言,這兩位超級富豪將成為其受益者。
安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的財富分別達(dá)到了812億美元和352億美元,他們并不經(jīng)營該法令所涉及的農(nóng)業(yè)企業(yè)或農(nóng)業(yè)承包業(yè)務(wù),而且這兩位稱自己并不打算進(jìn)軍這一領(lǐng)域。然而,對于那些呼吁開展抵制運(yùn)動的抗議者來說,這兩位富豪是“權(quán)貴資本主義”的象征,意指印度總理納倫德拉?莫迪優(yōu)先考慮的是超級富翁的利益,而不是民眾的需求,倫敦大學(xué)亞非學(xué)院(SOAS University of London)的南亞政治專家古哈帕爾?辛格說道。
在抗議期間,農(nóng)民燒毀了印度總理莫迪、安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的雕像??棺h農(nóng)民大多來自于印度北部的邦府,而這些地區(qū)的信實工業(yè)旗下的電信塔在本月早些時候遭到了肆意破壞。在最近幾周,像#BoycottReliance、#BoycottJio和#BoycottAdani這類話題標(biāo)簽在推特(Twitter)上成為了熱點,其中很多人都與這些標(biāo)簽一道,表達(dá)了對農(nóng)民的支持,并呼吁廢除這些法令。
辛格說:“令人們越發(fā)憤恨不平的是……最終的得利者是安巴尼這樣的資本家以及阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)這樣的企業(yè),而印度普通民眾則忍受了巨大的痛苦?!?/p>
即便印度經(jīng)濟(jì)遭到了新冠疫情的重創(chuàng),導(dǎo)致該國最貧困的人口失去了收入以及失業(yè)率的激增,但安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的財富在2020年共計飆升了410億美元。這兩位富豪海量的財富以及與莫迪的關(guān)系讓其成為了農(nóng)民對政府偏袒舉措發(fā)泄不滿情緒的理想目標(biāo),而有關(guān)農(nóng)業(yè)改革的討論也讓農(nóng)民有機(jī)會圍繞其對經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等現(xiàn)象,以及長期以來令人絕望的土地危機(jī),釋放其滿腔怒火。
權(quán)貴資本主義
有關(guān)“權(quán)貴資本主義”的抱怨可以追溯至莫迪于2014年入主政府伊始。當(dāng)時,這位總理搭乘高塔姆?阿達(dá)尼的私人飛機(jī)前往新德里就職。安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼與莫迪私交甚密,而且這兩位人士的財富額(基于不斷擴(kuò)張的業(yè)務(wù),從能源到國防再到港口基建)自莫迪在七年前上臺之后便一路高歌。
尼赫魯大學(xué)(Jawaharlal Nehru University)社會學(xué)教授、社會系統(tǒng)研究中心(Centre for the Study of Social Systems)主席薩林德?喬達(dá)卡稱,安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼之所以成為眾矢之的,原因在于,“公眾認(rèn)為他們受到了莫迪政府的特別優(yōu)待?!?/p>
安巴尼于2016年成立了Reliance Jio公司,該公司目前已經(jīng)成為印度最大的移動網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)營商。在此之前,有批評家指出,讓該公司受益的多項改革便是特殊待遇的證據(jù)。2019年印度電商領(lǐng)域的監(jiān)管變化加強(qiáng)了對亞馬遜(Amazon)這類外國公司的法規(guī)約束,同時提振了安巴尼的電商業(yè)務(wù)。
2018年,盡管阿達(dá)尼在機(jī)場運(yùn)營方面毫無經(jīng)驗,但他當(dāng)時拿下了印度6個剛完成私有化的機(jī)場的經(jīng)營合約。當(dāng)前,喀拉拉邦政府在印度最高法院起訴,反對阿達(dá)尼掌控其國際機(jī)場,而在此之前,喀拉拉邦高等法院(Kerala High Court)并未受理這一起訴??畹呢斦蟪紝C(jī)場交易描述為“厚顏無恥的任人唯親行為”,而且機(jī)場雇員在上周也發(fā)起了抗議活動,反對該機(jī)場的私有化。
在寫給《財富》雜志的一份聲明中,阿達(dá)尼集團(tuán)的發(fā)言人稱,阿達(dá)尼拿下機(jī)場的原因是“公司給出了最高的競標(biāo)價?!?/p>
發(fā)言人說:“在6個機(jī)場的私有化過程中,印度機(jī)場管理局采用了國際化的透明競標(biāo)流程?!?/p>
信實工業(yè)公司并未回復(fù)置評請求。
農(nóng)民的顧慮
有主張稱,這些農(nóng)業(yè)法令的出發(fā)點就是為了造福安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的企業(yè),而這些企業(yè)則牽涉農(nóng)民最為關(guān)心的核心問題,改革將取消各邦的保護(hù)措施,并讓私營企業(yè)獲得農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域的主導(dǎo)權(quán)。
這三項法令包括一項改革:允許農(nóng)產(chǎn)品在私營市場交易,并借此替代各邦政府經(jīng)營的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會(Agricultural Produce Market Committees)。在政府于去年9月進(jìn)行改革之前,農(nóng)民僅被允許通過其所在邦的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會銷售其產(chǎn)品。
14年前,印度北部比哈爾邦的邦政府廢棄了其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會,以刺激私營行業(yè)在農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域的投資,與新全國性立法的初衷如出一轍。在比哈爾邦廢除了其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會法令之后,作物價格一落千丈,農(nóng)民被迫以低于基本保底價的水平出售其農(nóng)產(chǎn)品,幾乎沒有利潤可言。
印度中央政府稱,農(nóng)產(chǎn)品市場委員會的全國性變化將為農(nóng)民提供更多交易其作物的選擇。反對這項法令的農(nóng)民認(rèn)為,私營市場的稅收、費用和牌照與政府經(jīng)營的場所不同,前者將設(shè)定產(chǎn)品價格,而且掌握著農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的議價權(quán)。法令的其他變化包括,線上交易條款以及放開對生產(chǎn)、儲存、運(yùn)輸和銷售某些作物的限制。
今年1月中旬,印度最高院叫停了這些法令,并稱將組織一支專家委員會解決政府和農(nóng)民之間的僵局。這兩方已經(jīng)在十個不同的場合進(jìn)行了會面和討論,卻未能達(dá)成任何解決方案。1月21日,農(nóng)民堅持要求徹底廢除這些改革舉措,并反對政府暫停執(zhí)行這些法令18個月的提議。
喬達(dá)卡稱,讓農(nóng)民感到不滿的不僅僅是新改革,他們“的不滿情緒已經(jīng)積壓到了一定的程度,而且有很長一段時間了。”
世界銀行(World Bank)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,數(shù)十年來,印度的農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域一直在萎縮,而且農(nóng)業(yè)占印度國民生產(chǎn)總值的比重從1967年的43%降至2019年的16%。農(nóng)業(yè)收入的下滑與種子、肥料和其他農(nóng)業(yè)必須物資價格的上漲相關(guān)。即便出現(xiàn)了上述下滑,但印度約60%人口的經(jīng)濟(jì)來源依然是農(nóng)業(yè),而且債務(wù)、破產(chǎn)和地方性自殺問題也讓農(nóng)民苦不堪言。
喬達(dá)卡指出,這三項法令“在一定程度上成為了人們發(fā)泄所有憤怒的導(dǎo)火索?!眴踢_(dá)卡還表示,與此同時,“越來越多的人認(rèn)為,印度政府受企業(yè)利益的影響愈發(fā)嚴(yán)重……人們或多或少有些擔(dān)心各個領(lǐng)域可能出現(xiàn)的壟斷?!?
對莫迪政府的威脅?
在2020年11月26日,約2.5億民眾參加了全國性的大罷工,以支持農(nóng)民的訴求,一些積極分子稱其是歷史上最大規(guī)模的抗議活動。農(nóng)民獲得的大范圍民眾支持引發(fā)了一個疑問:農(nóng)民對安巴尼和阿達(dá)尼的批評以及這兩個人與莫迪政府的密切關(guān)系是否會引發(fā)更廣泛民眾的關(guān)注?
辛格說:“‘政府’正在應(yīng)對這個有著眾多民眾支持的大規(guī)模抗議活動。這項運(yùn)動對于政府的危險之處在于,它可能會成為一場道德運(yùn)動,一場反對不平等、任人唯親、權(quán)貴主義的運(yùn)動……我認(rèn)為這可能才是政府最擔(dān)心的問題?!?/p>
辛格說:“‘億萬富翁們’被看作是與政府結(jié)盟的利益集團(tuán)。如果出現(xiàn)廣泛的抗議活動,那么他們的利益肯定會受到威脅?!?/p>
印度阿育王大學(xué)(Ashoka University)的社會學(xué)家米塔?巴威斯卡教授認(rèn)為農(nóng)民抗議活動不大可能會發(fā)展為大規(guī)模的政府批判運(yùn)動。巴威斯卡說,農(nóng)民擁有大量的公眾支持,但這種支持源于“非常基本的理解:‘這些農(nóng)民是我們的衣食父母,他們不應(yīng)該得到這種待遇,因為這會讓他們的生活更加困難。’它并不會讓更多的人去批判導(dǎo)致這場農(nóng)業(yè)危機(jī)的政策?!?/p>
巴威斯卡表示,很多人依然認(rèn)為“政府在安全和社會福利方面做的不錯,因此對權(quán)貴資本主義以及偏袒交易的批評并不能吸引眾多民眾的眼球?!?/p>
巴威斯卡說,很多被看作是任人唯親證據(jù)的所謂“特殊機(jī)會”,例如機(jī)場交易以及在國防、電信和房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的其他交易,都是“有據(jù)可查的”,但“民眾并沒有把這些當(dāng)作是莫迪政府的所作所為。”
莫迪于2019年連任,其勝出差距較2014年更大。喬達(dá)卡稱,如今,政治反對派的勢力較弱,而已經(jīng)連續(xù)兩次榮獲“人民之子”稱號的莫迪依然有著異常龐大的擁躉,其支持率達(dá)到了76%。喬達(dá)卡指出,對權(quán)貴資本主義的反對之聲依然僅來自于“少數(shù)”群體。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
Two Indian business moguls—one India's richest man and the other nicknamed "Modi's Rockefeller"—have become embroiled in a months-long protest movement by farmers in India over claims that the government favors the magnates at the expense of normal citizens.
Since November 2020, tens of thousands of farmers in India have camped out in a sprawling, makeshift tent city on the outskirts of Delhi, calling for the repeal of three agricultural laws that they see as erasing government protections for farmers while benefiting corporations. The protesters believe the new market-friendly laws will get rid of the government's minimum support price guarantee, which ensures farmers a base level of profit from selling their produce.
Now, some protesters are railing against the country's richest man, Mukesh Ambani, who runs India's largest private company, Reliance Industries, and Gautam Adani, who heads Indian conglomerate Adani Group, over unproven claims that the tycoons will benefit from the reform laws the farmers oppose.
Ambani and Adani, worth $81.2 billion and $35.2 billion, respectively, don't operate in corporate and contract farming, the sector that the laws address, and both say they have no plans to enter it. But to the protestors calling for the boycotts, the billionaires are symbols of "crony capitalism," the idea that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government prioritizes the desires of the uber rich over the needs of average citizens, said Gurharpal Singh, an expert in South Asian politics at SOAS University of London.
Farmers have burnt joint effigies of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Ambani, and Adani during protests. Reliance-owned telecom towers in India's northern states, where most of the farmers are from, were vandalized earlier this month, and in recent weeks, hashtags like #BoycottReliance, #BoycottJio, and #BoycottAdani have circulated on Twitter, many of them alongside hashtags expressing support for the farmers and calling for the repeal of the laws.
"There's an increasing resentment...that essentially big capitalists like the Ambanis and the Adani Group are being given favors while the average Indian citizen is suffering hugely," Singh said.
Ambani and Adani saw their combined wealth jump almost $41 billion in 2020 even as the COVID-19 pandemic battered India's economy, leading to lost income for the country's poorest people and high unemployment. The men's enormous wealth and ties to Modi have made them ideal symbols of the farmers' grievances about government favoritism, while the debate over farming reforms is giving farmers an opportunity to unleash their simmering anger over economic inequality and an agrarian crisis that has long been a source of despair.
Crony capitalism
Complaints of "crony capitalism" stretch back to the beginning of Modi's first term in 2014, when the prime minister flew to New Delhi to assume office in Gautam Adani's private jet. Both Ambani and Adani are personally close with Modi, and both men's fortunes—which are built on sprawling businesses, from energy to defense to port infrastructure—have soared since Modi became prime minister seven years ago.
Ambani and Adani are attracting scrutiny, says Surinder S. Jodhka, professor of sociology and chair at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems at Jawaharlal Nehru University, because of "a public perception that they are particularly favored by the Modi government."
Ambani launched Reliance Jio in 2016, and it's now India's biggest mobile network operator after it benefited from reforms that critics point to as evidence of special treatment. Regulatory changes in India's e-commerce sector in 2019 tightened rules on foreign firms like Amazon and gave a boost to Ambani's e-commerce business.
In 2018, Adani won a contract to run six recently privatized airports in India, despite having no experience in operating airports. The state government of Kerala is currently contesting Adani's takeover of its international airport in India's Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court dismissed the challenge. Kerala's state finance minister described the airport deal as "brazen cronyism," and airport employees protested last week against the privatization of the facility.
In a statement to Fortune, an Adani Group spokesperson said Adani won the airports "because it offered the best bids."
"The privatization of six airports by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) was conducted through a globally competitive and transparent bidding process," the spokesperson said.
Reliance Industries didn't respond to a request for comment.
Farmer concerns
The claims that the farm laws were deliberately crafted to benefit Ambani and Adani businesses spawned from farmers' core concerns that the reforms would remove state protections and give private corporations the upper hand in the agricultural sector.
The three laws include a reform to permit the trade of farm goods in private markets instead of the regulated markets of state government-run Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs). Prior to the reforms, which the government passed in September, farmers could only sell their produce through APMCs in their state.
Fourteen years ago, the state government of Bihar in northeastern India scrapped its APMCs to stimulate private investment in the state's agricultural sector, similar to the aim of the new nationwide laws. After Bihar repealed its APMC law, crop prices collapsed and farmers were forced to sell their produce for lower than the minimum support price, retaining nearly no profits for themselves.
According to the central government, the national change in AMPCs will give farmers more choice in trading their crops. The farmers who oppose the laws argue that private markets, which aren't subject to the same taxes, fees, and licenses as state-run venues, will be able to set the price of goods and hold bargaining power over them. Other changes in the laws include provisions about e-trading and the deregulation of the production, storage, transport and sale of certain crops.
In mid-January, India's Supreme Court suspended the laws and said it would assemble an expert committee to resolve the impasse between the government and the farmers, who have met for talks on ten separate occasions without coming to a resolution. On January 21, the farmers stood firm on their demand for a total repeal of the reforms and rejected a government offer to suspend the laws for 18 months.
The farmers' grievances go beyond the new reforms. They've "been at some level unhappy for quite some time," says Jodhka.
India's agricultural sector has been shrinking for decades, and agriculture as a share of India's gross domestic product dropped from 43% in 1967 to 16% in 2019, according to World Bank data. The drop-off in agricultural revenue has coincided with a rise in the prices of seeds, fertilizer, and other agricultural necessities. Even with those declines, an estimated 60% of people in India remain financially dependent on agriculture. Farmers struggle with debt, bankruptcy, and endemic suicide.
The three laws, Jodhka says, "provide a kind of context for all that anger to come out." At the same time, Jodhka adds, there's "a larger perception that the government of India is increasingly being influenced by corporate interests...there is a kind of fear of monopolies emerging in every field."
Threat to Modi?
On Nov. 26, an estimated 250 million people took part in a nationwide general strike in support of the farmers' demands, with activists hailing it as the largest protest in history. The widespread popular support for the farmers raises the question of whether the farmer's critiques of Ambani and Adani and the pair's close ties to Modi's government will spread to the wider public.
"[The government] is dealing with a large protest, which has much popular support," Singh says. "The danger with this movement for the government is that it could become a moral movement, a crusade against inequality, favoritism, cronyism...I think that's what the government is probably most worried about."
"[The billionaires are] an interest group that is seen to be aligned with the government, and if there is a widespread protest movement, of course their interests will be threatened," Singh says.
Amita Baviskar, a sociologist and professor at Ashoka University in India, is more circumspect about the prospect of the farmer protests growing into a mass movement critical of the government. The farmers have significant public support, Baviskar says, but that support comes from "a very basic understanding, which is, 'These people grow food that we eat and they shouldn't get a deal that makes life harder for them.' It doesn't add up to a larger critique of the policies that led to the agrarian crisis."
Many people still have an "image of the government as strong on security and social welfare, so the critique of crony capitalism and the favorable deals given to Reliance and Adani don't have a great deal of popular traction," Baviskar says.
Many of the alleged "special breaks" held up as evidence of cronyism, like the airport deal and others in defense, telecoms, and real estate, are "well documented," Baviskar says, but "they don't figure in popular perceptions of the Modi government."
Modi won reelection in 2019—with a stagnating domestic economy—by a wider margin than he had in 2014. For now, says Jodhka, the political opposition is weak, and Modi, who twice was elected as a populist 'Man of the People,' remains enormously popular with a 76% approval rating. Objections to crony capitalism remain isolated in "pockets" of the populace, Jodhka says.