Farming as Freedom
As an Indian, we can say this with pride and reverence—duniya mein hum hi akele hai jo maati ko maa kahate hain. (Translation: We are the only people in the world who call soil our Mother.)
But this sacred view of soil is not unique to India. Across civilisations, from Andean Pachamama to African cosmologies of Earth as Ancestor, soil has always been more than substrate. For most of humanity across the globe, it is the silent life-giver, the foundation of civilisations, the quiet provider of nourishment, strength, and sustenance.
And as we, the so-called most intelligent species of creation, began to reflect on our relationship with nature—soil, trees, water, and air—we gradually awakened to a bitter truth: we were exploiting the very forces that sustained our lives. In response, we began to construct policies, draft legal frameworks, and make solemn international commitments to protect the protector, to shield the one who shelters us. Not merely out of charity, but out of necessity. Not just for ourselves, but for the future of Mother Nature herself.
Among all bonds between humans and nature, perhaps the most intimate is farming. Through farming, we touch the soil with care, place seeds into its chest with hope, and wait. We water, nourish, and nurture in return, the earth offers back a hundredfold. It does not demand repayment. It does not exploit. The soil, like an eternal giver, gives enough for our needs, though never enough for our greed.
But unfortunately, what was once a sacred act of care has too often become an extractive business driven by chemicals, monocultures, and short-term profit. The shift has not only weakened the soil but also the dignity of the farmer. To restore balance, we must reimagine farming, not merely as an occupation of survival, but as a sustainable career, a thriving business, and a moral duty to our planet. It is here that organic farming emerges as a natural pathway, bridging ecology with economy, and tradition with innovation.
The Importance of Organic Farming
Organic farming is not simply an alternative agricultural practice; it is a response to a global crisis of soil degradation, climate change, and declining public health. By eliminating chemical fertilisers and pesticides, organic farming restores the natural fertility of soil, protects biodiversity, and safeguards water resources.
Several studies have shown its ecological advantages. For instance, Reganold and Wachter (2016) argue that organic systems consistently outperform conventional farming in terms of soil quality, biodiversity, and energy efficiency, while also reducing toxic chemical residues in food (Nature Plants, 2:15221). Similarly, Seufert, Ramankutty, and Foley (2012)demonstrated that although organic yields may sometimes be lower, the long-term sustainability benefits, including improved resilience to climate shocks, make it indispensable for food security (Nature, 485:229–232).
From a public health perspective, the reduced exposure to pesticides is critical. A systematic review by Forman and Silverstein (2012) in Annals of Internal Medicine found that organic produce had a significantly lower risk of pesticide contamination, which is particularly vital for children and vulnerable populations. Moreover, Barański et al. (2014) in the British Journal of Nutrition reported that organic crops tend to have higher concentrations of beneficial antioxidants, linking organic diets to better long-term health outcomes.
Economically, organic farming also empowers smallholders. Willer and Lernoud (2019) in the World of Organic Agriculture Report documented how the global organic market has crossed $100 billion, driven by consumer demand for safe and environmentally friendly products. This creates new opportunities for farmers, especially in developing countries, to access premium markets and build sustainable livelihoods.
In India, organic farming is not merely a technique but also a cultural revival. The government’s Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) and the rise of “Sikkim as the first fully organic state” reflect a policy-level recognition of its potential (FAO, 2018). This aligns with Gandhian ideals of self-reliance and ecological harmony.
Thus, organic farming is not just about healthier food; it represents a holistic framework for balancing human needs with ecological integrity, ensuring that farming remains both a career of dignity and a business of sustainability.
Practical Implementation of Organic Farming and the Rise of Contract Farming
The real strength of organic farming lies not only in its ideals but in its practical implementation on the ground. Organic methods, such as crop rotation, green manuring, biological pest control, and the use of biofertilizers, represent an attempt to align human agriculture with natural cycles rather than disrupt them. In India, the state of Sikkim, which declared itself fully organic in 2016, stands as a living example of how government support, farmer training, and consumer demand can come together to create a sustainable agricultural ecosystem (FAO, 2018). Similarly, in Europe, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides subsidies for organic conversion, reflecting the institutionalisation of organic practices across the continent.
In recognition of this sacred relationship between soil, farmer, and society, international institutions such as UNIDROIT, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)have positioned themselves as custodians. Their Legal Guide on Contract Farming (2015) is not just a bureaucratic manual but a carefully designed blueprint aimed at fostering equitable, transparent, and sustainable agricultural arrangements. These frameworks seek to support smallholders, create legal clarity, and balance the often-conflicting demands of market logic with the ethical imperatives of ecological stewardship.
Yet, despite such progressive frameworks, the ghost of plantation farming still haunts modern agricultural arrangements. Structural inequalities persist, where land, labour, and decision-making power remain concentrated in the hands of large agribusinesses, echoing the dynamics of colonial and postcolonial plantation regimes. The Legal Guide on Contract Farming, while commendable in its clarity, often falls short of dismantling these deep-rooted asymmetries. Instead, contract farming sometimes disguises exploitation beneath a new bureaucratic vocabulary, perpetuating cycles of dispossession and dependency. In this way, the “plantation” does not disappear; it merely assumes a new face, eroding the very ideals of justice and sustainability it claims to uphold.
From Nucleus Estates to Contractual Empires
The UNIDROIT/FAO/IFAD Legal Guide on Contract Farming (2015) presents several contract models, with the nucleus estate system as a central example. This arrangement combines a corporate-owned plantation (the “nucleus”) with surrounding smallholders who contractually supply crops. Marketed as a collaborative hybrid of centralised efficiency and decentralised participation, it promises partnership but often delivers a rebranded plantation cloaked in legality.
In practice, the nucleus estate does not redistribute power, it aestheticises it. Farmers are instructed on crops, inputs, planting cycles, and delivery terms, leaving little room for autonomy, innovation, or the application of traditional knowledge. As critics note, this transforms smallholders into unpaid subsidiaries of global commodity chains whose profits largely bypass them (Singh, 2005; Little & Watts, 1994).
While the Guide praises such systems for their “efficiency,” it neglects the essential question: efficient for whom? The answer is clear: corporations gain assured supply, export markets secure consistency, but farmers remain trapped in dependency; ecosystems, often degraded by monoculture expansion, bear the hidden costs; and future generations inherit depleted soils and polluted water.
1. Plantation Control Without Ownership
As Kojo Koram (2019) argues, this system creates a “stealth plantation”: agribusinesses exercise control without owning land, via exclusive harvesting rights and price-setting power. In Indonesia, palm oil “plasma” schemes, sold as partnerships, left farmers indebted and forests cleared (McCarthy, 2010).
2. Monoculture’s Hidden Costs
The Guide admits contract farming may push farmers into monocultures but treats it as a “risk,” not a systemic flaw. In reality, monoculture drives deforestation, biodiversity loss, and malnutrition. Cocoa in West Africa illustrates this: farmers earn less than 4% of global profits while forests vanish.
3. Gendered Labour Abuses
The Guide gestures at gender but ignores structural abuses. In India’s sugarcane belt, women workers face forced sterilisation and exploitative conditions; in Assam’s tea estates, colonial labour hierarchies persist. Yet the Guide offers no enforceable gender protections.
4. Land Rights: The Silence That Speaks
The biggest omission is secure land tenure. Without it, farmers remain tenants on ancestral land, vulnerable to eviction or contract termination. This silence reproduces the colonial logic of dispossession—land without ownership, labour without rights.
5. Greenwashing Through Soft Law
Finally, the Guide hides behind non-binding “best practices.” It encourages stewardship and biodiversity but imposes no penalties for violations. This is greenwashing in legal form: corporations claim ethics while continuing extractive practices, leaving farmers to bear the risks.
In sum, the nucleus estate model is less a partnership than a polished plantation, where the plantation survives not through barbed wire, but through clauses and control.
The Case for Proton Estates
Having traced the limits of the nucleus estate model, a system that centralises power while masquerading as a partnership, this essay now turns to an alternative: the Proton Estate Model.
Why “Proton”?
The metaphor is deliberate. In physics, the nucleus of an atom contains both protons and neutrons. Neutrons are neutral, contributing mass but not charge. By analogy, the nucleus estate system embodies this “neutrality”: it brings farmers into orbit around corporations but leaves them economically and socially inert, without meaningful charge or agency.
The proton, by contrast, is positive. It carries charge, creates attraction, and defines identity. A Proton Estate is thus conceived as a positive alternative—a model where farmers, especially women and marginalised groups, are not neutral participants but empowered stakeholders. Where the “charge” of development is shared, not monopolised.
From Neutrality to Positivity
In essence, the Proton Estate seeks to correct three structural failures of the “nucleus estate”:
- Power asymmetry → replaced by shared decision-making.
- Economic neutrality of farmers → replaced by guaranteed benefits, equity, and profit-sharing.
- Double oppression (of landless and women farmers) → replaced by mandatory inclusion and gender-sensitive representation.
The Proton Estate is proposed as a rooted alternative to the exploitative nucleus estate model. It is designed not as charity but as a framework of fairness, balancing the interests of investors, farmers, and ecosystems alike.
1. Governance Structure: Democracy on the Farm
The Proton Estate begins with governance that is transparent, participatory, and inclusive:
- Farmers’ Councils: Local decision-making bodies, elected by farmers, with authority over cropping patterns, resource allocation, and dispute resolution.
- Women’s Representation: At least 50% of seats are reserved for women farmers and workers, ensuring that the double burden of patriarchy and labour exploitation is broken.
- Cooperative Boards: Overarching boards at the regional level, combining farmer leaders, cooperative representatives, and independent experts (in law, ecology, and economics) to ensure accountability and long-term vision.
This multi-tiered governance system ensures that farmers are not silent subcontractors but equal decision-makers, shaping both production and profit-sharing.
2. Economic Framework: Sharing the Charge of Growth
The economic core of the Proton Estate is profit-sharing and equity, not extraction:
- Profit-Sharing Formulas: Net revenues are distributed between investors, farmers, and community funds, with farmers guaranteed a baseline share regardless of market fluctuations.
- Equity Stakes: Farmers receive shares in the estate cooperative, ensuring ownership in both land-use and market profits.
- Fair-Price Guarantees: A binding minimum price, indexed to cost of production and inflation, shields farmers from price crashes.
- Community Investment: A percentage of profits earmarked for local schools, healthcare, and skill training—building collective wealth rather than corporate capital flight.
3. Ecological Principles: Farming as Regeneration
At its ecological core, the Proton Estate makes organic farming and agroecology the baseline. No contract can bypass these principles:
- Organic Baseline: Biofertilisers, crop rotation, and biological pest control are mandatory, outlawing dependence on synthetic inputs.
- Multilayer Farming: A rooted alternative that honours the past while reimagining the future. Imagine a thriving ecosystem stacked vertically: coconuts and arecanuts towering above; star fruit and avocado weaving the middle layer; bananas, papayas, and cacao flourishing beneath; spices like cardamom and chilli scattered between; and ginger, turmeric, and tubers carpeting the soil. This is not farming alone—it is symbiosis, resilience, and regeneration in one system.
- Community-Based Monitoring: Farmer cooperatives and ecological auditors jointly oversee biodiversity health, soil fertility, and water use.
This multilayer design maximises productivity while protecting biodiversity, enriching soil, and ensuring that no land is reduced to the monocultural deserts of industrial agriculture.
4. Legal Safeguards: Binding Fairness into Law
The Proton Estate rejects the soft-law vagueness of the UNIDROIT Guide. Its legal framework includes:
- Land Tenure Security: Farmers retain land ownership or secure long-term leases, protected from corporate takeovers.
- Anti-Exploitation Clauses: No forced labour, no exploitative input contracts, and no hidden debt traps.
- Gender Equity Provisions: Enforceable rules on equal pay, maternity protection, and leadership quotas.
- Binding Arbitration: Disputes are resolved through independent tribunals that prioritise farmer rights and ecological sustainability.
5. Case Implementation Possibilities: Global Futures Rooted in Local Realities
The model is not a one-size-fits-all blueprint, but a flexible model adaptable to regional contexts:
- India: Kerala’s spice agroforestry and Sikkim’s organic policy provide fertile ground for Proton Estates, scaling multilayer farming into legally protected cooperatives.
- Africa: Cocoa in Ghana or coffee in Ethiopia could move from exploitative export contracts to equitable, multilayer Proton systems that combine export with food sovereignty.
- Latin America: Agroforestry traditions in Brazil and Andean farming systems could be re-legitimised under Proton Estates, protecting indigenous rights while ensuring fair investor participation.
In sum, the Proton Estate is not just another contract model; it is a positive alternative to neutrality, designed to empower farmers, protect women, regenerate ecosystems, and distribute profits fairly. It replaces monoculture’s silence with multilayer diversity, corporate neutrality with farmer positivity, and extractive contracts with living, breathing social-ecological constitutions.
Conclusion: Toward a Positive Future of Farming
Farming is not merely an economic activity; it is a mirror of how humanity relates to nature, labour, and community. Democritus saw the world as atoms in motion, while Epicurus taught that knowledge of nature must guide us toward freedom from fear. In the same way, organic and multilayer farming show us that the soil is not just substrate but a living partner — a source of freedom, dignity, and sustenance.
Hegel reminds us that true freedom lies in recognition, not isolation. The Proton Estate embodies this principle: it ensures that farmers are not silent contractors under corporate dictates, but recognised participants in ethical, ecological, and economic life. Marx’s warning about the alienation of labour resonates strongly here, for the nucleus estate reduces farmers to mere suppliers, estranged from land and livelihood. The Proton Estate resists this by reconnecting farmers with their soil, their surplus, and their community wealth.
Kant urged us never to treat humans merely as means, but always as ends. To extend this ethic, nature too must be respected as more than an instrument of profit. In this light, the Proton Estate is more than an agricultural model: it is a moral and ecological philosophy in action — one that refuses exploitation, ensures gender justice, and embraces biodiversity.
The choice before us is clear. We can persist with neutral contracts and extractive plantations, or we can adopt the positive charge of the Proton Estate — where farming sustains not only markets but also communities, ecosystems, and futures. In this vision, soil becomes sacred once more, labour regains its dignity, and agriculture is reborn as regeneration, not depletion.
By: Lina Mandal
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
