 successive droughts, unseasonal rains, soaring prices of pulses, rising farmer suicides. Clearly agriculture has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons, but can enough be done to ensure that we revive and rejuvenate the agriculture sector and make sure that it is driving the growth of the rural economy and the growth of India. Hello and welcome to this very, very special session. We come to you from the World Economic Forum's National Strategy Day. I'm Shweta Rajpal Kohli, and we have a power-packed panel with us today. With me here, of course, Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Harasimh Rath Kaur Badal, Minister of Food Processing. We've got Siraj Chaudhary, Chairman of Cargill India, and Ajavi Jhaka, Chairman Bharath Krishak Samaj. Thank you all for being with us here. Let me open the session by getting an overall perspective on what is ailing India's agriculture sector, why is it that despite so many attempts being made by governments for decades, we're still struggling to deal with some of the very, very basic issues. Minister Badal, if I could actually start by getting your overall perspective on what you believe needs to be done to fix the overall agriculture sector in India. You're absolutely right in saying that agriculture is one sector which has the potential to not only drive our economy, but I would say linked with food processing, it actually has the potential to play that catalytic role which is required not only to uplift agriculture and the farmer and add to his income, but to address the huge issue of high wastages in our country. If these wastages were controlled, it would bring down inflation. And I genuinely believe that the more the food processing industry explodes or expands and progresses, this will not only just create lots of jobs, but will actually upgrade the farmer and his income to a very large extent because this partnership between the farmer and the industry is what the food processing industry brings in. Today the farmer's plight in our entire country is rather dismal where the costs of inputs have gone up, but the output is not bringing in the kind of income required. Added to this, we have the weather playing havoc every year. I come from a so-called prosperous farming state, but last six years there's either been a drought or surplus of rain or there's been a pest attack. And for a farmer who's barely living hand to mouth and undergoing debt just to sustain himself, one experienced from the weather, God is enough to clear him out. And that's probably the reason why we're seeing these increasing farmer suicides all over the country. So the need of the hour is to tie up farming with the industry. This cooperative farming between the industry and the farmer is where the industry will put in the resources that is required in our agriculture sector, which the farmer doesn't have the resources to do. And a short raw material from the farmer is what will drive this industry, which is at a very nascent stage, the food processing industry, but has the potential to catapult this entire sector into addressing, like I said, not just bringing down inflation, providing jobs, increasing farmer income, and reducing wastage in this growing population where every year our population is increasing and because of that probably the land which is cultable is decreasing. So to address this issue, there's zero tolerance for wastage, I feel. Zero tolerance for wastage. And I think you've clearly hit the nail on the head. We're gonna talk a lot about food wastage, what needs to be done to ensure we're able to curb that because that remains a sad irony really, that for a country where there is such abundant food production, the kind of wastages that we see are absolutely unacceptable. Devendra Fadnavis, you're clearly a young dynamic chief minister. Congratulations on completing one year in office. You've had a long list of achievements among that many, which we will talk about also include public-private partnerships within the agriculture space, what you're doing for water conservation. But many of your critics, when you look back in the last one year, would perhaps say the rising number of pharmaceutical sites in your state would go down as one disappointment or perhaps failure? Would you agree with that? See, it's a legacy which we have inherited. I would blame on anybody, but if you look at Maharashtra, you'll find one thing. 82% of agriculture in Maharashtra is dry land farming. Despite 40% of the big dams in entire India exist in Maharashtra. So unless you give assured irrigation to the farmers and with the climate change effects, you see, you have a very good rainfall in June and then a 40-day dry spell. When we took over, we inherited 24,000 villages which were facing drought. Again, in the rubby season, there was hail storm, excessive rainfall. And now, again, in the current season, we have 15,000 villages which are again facing drought. So what we need to really do is two things. One is to actually give assured irrigation to our farmers because till they are dependent only on the rain god and these days the rain god is actually playing hewoks. So for that, actually in last one year, we have started our initiative called Jaluk Shivar where we are trying to create a distributed water structures and it's a watershed-based initiative where in just nine to 10 months, we could complete 125,000 works and 35,000 works are in progress. In 6,200 villages, in just nine months of time, we could actually store 24 TMC water and 24 TMC water is around water which can irrigate 6,000,000 hectares of land. So I feel that such initiative and I must say that it has succeeded not because just government has done it, but it was an initiative where there was a lot of public participation. More than 300 crore rupees were contributed by the farmers and people. So I think that on one hand, we are trying to create distributed water structures through which we are trying to actually give assured irrigation and on the other hand, we also require to create post harvest supply chains and post harvest techniques wherein actually what Badal has said that there's so much of wastage, there is so much of problem in marketing. The farmers are not getting the proper prices because it's not linked with the industry unless we create the value chains, it's not possible. I'm happy to share that with the World Economic Forum, the PPP IED project which the Maharashtra government has, it has created few value chains. Around 500,000 farmers are into various value chains wherein the grains of the products are directly procured from them and they are processed. So farmers are getting good know-how, they are getting good seeds at the same time, they are getting good prices. But I think we need to scale it to let's say 2.5 million because right now it's just, I would say, in such a huge state, 5 lakh farmers is just a demonstrative project. We need to take it to scale. Scaling it up is important and it's interesting, Mr. Chaudhary, that you've got a minister and the government, chief minister of a very, very important state, everybody talking about public-private partnership, industry being part of agriculture, industry contributing in its own way to make sure that we can address some of the very, very pressing issues. But it's not the first time that we're hearing this term, PPP, public-private partnership, we should get the industry to come in. We've heard in the past also many attempts that have been made. Why is it that we're not being able to see it actually function in a way it should and what, according to you, are some of the solutions that can emerge? Yeah, you know, historically, Indian farming has been a tripartite agreement between God, government, and the farmer, where the farmers existed with faith in God, trust in government, and confidence in his own toil. Now, that equation somehow has got disrupted, where God has probably decided to look at other things. The government has probably been less... Has the government decided to look at other things also? No, the government is less engaged, I would say. And it's not like today or yesterday, it's been over a period of time. And the farmer, therefore, is left to toil on his own. Now, the PPP model actually introduces another player in this equation. Now, historically, the farmer's actually been, has grown with the mindset of not trusting the trade. You know, if you refer to the old Hindi movies, the exploiter was the trade. And so he's been at the receiving end of either poor inputs or no takers for his crops. So the government has stepped in to support the farmer, but it's been more of a short-term help. It's about subsidies, it's about increasing support prices, but it's not really about growing agriculture. And I think that's where, now, with this changed equation, there is a need for a new player to come in, and which is the industry. Now, the trade has metamorphized into industry. It's not the small trader anymore. These are large corporations. And therefore, there is a difference in intent and there's a difference in approach. Why it is important to have PPP here is because we need to build that trust in that system. And the government is actually expected to play a role to be the bridge in building that trust between the farmer and the industry. Over a period of time, and as we've seen in many other countries, the government doesn't necessarily need to be there. Once the farmer and the industry has established a mutually dependent relationship, the government needn't be there. But except for the fact of providing facilitative policy framework. And therefore, what we're seeing is just a beginning. And it's not really about just agriculture in a broad-based thing. What Mrs. Badal said was very relevant. The agriculture has to be relevant to the market. And that's what the industry does. It links the market to the farm. In India, our big problem has been that we've been focusing on agriculture while the rest of the developed world or more agriculturally advanced countries have actually looked at agriculture moving to agribusiness. And that's the step that we need to take more. We need to invest in that value chain. And that's something that is right now the missing piece and that needs to be done. It's important to understand the plight of farmers in the country right now. It's not for no reason that we see farmer suicides making headlines. The numbers are absolutely shocking. It is painful to have, for instance, a young girl in Maharashtra, a farmer's daughter committing suicide just because she didn't have enough money to buy a bus pass, writing a very, very, very important note talking about the kind of debt that farmers find themselves in. And in many ways, a wake-up call for our policymakers. Would you like to share your thoughts right now? Do you think the government is seized of the kind of plight that the farmers are facing in the country right now? See, for the last two years, we've been having bad weather. And we've also been having simultaneously low international commodity prices. And together, this has taken a toll. But to blame farmer suicides to weather or to international commodity prices would be wrong. I think it's farm policy over the years that is responsible for farmer suicides today. And I have great sympathies for the Chief Minister from Maharashtra because he has inherited something which happened over 10 years. And he's expected farmers, I've been to Maharashtra, spend days there, they expect him to solve problems in one year. And it's not going to happen. And constantly at the World Economic Forum and other issues, we are talking about public-private partnerships. What I really think is required is a different PPP. It's a public-public partnership. I'll just give you an example. We have the Minister for Food Processing here. And I don't say this because she's here, but I think she's the most dynamic food processing minister we've had in ages. But her hands are tight. If Indian Council of Agriculture Research and Private Research can't get you processing varieties to process, what is the food processing ministry going to process? Are they talking to each other? They're not talking to each other. Are the new varieties? They're not talking. So we have fundamental issues that need to be solved. And I think so that's the crux of the situation is that the different departments within the Agriculture Ministry don't talk to each other. The different ministries don't talk to each other. The central ministries don't talk to the state governments. And that's the first partnership we require. And Modiji has very clearly said that ease of doing business. I think so ease of doing business within the government with themselves is the most important thing. Why don't I get a minister to respond to that? And then we'll get Chief Minister Padmeves also to respond. A very important point there, Meen. These valid points, and my point exactly, that's why I say one of the first steps taken by Honorable Prime Minister was to separate the food processing industry's ministry from agriculture. Because agriculture itself is such a vast topic. And the potential that this ministry has was, I don't think, tapped potentially, which is why we're probably just processing only 10% in spite of being the largest producers of milk, the second largest of fruits, vegetables, cereal, that kind of raw material base. To be processing only 10% when smaller countries are processing up to 80%, I think it's the vision of the Honorable Prime Minister that he gave this separate ministry so that one can look into it. One of the first things which I did as soon as I took over the ministry was do exactly this, to involve the states and the centers, representatives, including the people who are putting up our so-called mega food parks, to partner together to ensure that an environment is created where I can facilitate them with whatever they require from the central ministry, which is even going to the agriculture ministry and finding out where the clusters close to my food parks are and how to get those farmer groups together to start going processable varieties before the mega food park comes up, so that by the time it's up, they have the raw material available. It may be talking to the chief ministers to get them clearances for the various things that the mega food park owner doesn't get stuck in the red tapism, either in my ministry or in his state ministry. And I must say that at the end of the day, honorable chief minister will vouch for it, that our intentions are the same, whether it's Mr. Jakhard or whether it's an industrialist or the central ministry of the state, intention is the same that we need to work to uplift our industry and our people and this partnership of bringing agriculture and industry together, that's the potential that my ministry has to bring them together. I need the state support, I need the industry support and I need the farmer support and we try to bring them together on a platform. I've got them on every, right from choosing who to give the mega food parks from, I have the state representatives there. After that starts coming up, we talk to the agriculture department, try and go and talk to the farmers there. So one can hand hold and try and facilitate. Yes, I'm learning as I go along and I'm trying to do the best but I'm pretty sure that with our concerted effort from all sides, the moment our food parks come up, 42 of them all over the country, it is going to benefit the farmer because the model is such that it's a central processing facility with spokes which reach out to the farm level and this partnership of the industry needing, not being able to function without the raw material that the farmer grows, that's the raw material for the industry, it has to partner with the farmer, it has to give him the know-how, the technology to ensure that they get that assured supply of the quality they want and this partnership is what is going to give this trust to the farming community as well as to the processing industry. Do you believe that's possible, does that satisfy you in terms of the kind of measures that are now being taken, the fact that you now have a food processing ministry, there are 42 food parks that she's talking about, do you believe that that will at least in some ways take care of some of the issues? We know we can't address the major issue. I completely agree that in some ways it will take care of things but the problem is we are a young country and I'm really scared that we'll become an old country before we become rich. So the some ways is not gonna help, you gotta move much faster than where we are. And that's an issue there. Move much faster. I have examples of Pepsi and others who have made it possible and it has turned out like a brilliant partnership. So I know Bharti Mittal's Agri Fresh from my own state, I speak from experience. Here's somebody else who's also gonna be partnering there. So there is proof to show that it works out really well. Right, but coming back to the basic issue of unless we of course get the agriculture sector out of the kind of slow down that we find it in or we're not gonna see some of these large initiatives that we talk about possible. Minister Fadnaves, many would say that if there's one magic wand that is there, if there's one thing that can almost solve the problem overnight perhaps is resolving the main issue of the minimum support price, the MSP for the farmers. And that was a big poll promise which was made by the government before the polls. And I'd like both Minister Badal and Chief Minister Fadnaves to answer the question. You talk to farmers and Ajay Chakar, you could come in here and many of them say they feel let down. They feel let down that that big poll promise has not been fulfilled. See, one thing is, it's absolutely right that the MSP is a major support to the farmers. But look at the way we actually decide and come out with the MSP. It's like, let's say, if you talk about cotton, there are seven, eight, nine cotton producing states. Now my productivity and if we compare it with the Gujarat's productivity, the productivity in Gujarat is double than what I produce. So my input cost is more. And now while deciding this entire MSP, the central government takes into account the average input cost. Because each state sends a proposal that look, we think that this should be the price. And the average price at work out. So that average price is good for Gujarat. It's not good for me. So how do I survive? That is a major issue. So even, I mean, if all the committees which have been created, if their formula is actually adopted and a MSP is decided, unless we have a system wherein at least we have a compatibility in input cost, then only I think this problem can be addressed. So as of now, while calculating the MSP, I think the state specific things also should be taken into consideration. Otherwise, what happens? That none of a cotton growing farmer in Gujarat commits suicide. And most of the cotton growing farmers in Maharashtra have committed suicides. So I think there are, it's a complex issue which I don't see a quick fix solution. But in any case, we will have to come to a solution. But Minister Badal, the general perception is that this is a government that in some ways has forgotten this large important sector, isn't giving it the kind of priorities it does. Of course, the opposition has been gunning for the government saying it's true to pro-coperate. They only care about the industry. And we know we have large members of the industry sitting here who would defend and say no, that is not true because they have their set of issues with the government. But at least in terms of making agriculture a priority, at least in terms of doing enough to make sure that some of the problems are being addressed. In some ways, we're seeing this treatment being given to the agriculture sector where it is not priority and at least in terms of MSP. Do you not agree that at least resolving that end can help turn around the situation in a big way? I think the new government under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi has taken one of some of the most basic initiatives that were required, which had been taken earlier, probably would not have led to the plight of the farmers being what they are. I would start off by saying that we've all spoken about the weather playing havoc. And in every state in the parliament, we hear eight states flooded this time, 20 are under drought. Every other, the first thing that needed to be done was compensation for this, which was a measly 3,000 rupees when there was 100% of the crop was destroyed. Our Prime Minister brought it down that 33% of crop loss you get, and he addition 50% increase to that. I think that was one of the first things that the input costs have gone up, but the price of the compensation had not been put up in God knows how many years since a couple of decades. Right from that, moving on to whether it's soil health, the soil health cards for every farmer, whether it's working towards per drop, per crop, you know, that irrigation system or more yield per acre, all these initiatives have been taken by the Agriculture Ministry. Yes, it's been one year, and we've started the same with huge budgets for this. It's gonna take time to percolate down. Coming to the MSP, I totally agree that the Swaminathan formula of 50% over and above the cost is needed. Yes, absolutely like what the Honorable CM said, state to state, there's a difference in my state, which is every inch of land is cultivable. Even to take the land on rent to cultivate it, the rent itself is 20,000 rupees per acre. You don't get anything lesser than that. So where is that MSP of 1,400, 1,500 rupees going to serve you if you're a crop, even if it doesn't get damaged? So state to state, there's a lot of variation. I also say that this MSP has kind of, you know, led to a lopsided expanding of certain crops. We talk about wheat and rice. North India is not, my state is not even a rice-eating state. North India, it's needed in the South, but we've depleted our water levels producing the maximum amount of rice in my state. The entire thing has to be rethought out. What is being consumed? Look at the amount you're spending, growing it in my state and then transporting it to the states which are consuming it. And let's not even talk about sugarcane here. And maybe we get, Mr. Fadnavis to talk about it. I know I'll come to you. What about sugarcane? You know, you've got sugarcane that's completely depleting you of all water resources. Is it that the lobby is too strong? What's stopping governments, what's stopping states from actually taking a harsh stand on issues like sugarcane? So there are two things. One is sugarcane, although it's a water-guzzling crop and we want to actually reduce the entire land under sugarcane, but we must understand that the farmers right now don't have major alternatives because it's quite sustainable. And second thing which is increasing sugarcane production is the FRP, the MSP which we call FRP. Now, while calculating this FRP, a formula was devised and what happened this year? See, we calculated FRP on the basis of an imaginary market price. So let's say it was decided that for next year, the market price would be 3300 and on basis of that 2300, FRP was decided. What ultimately happened? The sugar prices came down to 1900 and the government has to support. So this is something, it puts on so much pressure that the government has to, 2000 crores the government has to give to pay the bills of sugarcane procurement. In our state, right now we are trying to do certain experiments in at least the water stressed district. We want to move beyond sugarcane. In next three years, we want to bring all the sugarcane area under drip. There has been one experiment in Osmanabad district which is totally water stressed district wherein the collector was successful. He initiated a beyond sugarcane program and he could replace 30% sugarcane in one year. So I think such sustainable programs we need to put into because otherwise- Any commitments, any numbers you'd like to talk about? Like you're saying 30% but that's only one part of the area. No, no, it was just an experiment in one district. Can we see that? Yeah, yeah, we have to but unless, see as I'm telling you that sugarcane is a sustainable crop and in Maharashtra there have been so many sugar factories. So there is actual integration of the sugarcane growers and the value addition. So- But has a cost-benefit analysis been done? Ajay Jhakar, would a cost-benefit analysis justify the kind of production that we are seeing of water-guzzling crops like sugarcane and is that where we need a rethink of policies? I can't explain on cost-benefit analysis that an agriculture economist will tell you and make you fail. But what I can tell you as a farmer is that in Maharashtra, 60% of the water is used on 5% of the land and that's what you need to move away from. You would agree with that data, right? 60%- And see the problems that the CM is facing don't arise on the farm. They arise out of the farm. Cotton prices, as he's saying, cotton farmers are committing suicide. So, a few years ago, cotton prices touched 7,000 rupees a quintal. The textile ministry, it's a CII's joint program. The textile industry got the notification changed 17 times in 18 months. No banana republic would also do that. Cotton price, so export seized. The farmers had the option of getting a good market price. They would have built capacity, repaid their loans and they would have entered this two-year phase of low-price commodity prices and bad weather with no bank debt. But that did not happen. And that's exactly what's required because it's a whole, it's an interconnected field and it needs to be looked at in those terms. And when you come to MSP, there are 23 crops for which MSP is announced but it purchases happen for two or three crops. So, either you do away with the other 20 crops or you make sure it's a promise that the government has given to the farmers that if the price should fall below a particular price, we will buy it from you. And if you cannot buy it, then ask the private sector to buy it. As a farmer, I don't care who buys my crop. It could be Obama, it could be Putin, it could be Kargil, it could be any private company of individual. My crop has to be picked up. Government has made a promise. The government has to deliver and that's where public-private partnerships can work. There's a way to do it. Siraj Chaudhary, it's all very well to talk about the kind of vagaries of nature, the way weather has been playing havoc. You yourself said it was God, government and farmer. God is now getting out of the picture in some ways and its government has its own set of issues and the farmer is left to deal with the problems themselves. At the same time, India is clearly not the only country that's facing these issues. Climate change, nature-playing havoc are issues that are being faced by countries around the world. Do you think it's time to bring in some global best practices, time to actually make sure that governments and private sector are working together to address some of these issues on a more urgent basis than what it's being done right now? Yeah, so this weather problem is a global phenomenon. You know, even the most developed countries are facing it. I think what's different here is the resilience of the Indian farmer. The farming sector in some of the developed countries is much stronger and has the ability to deal with it and the governments have probably been more... Supportive. Not supportive, I think more experienced and have, you know, the linkage of the farmer to the votes is probably smaller in other countries and I think that has made the difference but it is a fact that today our challenge is in India. The farmer is at great risk and particularly the small farmer is very vulnerable. So his ability to take risks is very limited and that's why he depends on the government. So we talked about MSP but MSP is actually one of the reasons why we cannot get into crop diversification. The Honorable Minister just talked about getting into more areas, you know, moving farmers away from wheat and rice but farmers so safe in the womb of the government to say that, you know, I will at least get this price and therefore I don't want to take chances. So how do we increase the risk-taking ability of the farmer? For him to be weaned away to cash crops is something where the PPP comes in and while we talk about PPP globally, there are many examples. A lot of it is happening in Africa. I think World Economic Forum is associated with that. Kagil has been associated with these initiatives in Africa, in Indonesia, in Philippines. So where it is a combination of the government, the private sector, very often in some of these geographies it's not just the private sector and the government but a lot of foundations which have come in. So we need to see how do we create that environment, that policy framework, where more players are interested in coming into this field. I think one of the challenges that have happened in India is that most of our agriculture regulations are fairly outdated. While we know that to grow agriculture, to increase productivity, to engage the private sector, we need more innovation. But that innovation does not really get effective till you have outdated policies. And I think the space of change that is happening in the world of agriculture globally and in India, agriculture and food processing is not being matched by the pace of change that is happening in the regulatory environment. So we are constantly hitting roadblocks and that pulls the industry away. So I think... What are the regulatory changes that are required? If you've got top industry leaders here and many of them believe that these are sectors which look promising, these are sectors where they can invest in, you've got young dynamic leaders now from the government, what are the regulatory roadblocks? So particularly from a private sector intervention, you've got the APMC Act, which for the last 10 years we've been drafting, redrafting, changing. And still not getting it done. We've got the Essential Commodities Act, which goes on and off. We've got the Forward Market Commission. Some of all these are elements which are still in an uncertain state. And for the industry to make sustained investment, obviously when an industry is investing, it is looking at a long-term view. And if the policy is not stable or if the promise changes are not happening, and a lot of that is because of center state, there are multiple stakeholders, different people asking for different things. And I think that's slowing down the entry, large-scale entry of industry into this sector. And actually it's very good that we have people like Mr. Farnabas and Mrs. Badal here because they've really been the face of the government which is wanting the change. So that gives confidence to the industry and that is evident from the feedback you will get if you interact with the industry of what's happening in Maharashtra, what's happening in the food processing industry. I mean this is not the forum but the food processing industry had its share of problems with the food safety authority and our biggest crusader has been the minister. And so there is positivity at their support but this needs to be institutionalized. It should be beyond individuals and I think that's where we are looking for the change. Yes, exactly. You had to make point. The industry always talks about APMC, Bihar doesn't have one. Has the industry gone to Bihar? Ask the industries here, they've not been there. So it's not so easy. And what is required is that there are lots of contentious issues in the policy space. You had FDI and retail, there was a crisis. You had land acquisition bill, there's a crisis. You had GM crops, there are issues where a public support is not being made, where government does not have maybe the numbers or there are issues with it. Why can't we set these things aside and why can't the government, state governments and central governments look up at small things that everyone will agree on? And I can give you one or two examples. If you give and if you're all trying to look, the government agencies are all trying to look at grand ideas of interlinking or rivers, 1,000 kilometer linking, because these are projects that large financial institutions want to fund. And these large consultancy, multinational consultancy organizations come up with these big, big, weird reports which don't require anything less than 10,000 crore rupees. Now I have two simple suggestions for the members here. Is if you give deworming tablets to indigenous cattle, that costs less than 50 rupees if you do it in large numbers in a whole year. The milk production of the country goes up by 25%, but nobody wants to talk about it. Most farmers in Punjab and in irrigated areas are in debt because they have to buy farm machinery. Now you can imagine a two acre farmer or a five acre farmer going and buying a tractor, buying a sewing machine or a sewing grid machine or something, it's an investment of four, five lakh rupees. By the end of it, once you buy a tractor or you buy mechanization, you are under debt for the rest of your life. You work for the banking or the finance institutions. So I'm not at all saying we don't need mechanization. In fact, I'm trying to build a theory that you need more mechanization because labor is moving out. But how do you do it? That's the detailing I'm required. You've got to go into service leasing rather than ownership or tractors and machinery. So it's the detailing. Until you don't involve farmers in policymaking, this crisis is not going away. Involve farmers in policymaking, Chief Minister Fadnavis, I would like you to particularly respond to that because you're someone who is, who's of course praised for the brilliant work you're doing in terms of attracting investments into Maharashtra. You were in Davos wooing investors to come in and put in money and you've had a very good record also in terms of what you've managed to do in the last one year. But again, your critics would say you're too urban-centric. You have not got the pulse of what's happening in the rural areas. You haven't been able to solve some of those problems. You're someone who's actually taken a very, very strong stand against a farm-loan waiver, for instance. You believe that that is not a solution. You would- It's not a solution. As a farmer, I'm saying it's not required. Okay, that's brilliant to have. That's brilliant to have the farmers because you would normally expect, you know, the other view saying that yes, you need a waiver, especially in times when you have this kind of rising debt and when you have vagaries of nature. But you've taken a very strong stand. You've rejected the demand. You've taken on your allies. But today you find yourself in a situation that despite all the wonderful initiatives you've taken, whether it's the Jaluk Chivar, your water conservation efforts, or it is the public-private partnership that you were talking about with World Economic Forum, it's the Bombay High Court that is saying, what about bringing in some welfare policies for farmers? It is your own allies that are questioning if you're doing enough. Do you find yourself in this tight spot? No, you see, one year is a very small time. When you have a legacy of 15 years, where actually a farmer is kept devastated, and if you feel that it can be turned around in a one year, it's more than expectation. So far as welfare policies are concerned, what we have done in 14 districts where there has been a farmer's distress, we found out and in many of the Planning Commission reports, we could find out that since they are on a monocrop, and that is also a cash crop, the movement crop is destroyed. They don't even have food to eat. So we actually started a food security we gave to all farmers. 67 lakh farmer families are getting food security, three rupees rice and two rupees wheat. And there are a number of initiatives which we have started. Now, the basic problem is that, as he has rightly said, that we have to look into this problem holistically. You know, there are, it's a multidisciplinary problem. And if you just improve on one aspect, the problem is not going to change. So you're saying one year is a year. I just want to finish. See, the problem is so much of money we put into relief. Last year, 8,000 crores, we have paid as relief. And there is no agriculture investment. Unless you have investment, if you are, I won't say it is a waste, because the farmers are in such a stage that you need to give them some relief. But if your economies are so stressed that if you take out 8,000 crores for relief and you don't invest into farms, then take my word, the situation will never change. Right. It may be a populist measure, but it's not an ultimate solution. Minister Badal, we also need states talking to each other. We need states talking to the center. And you're someone who understands what's going on in your state in Punjab. You're someone who understands what's happening in the center. Do you think the center state coordination is an issue? Coordination even between states? It's shocking when you hear a headline of why in Delhi we are facing smog issues because patty farmers in Punjab decide to burn the patty. So it's really sad that we're seeing situations, we're seeing situations coming up where we feel that there is complete breakdown of communication between states, between the center and states. And I'd like to correct you that neighboring Delhi is actually Haryana. Punjab goes further ahead, so don't put the blame on Punjab to start with. Secondly, I disagree about there being coordination issues. I think the issue is a bit more complex and issue is different in every state. Mr. Jaghar just spoke about getting into the nitty gritties. We just had a picture here when we were sitting there about a bullock cart and a farmer. There are large parts of our country where the farmer is still doing farmer with the bull and the bullock cart with no investment in his machinery. Right. And he's still committing suicide, he's still under debt. I come from a highly mechanized farming state and our farmers are accumulating debt as well. So in spite of the fact that my government gives them free water and electricity, it's so complex. We have a 150-year-old irrigation system which has 30% leakage of water. So yes, there are certain policies where you can only, the center policy is such that they'll only give it to one canal when the work has been realigned and done for that one because they'll move to the next canal. So yes, these are some issues, but that's specific to my state. It may not prove to be. So you say it's too different from one state to the other and you cannot? Yeah, so the center is constrained that they need to make a uniform policy. They can't make one for Punjab and the other for Maharashtra and a third for Haryana. That's complex for them. But the problem in every state is complex and special to that state and to that crop and to their farmers. So a more holistic view needs to be done, which I think every minister and every ministry needs to look at it. I try to look at it in my department and I'm sure the others must be doing the same and that is the need of the are. You can't have a thumb rule, one size fits all that does not work anywhere. It does not work. It will not work, especially where states have different requirements, where issues are different. And like you think, there are prosperous states that our states are doing enough. There are states where there's mechanization that's happened, states where there isn't mechanization. I'm gonna throw open the session to some questions from the audience because we're clearly running out of time. Anybody would like to ask a question to any of the speakers? Yeah, please go ahead. If you could just make sure it's a pointed question and preferably who you're asking the question to. My name is Venkat, good afternoon. And the question is in general, this is a suggestion actually. Wageries of nature is a truth, is a reality. And of course, we have the practical issues about growing lots of rice in Punjab, consumption being in South and the logistics costs, true. Some things will not be able to solve overnight. But let's pick up Brazil and let's pick up India. Brazil produces sugarcane as well as rice, so do we. We are all, we both as a country are exposed to two different climate regimes. If we get into strategic partnerships within two countries, let's say. If my rice gets affected, Brazil compensates for me. If Brazil gets affected, I compensate you. So I'm getting into strategic country-level engagements. Tiding over climate, Wageries. That could be, that's one thought I was very keen to because lots of time, we are solving our problems at a domestic-level, country-level, which is fair. But many times we may be limited because we also have our constraints. Why not expand it, take it to a larger level? Okay, would anybody like to take that up? Yeah. This is not gonna work at all. You can't have bilateral grain transfers. And even as we're going ahead, India is signing WTO, right? We are gonna try and sign that. But WTO, as a farmer, I feel, is gonna become irrelevant in 10 to 15 years. Every government, there are closed-loop agreements now. You're having TTP in between Europe and America and things like that. They will not allow access to farm goods from India. And that's another great threat. I'm not finished. That's another great threat that we have is how our negotiators aren't trained to negotiate international trade treaties. And we suffer the consequences. And it has not happened till now because WTO was made to stop a fall in prices. And because we had high prices in the last decade, nobody thought about it. Now suddenly when international commodity prices are down, everyone's talking about trade agreements. And if India does not sign this properly, whatever we may do here, we will not have access to international markets because we are going into a period in coming in future, in spite of this climate change that everyone's talking about, I think so we are going into a period of excess production with no markets. Excess production with no markets. That sounds very, very ironical. We're clearly running out of time. Quick questions if you could, yeah. Go ahead. We always talk about corporate farming. Why aren't we promoting cooperative farming like the Amul model? That doesn't seem to be on the agenda for discussion anywhere in the country in spite of being a grand success. I think for the simple reason that our processing industry is at a very nascent stage. That's exactly what I said. We only process 10%. As this industry grows, the raw material for this industry is the farmer's crop. So that's why I say the thrust is needed and that's why we have put in these huge, the government has taken these huge initiatives of putting in a huge amount of subsidy, making fiscal changes, putting up side 2,000 crores in NABAR to provide cheaper credit. Only that as this industry progresses, that's when it'll partner with the farmer that it's a very seasonal industry. You need the farmer to grow what you need to make that industry work because you're not gonna put up an industry and then sit just accumulating losses. So this cooperative farming, this partnership of farming will happen as this 10% of processing increases. And that's why we are trying to ensure that in the next 24 to 30 months, we have our 42 parks up and functioning in every state and you're bound to see the difference on the ground once that happens. All right, that's it. No, no, no. No, cooperation, it's like a partnership farming, which I'm talking about, whether farmers grow what the industry needs. See, for a cooperative to work, farmers have to get together. The policy regime is already there. And I think so it's something that the government can, is trying to incentivize with farmer producer organizations, that's exactly moving ahead. But it's already there on agenda. In Maharashtra, you have so many. In the 400 farmer-produced organizations, in few districts they are working very well and as rightly, Mr. Jakar said, that they are actually acquiring all the instruments which are needed for farming, all mechanization, and they are lending it to the various farmers. They are actually buying all the farmer-produced, they are marketing it. So that model is working. But you know, ultimately, as rightly said by somebody, that the pace is slow. We need to increase the pace. And when a normal farmer is actually fighting in a drought situation, you cannot teach him that, look, you have to unite and do this. It is a matter of two square mills which he's not getting. So I think there are huge differences in a state as well. In a state like Maharashtra, where you have the agriculture which has evolved, you find a lot of such initiatives, but where it hasn't, it is still very, you know, in a smaller stage. Okay, one last question, yeah. Go ahead, the gentleman there. Good afternoon. I am Arindam from Rabobang. Ma'am, my question is for you. 10 years back, we had done a vision document for your ministry. And one of the biggest problems and challenge we faced at that point of time when we talked with the different states, you're representative of the different states. In some places, it was the industry department. In some places, it was the agriculture department. In some places, it was corporations. We just didn't get a view from the state. There was no unified view, there was no unified policy. Have things changed now? Do you have your own department or own people in the different states? Otherwise, processing is so critical for our country, as you rightly said, as we all understand. It's extremely difficult till we have the champions in the states. You know, in the federal structure, it's very difficult for the center to dictate as to which department or state should give it. Every state takes its own call. I think my job is that let the states decide and involve the concerned people of that state. And that's what I'm trying to do. It's, we're not sitting here because coming from a state, I've borne the brunt of one size fitting all and my state has suffered because of that. I want to adopt what the state is doing and try and guide them in the direction that the industry and the farmer needs. So I think that flexibility has to be given to the states. And every state, like I said, a chief minister will vouch for it. We're all trying to do the same thing. Our end is the same. It's just a little bit of coordination which we have to make that extra effort. The chief ministers and the central ministers and the industry and the farmers, they all need to go that extra mile to kind of try and collaborate. Even the industry will go to the farmer, but there's a state like mine where farmers don't trust each other, leave alone trust the industry. You know, so I made a difference that, okay, this time involve the state governments into putting up something because sense of trust with the government is a little bit more. So you have to try out all kinds of combination, combination depending on which state you come from and what the need of that area is. All right, I think what we've seen happen here is a very, very honest admission which comes very rarely from top government functionaries, but you've got both the leaders here giving very, very honest replies. Let's start getting now some takeaways, some solutions and some key insights that we've managed to get after today's session. Chief Minister Fadnavis, you've been very honest in saying that yes, there are solutions. Yes, there are innovations. Yes, there are ideas. But when you have a situation where farmers are dealing with the basic issue of livelihood, where there is a drought, where they don't know where they're getting their next meal from, those are issues that need to be resolved first. That clearly has to be our priority. And of course, while keep innovating and looking at more important solutions, your water conservation efforts have clearly been quite remarkable. Can I get a commitment from you today on this forum as part of this session that the lives of farmers in Maharashtra will be way different than what they, what it is even right now today when we're talking about close to 1,000 suicides in a year, it'll be very, very different, say, one or two years down the line. Yeah, I totally, I would like to promise the farmers from my state that in five years' time, things will change. It is changing every year. In first year, we did so many things, but ultimately the result takes time. But I'm sure with consistent policies and focus and a policy of investing into agriculture sector, we will change the plight of agriculture. All right, Mr. Badil, you've of course given a commitment of your 42 food parks, which is one clear commitment you're saying and you're saying that that's something that will in many ways give a big boost to the food processing sector. But if you could speak here on behalf of the government, because you in many ways are representing the center here, if you could speak on behalf of the government that is often getting the accusation of not doing enough for agriculture, for the rural economy. Well, I can promise you as a food processing minister that what the farmer needs today is value addition to what he's growing to increase his income. And this ministry and this government is committed to providing him that infrastructure which will make it doable for him at his doorstep. And that's what my ministry is working towards. That's what our government is committed towards. We too, like the honorable chief minister, you know what the central government inherited, our coffers were empty. I would not just say they were empty, but everybody knows the state of what this new government, the legacy that we got. We have our compulsions in spite of those, I think the honorable prime minister is doing a brilliant job of the kind of hard selling he's doing for the make in India concept. This make in India is gonna happen across various sections. The food processing and the agriculture sector is one where we're trying to bring in all the best practices. Countries have moved way ahead. We stood at Bullock Cards and I just came from Germany where it's such precision kind of agriculture taking place that the apple grows by satellite is stored on what date, at what time he has to plant and hum the millimeters apart. I mean, the world has reached there and we're still at Bullock Cards. So there's a thousand miles to go. And if anyone thinks that one government is gonna do it overnight, that's not it, but a single step leads towards covering that thousand miles journey and that's what we're gonna do. Siraj Shalri. Yeah, so I would say that broadly we are currently facing three different challenges which emerge at different times. So one is about increasing farm income. The other is about food security and the third is about managing consumer price inflation. And these three things play around at different times. And unfortunately in the past our reactions have been very situational. To say if it's consumer price inflation enforce stock control orders and this and that. If it is food security then the government starts increasing its procurement. If it is nothing then the farm income goes down. So I think there's a need to coordinate that. And I think historically the government has seen itself as the sole protector of the farmer's sort of interest. And this is where a lot of countries have moved on. The government needs to I think at different levels get more trust in the industry and make it a partner. Because if it remains a government farmer relationship it will always be there of a provider and a caretaker rather than someone who's developing and looking forward. So as the chief minister rightly said most of our interventions are always about relief. They're not about investments. And I think that's where the private sector has a role to play. And I think the government will do ease its job by involving the private sector more including the farmer organizations and its policy framework as well as in the implementation of them. Ajit Akher. So my takeaway is that I go back my thoughts reinforce that the government is working hard towards trying to uplift the farm of prosperity. But I also have two giveaways to the ministers here because they both are on the same side politically. And my thing is that the best risk mitigation strategy for a reelection are two things happy farmers and off farm jobs. And that's the only thing that will gonna get anyone reelected next time. All right, happy farmers is a short short recipe to get reelected. That's a good note on which we're gonna end this but I'm gonna actually take the liberty of digressing slightly because you know we sit here at the World Economic Forum platform. Chief Minister Fadnavis, when you're here meeting with top industrialists meeting perhaps even wooing foreign investors to come to your state and at the same time issues of beef ban issues of intolerance that have been hugging headlines you've got someone who represents the Bollywood industry in your state Shah Rukh Khan saying your intolerance is taking us back to dark ages. Do you think it makes your job harder when you have issues like these to actually convince foreign investors about the economic potential of India at a time when we're dealing with basic issues like these? See, although it creates a sort of discomfort amongst people in the country but when I interact with the foreign investors they are least concerned. See, world over right now people want an investment destination. For 30 years China was factory for world. Now the Chinese economy is seeing a downturn and the demography is not supporting. The only country which has demography and demand is India. In any case the world has to come to India. We just have to do certain things on the ease in doing business and I think that people will come. They have started coming in Maharashtra. We are looking in last one year. We had investment more than one lakh crore. But you believe that incidents like Dadri don't hurt the image of India? No, no it does, it does and everybody has condemned it but such incidences isolated are actually cleared up in a big way that damages our image. I think even in the past many condemnable incidences have happened but that time nobody talked about intolerance. Like in Kerala a professor's hands were chopped because he raised one question about some leader or some religious leader. His hands were chopped off. Nobody talked about intolerance. So why this has to be selective? I think it's damaging our country. People must understand that although it may suffice their political motives but it's damaging country. But at the same time, I'd like you Minister Badal to quickly before we wrap up, refer to the fact that yes, it's very well to say that it happened in the past why are we raking it up now. It's very well to say that where were these people say at this time or at that time? You know there are incidents that are taking place in Punjab as well. It is, intolerance has almost become a word that we're using a bit too often these days but it is a concern that many people within the industry are also raising right now of what is going on in a country like India where on one hand we talk about an enviable growth rate for India on one hand we're going around saying yes this is the country to invest in and at the same time incidents like these in many ways are reflecting what is going on in the country and the mood of the country right now. I think you've kind of answered your own question where the whole world is looking towards India which for 10 years it had not been doing the last one year a huge change in perception, a huge change in the policies. A very positive outlook towards India is what is hassling a couple of people who are trying to derail that positivity and take it to another direction and I would say that even I would say that in my own state we have been victims of what has been happening in a very, I would say in a very planned and orderly manner to derail the positive work that has been done by the government and that's exactly what's happening at the center. All these incidents which are happening, yes I totally agree that in a democratic country like ours nobody should interfere with anybody else's religious beliefs or eating, have us at the same time being sensitive to other people's religion, that's what we all, that's the beauty of our country, how we all live together in harmony, in spite of our diversity, yes you'll be sensitive to that. But does it justify what has been happening? Does that justify say- I feel that these are certain forces who are not being able to see the progress of India and like at the parliament they are going all out to stall the progress of the country, it's very clear what they're doing in parliament, they're trying to do on the road as well to ensure that the image of the country comes down, these sporadic incidents are blown out of proportion and fanned so that the whole country's image comes out, it's being done by those certain very set of people who are not being able to digest the good work that this government is doing and the honest and hard work that the honorable prime minister and this entire team is putting in to ensure the positivity of our country. It's an unending debate but at the same time perhaps the one issue that is raised time and again is the fact that why are we seeing top policy makers and leaders condemning it very often and again, statements like these are small incidents, they are raised, they are sporadic, you know perhaps the fact that it is not coming from the top leadership condemning episodes like these is what has made it into a bigger issue than perhaps- I think it's a well-known fact that the concerned people have been pulled up and condemned in private, now why it has to be done in public is a demand being made by those very people so that when it's done they can, you know even strip that into bits and find fault with that. The fact of the matter is everybody knows that those concerned people have been condemned, they have been pulled up, I don't see why a prime minister of a country needs to speak when someone demands that he speaks, he's at a position, I think he should, the country's elected him, let him run it the way he does and what's happening, I'm sure he or anybody in their right mind is not anyone who would condone it, it is not being condoned, it is being condemned by the country and by everybody at large or why should it be done publicly to satisfy a certain sector who wants to just find fault in all the positives that's being done, I don't think that's unnecessary. Okay, last word to you, we are out of time, why do you want to make a point? This crisis, this migration from rural areas to urban areas is the biggest migration in the history of mankind. Right. It's manifesting itself into a crisis that we are discussing here, the distress on the farms, it's the same crisis in Syria and other places, in the Middle East that Germany is facing today, it's the same crisis. Till you don't get farmers happy on the farms, till you don't make them happy where they are, they're gonna come to urban places, they're gonna come to your houses and you'll have to deal with them. It's better if you deal with us where we are and not only that, it is cheaper to deal with us where we are rather than we flock to cities and then you gotta spend 10 times the money to keep us happy. That's what I'm saying. I think on that note, we're gonna end this session, deal with us where we are is what the farmers are telling the policy makers, if there is more migration that's gonna happen, if the farmers will flock to cities, you're in for bigger trouble, but for now of course, the big, big challenge for policy makers is to focus on agriculture, is to focus on the rural economy that many believe can actually be the engine of growth for the entire country, for the economy, and a lot more focus is needed. Thank you all for joining us and sharing your perspective. Ajay Chakras and Raj Chaudhary, Minister Badal and Chief Minister Fadnavis, pleasure to have you here on the show. Many thanks. Thank you.