 Hello and let's talk about the farmers protest that has been going on for the past few days. As almost any child in India knows by now, farmers from various states, especially Punjab and Haryana have been protesting at the Delhi border. Their demands are nothing new. They have been asking these demands for many, many months now, primarily the withdrawal of the three farm bills that were very controversially passed by the Modi government. Across the country, solidarity protests have been taking place, not only farmers but students, activists, artists, everyone has been joining in this cause. And on the face of it, it seems like a fairly basic and clear demand. On the other hand, the right-wing social media sections of the establishment have been intent. They have been bent on discrediting these protests. First of all, the argument that was being put were these were anti-national elements, as usual. Then, of course, there was the argument that these are richer farmers and do not represent the bulk of the Indian peasantry. And now after all these have failed, the argument, the narrative is now shifting to how the government is actually willing to concede demands, but the farmers are kind of being a bit stubborn about it. Now this is being circulated in various media organizations online, of course. So we decided to go into the question, this question, precisely in terms of what exactly are the farmers' demands? What are the demands that the government is willing to concede? And what right now is the bone of contention? We talked to senior journalists Anindya Chakravarty on these issues. Thank you Anindya for joining us. So the protests have been going on for quite a few days now, the multiple narratives happening over the past few days in the media, of course, in social media. And now we see that after two rounds of discussion, there's a bit of uncertainty about what's really happening. There's definitely one clear narrative that is going around from some sections which say that the government is willing to make concessions, you know, it looks like a reasonable debate that's going on. So could you talk about, to begin with, we'll go to some of the media issues later, but to begin with, could you talk about the areas on which these concessions are currently being made? I think that what we will go back to that media issue because I think these are connected in a certain way because ultimately it is true that the majority of farmers out there are from Punjab because that is which is the most affected state when it comes to MSP. Most other states do not get MSP, we know that. Even farmers, leaders, unions admit that. But MSP does act as a floor price almost everywhere. So even if they don't get MSP, MSP affects them. So it is true. So given that for a long time, I think that the Modi government thought that this is going to not affect the overall public move, right? Now the problem there for them is that, yeah, and I guess the calculation is, look, Punjab in any case, we don't make much of a headway. Congress has been winning even at the peak of Modi wave. So why care, right? So that is one of the things that this government probably calculated. But I think what has happened is that what they did not anticipate is the huge public space with Punjabis occupied. And how much public culture is influenced by Punjabis and how much, what kind of a connection these people have with farmers. So you've seen that people, NRI seeks from across India have come out and said that this is bad and they should be paid. They have nothing to do with it. They must have might have left this country many years ago, may have sold their farms, but that connection still exists. We know that Bollywood stars have entered this space and in support of the Punjab farmers because they believe that this is a matter that they have to take up to retain their popularity. If they're silent, so we see popular pop singers like Nika, right? He's speaking about the Punjab farmers, right? So we saw yesterday an actor called Diljit Dosanj, I think if I'm not got it wrong, he got into the fray. And we've seen that once that happens, then it is not that easy to control the public space anymore. So now comes part two. How do you now divert the attention without giving up on the key thing? Because what is this reform so-called reform about? This reform essentially is to enable big capital to get into farming, right? Not into farming, but into farm produce retailing. Because we know that many of these people have actually entered into these large retail things, we know Ambani's got into it, others have got into it. They want to sell vegetables and fruits and stuff to us, people like us. And they want to control that. Now, the government is operating on their behalf. We've discussed this in the past, Prashant, how this government is essentially representing monopoly capital. No government ever has in my opinion. So here's the point, how do you now appear to be the reasonable party? And that is now the move that the government is making. So it's planting stories, it's giving out feelers that we are actually willing to give up on all these reforms and okay, you guys don't like it here. Take it back, it's okay. So they are essentially trying to give up on three key things. Now, farmers have four, I would say four key issues that these farmers have. And if you look at it, I'm going to go in reverse order. At least I'll take the three which are not really that important, but still important. The first one, of course, is the level playing field between APMCs, which are the Mondi's that where the Arthya, the traders said, which are the registered regulated Mondi's. And as we know that the APMC bypass law as it has come to no round, allows private traders to come into the space and buy directly from farmers. Now you would say in APMCs, there are two kinds of levies and taxes that are taken and they're not taking from farmers. The big thing that has been spread by the BJP and its supporters out there is that apparently farmers pay for this. This is an absolute untruth, it is paid by grain traders. So the first is the levy for running that Monday. You can say, okay, grain traders ultimately take it from farmers, but that's okay. Every corporate tax a corporate pay ultimately is paid by us. So are you saying corporates don't pay taxes? Right, so that's the point. So in Punjab, for instance, there's a 3% levy charge for running the Monday. The government charges, the state government gets and it runs the Monday. Which provides farmers spaces where they can go and keep their grain, right? The Monday allows them to do it and it provides people the space to bring their grain, get it sold, weighed and stuff like that, which is the cost, which traders pay. The second part of it is the levy, the surcharge again on traders, which is the 3% surcharge for rural development. We know that in Punjab, many Mondays have been added or rural roads been added based on this levy being taken by the Punjab government. Punjab government has in the past been bankrupt. So this is one important source of money. So farmers have said that we want a level playing field. If APMCs are being charged this money, then you need to ask the private traders, private Mondays also to pay this, right? Now there are two reasons for this. Number one reason which directly affects farmers is that they get a storage facility. As one farmer I was watching on news click, in fact, was saying that even a farmer who has let's say six acres, five acres of land, which works out of two hectares of land, which is technically a small farmer under the government's own calculations, even that person, the produce they come up with, they crop, they cannot store it. They have to take it to one of these Mondays to store it and they have to hand it over to someone who will store it, right? So they're saying that if you are left with a situation where you cannot store because once there's no level playing field, what will happen? That the private Mondays will take over because they don't have to pay these levies, right? When it can't, don't have to do that. Then what happens? You might have to pay for storage number one. Secondly, that entire space goes away. So you'll have to, you'll be forced to sell because you can't store. So farmers have that. Secondly, when it comes to these traders, yes, as I think P Sainath has said, that government schools aren't good. They're pretty bad, right? We know there, but they're better than no schools. So APMC Mondays are not good. The entire trader middleman Arthya system is not good. It is exploitative, we know that. But it is better than monopoly capital coming and sitting on a farmer's head or a fly-by-night trader coming and picking up the farmer's crop. And that is something that farmers know because Arthyas and traders have a social relationship with farmers. They're there in the village for ages. They're registered, right? And because of that, when a farmer doesn't have money, they go to the local trader. Trader advances them some money. Usually charges a huge rate of interest. But what stops the government from providing, you know, the banking services, right? Banking services to farmers. Why aren't they there? All this talk about Jandhan account, we know it's essentially rubbish. The accounts exist, but there's no outlet for farmers to take loans. So farmers actually take loans to repay loans that they've taken from local Arthyas. But at the same time, it is also true that when a farmer is in distress, it's not the government, it's not the bank which comes to help the farmer. It is the Arthya who comes to help the farmer, right? So there's a social connection. It's an exploitative connection which inaccurately could be called a feudal connection, but it exists. There is a relationship out there, which is why the farmers want those people to still be there. They don't want it to be thrown open to an outsider who could exploit them an unknown entity. So that is number one. Now, we hear from these planted stories and what one hears from the government that the government is willing to rethink this and maybe even private mundis will be told to pay the surcharge because private mundis will spend their own money to run the mundi so they don't have to pay the levy, the cost, but surcharge they should pay, okay, fine, level playing fee. So the government appears to be very reasonable, right? Here was the thing they said, we wanted to encourage private mundis, but okay, if farmers want it, who are we? Here, take it. Number two is again connected to the fact that Arthiyas are part of that system, is registration. All Arthiyas, all APMC traders mostly, right? Which are called the Pakkarthiyas. There are Kacharthiyas who are not registered, but again, they are also part of the system itself. They are registered if they do not pay up, their registration can go. But what happens if, what is the government saying? Take a pancart, go to a private mundi, buy directly from a farmer I go to a farmer and I say, okay, here I'm buying 100 quintals of your grain. Here is an advance, rest you'll get once it sold, right? And then I disappear, right? Where is the farmer going to look for me? It's not possible for them to do that. So this is why they want registered people to be there in their system. They want registration. Now again, the government essentially says, okay, we wanted to do that. This so that farmers can access, I mean, so that it's easier because we are against bureaucracy and red tape. So that we, and if farmers want more KYC, okay, we'll do that, right? Again, very reasonable, sounds extremely reasonable. The third part which comes is dispute resolution. So if there's a dispute, the law and the new laws say that you cannot go to a civil court, right? You'll have to go to the district magistrate and the district magistrate, whatever they say is fine. And we know the district magistrates are part of the administration, right? They will do what, there's a much lesser degree of independence that a district magistrate has if they have any compared to judiciary. Even a lower court is more autonomous, more independent than a district magistrate would be or the executive would be. And therefore, again, the government is saying that, okay, we will reconsider that if the district magistrates dispute resolution mechanism fails and the farmer is not happy, then they can, we might consider allowing them to go to civil court. So three of those demands which appear to be key demands are being given up, right? Because farmers don't really mind contract farming if they can make more money. They're worried about contract being signed and then payment not being made so that they can be dispute resolution if possible. Of course, that dispute resolution when a large corporate comes with a battery of lawyers with the top law firm in the country, what a farmer can do against that? I have no clue, but nevertheless, right? Now comes to number four. This is where we'll see that newspapers have reported that government ready to accept three out of four key demands. Now, it is like saying that I need, I like to eat my food on a dining table with a chair and preferably if my food is hot and warm, I would like to have that. And I would like to have a glass of water or maybe a cola drink along with my food if possible. Now you tell me that, okay, I agree to give you the chair, the cola, and the heat that you wanted, but food, I'm sorry I can't give you. So essentially that's what it is. The key demand of MSP, which is minimum support price, that is what the government doesn't want to give. And I think this is where the media's role comes into the picture. Absolutely, right. So in this context, just to make matters clear as well, the MSP has been the central demand all the, and this is not the first strike we've seen actually. We have some multiple protests by workers, by farmers over the past three, four years. The Swaminathan Commission has become, in all of these protests, it has become a central keyword that has been very much in the demand. But what we do see is still a very concerted campaign to pretend that this is not really something that is as important. So there's a very clear ideological projected play for what are better words. So here's the thing that there is actually the, in a sense, there was a trap out there. So if you see that a lot of farming activists and people who are sympathetic to farmer causes, they've been saying that only 6% of farmers get MSP because under the government's own Shanta Kumar Commission admitted that and in its reports, only 6% get it now. Now, it's not a very, the second part of what the report said was and therefore farmers shouldn't be given MSP. So you basically say that only 6% of people actually get paid the full minimum wages. So why keep minimum wages? It's effectively saying that. So, or 50% of men in India beat their wives. So why make beating wives illegal? It's effectively broadly, that is the argument that this government is giving. Farmers don't get MSP. So why give MSP, right? And there is an entire paraphernalia of manufacturing of concept that is going on around it, that MSP is bad, it creates, it raises prices of food and stuff like that. Really, is that why food prices have not risen consistently in this country and a wholesale basis? Is that why farmer income for the last 25 years, real income has been flat in this country? So essentially, these are all lies. The point is MSP, it is true. As I think Harish Damodaran showed in one of the articles that by calculating that it is not 6%, it is much more. And also a lot of farmers, there are other products because what the Shanta Kumar committed did was it only looked at paddy and wheat farmers. What it did not look at is those like pottern and then there are some, there are other, I think 14 odd crops in which MSP is given. It did not look at that. And therefore, and also the fact that there are milk corporators where there is dairy is protected in a lot of ways through this process. Not necessarily MSP, but there is a floor price. And therefore farmers do get it. And if you don't give it, then there's a big change. So the question that everyone has been asking and all farmers have been saying that we love your privatization. Frankly, they don't really mind privatization. They don't mind private players coming in and doing things as long as they get MSP. They're saying here you believe that private players will ensure that we get more money. So what is the problem in giving us MSP? Say that if you cannot give more than what I'm getting today, which is MSP, right? Then you can't buy it. Very simple, right? Why doesn't the government put me that a law? Why doesn't the government say that if a farmer comes to a Monday and gives it, they are by law have to buy what is being given to them at MSP, right? The only reason the government wasn't want to do it because the government knows that private players will pay less than MSP does, right? So that is the entire logic. It is simply that you cannot afford to put that in law because no private player wants to pay for the government pays. That's as simple as that. So for farmers, everything else is secondary. If one had to take one single issue that is essential in this entire agitation, that is the minimum support price and a fair minimum support price. And we know that all this agitation, all this while has been about minimum support price. Exactly. This government came into power saying that we will increase MSP and we will ensure that MSP is given according to the Swaminathan Committee report, which said that not just calculating what the costs are right now, not just calculating what family labor amounts to an imputed cost, but you also have to give everything that you give corporates as cost. You allow corporates to take cost, rent, imputed rent, cost of the machine which they own, right? Depreciation. Why don't you give that to farmers? So that is what is called the C2 cost. And the government actually, government's own CACP actually, Commission for Cost and Prices, Agriculture Cost and Prices publishes that, right? Every year for every state and every crop. So what's the big problem in saying this is the minimum amount that you'll have to pay if you buy or, and if you can't pay it, don't buy it, right? So that's the basic issue here and that is what the government wants to pretend by putting everything at the same level. We're saying MSP is one issue. These are the three issues. We're accepting three and these farmers are so unreasonable, they're stuck on one. Great. Actually in some senses from what you were saying it also appears like this struggle of course is about agriculture, it's about farmers but it's also about one of those fundamental questions that India's development path is faced which is that when the government is not able to provide what it should do and then decides that the best solution is just to let in private players to do what they want. How do you actually oppose or why do you oppose it? So in some senses this is an answer to the narrative of nearly 30 or 40 years as well which says that services are bad, so let's just prioritize. Yeah, exactly. So that's the entire, and we've seen what has happened because of that. We've seen what has happened in medicine. Yes, we have these great hospitals which look like hotels and you can go in and you'll get cable TV in your room if you have the money but we know what has happened to access to medicine. We know how much people have got indebted because of medical costs in there before. So these are things that are obviously the government has withdrawn and allowed because we have a class which has emerged which has wanted the government to withdraw. The government was there not out of some great love for the people but because the India's capitalist class wanted the government to be there when it was there except there were these, let's say these conjunctures when Indira Gandhi shifted left because of her own internal politics within the Congress too. And though that's a small short period in the history of India when that happened and we pretend as if it was always like that. It was probably 69 to 70, 75 odd, the six year when it happened at 75 onwards we've seen a move away from that very quickly. Thank you so much Arunthi for talking to us. Thanks a lot. That's all we have time for today. We'll be back on Monday with more news from the country and the world. Until then, keep watching NewsClick.