we will see you soon. ♪ >> will india's protesting farmers force the prime minister into a climbdown? modi is resisting calls to repeal reforms. what are the political risks? this is "inside story." ♪

>> hello, welcome to the program. more than 60% of indians population relies on agriculture for a living. farmers have long been a crucial voting bloc and often complain of being ignored. now they are worried they could be exploited by agricultural reforms passed in september. the laws seem to loosen rules around the sale, pricing, and storage of farm products. farmers fear the new system means they will lose government-backed minimum price guarantees. they tried to march on the capitol in delhi but were stopped by police using tear gas and batons. now, they are blocking main roads and planned to stay until their demands are met. >> we have enough facilities to

cook and eat while we stay. we only want the laws to be rolled back, to go home happy. if it is not done, we will continue to protest, be it for six months or a year. >> we always suspected the governments intention and always will because the government has become a slave of the corporations. they want to turn us to their slave as well. we want the government elected by the people that talks about the people. >> the indian government says the reforms are necessary to boost production and bring in necessary private investment. prime minister modi has tried to ensure farmers the new laws won't harm their businesses. >> i want to tell the citizens and farmers from the banks of the river ganges and the holy city that we are working with intentions that are pure as the water of the river again just and without any head to the trail. >> most of the farmers come from

areas known as india's grain baskets. our reporter has been to one of the protests near the capital. >> despite farm union leaders attending talks with the government, tens of thousands of farmers remain on two key highways blocking the road into the capital region of delhi. union leaders have told us they are attending the talks, but they are not hopeful of a breakthrough. this comes after prime minister modi's comment that these laws are good or farmers and in the interest of farmers. -- good for farmers and in the interest of farmers. farmers say that's what happened last time. they want a guarantee for a minimum price. that is why they are protesting now and why they say they will continue to do so until the government repeals these laws. meanwhile, the farmers have had some international support. the canadian prime minister, justin trudeau, has said that

canada will always stand by the right of people to peacefully protest -- to protest peacefully. that is perhaps not surprising. canada has such a large population and more than half a million people are of punjabi dissent. but those comments were not welcomed in india. the foreign minister called them ill-informed and said canada should not be making comments about internal affairs -- about the internal affairs of a democracy. >> legislation changes the way farmers do business. currently, farmers are guaranteed a minimum price for their produce at wholesale markets. the new law allows them to sell directly to anyone. farmers fear big corporations will drive prices down. farmers will be able to enter into direct contracts with private country -- companies.

let's bring in our guest. -- guests. we have an assistant professor of economics and an associate professor of international development. our correspondent is an agriculture policy specialist and the former director of the institute of social and economic change. he joins us from bangor. welcome to you all. -- bangalore. welcome to ur. -- two you will. -- welcome to you all. what are the main changes the new laws will bring about? >> one goes with commerce, it's

called the farmers, produce, trade and commerce act. there are six or seven points covered in this law. intrastate and interstate trading of produce is free and allowed without any kinds of duties. traders must trade with a personal accounting number. electronic registration is essential. no market fees. dispute resolution is in place. this is the first act. the second act is the farmers protection act. this is price assurance and farm service.

this is a contract farming act. farmers can enter the agreement with a fixed price, with quality grade standards, and pay two thirds of the amount immediately. this is what is most important. acquiring ownership of the land of the farmer. insurance to be provided and a procedure is set. the third one is the essential commodities act. this allows the government to regulate the supply of certain food items. this document may be enforced only if there is a steep price rise.

if the price more than doubles on a perishable or 50% on a nonperishable. >> thank you very much. why are many farmers so nervous about what are essentially free-market reforms of farming in india? >> precisely because of that. probably, if you look at these three acts, the states from which the farmers are mainly protesting are those in which the market population is quite affected. the state -- these farmers get a guaranteed price. the markets are working efficiently and they are used to the federal government. this is something that has come

without much discussion. it falls under the purview of the federal government, not the central government, but the state government, at a time when it is very difficult for everybody across the country that suddenly such major things are being done without the farmers being taken into consideration, especially over the last three or four years, this has been a huge problem across the country, asking for legislation that would guarantee a minimum price. this is completely against what the farmers have been demanding for the last three or four years, and it makes farmers afraid that the existing system will change in a way that means prices will be much lower. >> a quarter of india's farm produce is lost to waste.

surely that suggests that some sort of reform is needed. >> that's absolutely right. a stance of lee, one can see that this government is trying -- of stenci -- obstensibly, one can see that the government is trying to respond to this crisis. but you could say these three laws are designed to make conditions for farmers better. that's what the government wants us to believe. however, there is a crisis in agriculture. just last year, in 2019, over 10,000 farmers committed suicide in india. these acts are not necessarily like your previous speakers have said are not going to make conditions better for farmers. they are going to delegitimize

markets. what is really needed is for farmers to have better access, better recognition, better prices, assured prices for produce, and these acts are none of that. >> there is no major economy in the world that leaves farmers completely at the mercy of free markets quite like this does. 34% of the eu's budget goes to farming and fishing subsidies. the u.s. is forecast to spend 32.7 billion dollars this year. and you are sort of throwing farmers to the wolves with this legislation. >> there are quite a few misunderstandings not only among the farmers. agriculture is under the state

list. that includes agriculture, which means production. agricultural education. protection -- and this is absolutely clearly written. under the trade and commerce, interstate trade is listed. and in the concurrent list, it specifies cotton and other crops. now, a lot of academicians say agriculture falls in the state list. that's true. but only for that purpose. secondly, as far as farmers are concerned, there is a clear,

logical side. my book is there. i spoke to 30,000 farmers in 2002 across 13 states in the country. i had been jeff bennett -- i had punjab in it and they are very happy for a simple reason. like any other organization operating in the msp sector of punjab, they are absolutely corrupt. and i am saying it on camera. when t farmer takes see great produce to the market -- c-grade produce to the market, the grade

changes from c to b. the price changes. the farmer gets a huge amount from the government. the person who is grading isn't losing anything. it is the state that is losing. >> all right, thank you very much. most indian farms are very small, 1.1 hectors -- check what are the risks to them of these reforms? >> 80% of the new farmers are what we would call small and marginal. they do not benefit from procurement by the state anyhow. they don't get the assured prices. however, when the market gets deregulated, they lose out if

regulated markets do not function anymore. it sets the lower price for various commodities. it sets a floor for the price. the other issue is to do with the whole issue of contract farming and allowing the private sector to compete with farmers. what that means is you can have big, corporate interests without any regulations, without any middle layer, so the farmers especially, because they are so small, they can only be protected when they work as a group or when they voice their concerns. so that is the biggest concern, that these small farmers would

be left directly to deal with big companies and obviously they would not get assured prices. there is a problem that inputs are becoming more expensive. prices are not assured. and what you talked about earlier also involves lack of access to markets and so on. the reforms that are needed require more regulation rather than going in the other direction. >> how are these small-scale farmers going to be able to deal directly with major businesses? surely, the scales are already weighted against the market. >> yes, absolutely, and that is why they are protesting. i think political actors are being very unfair and not

getting the pulse of the problem when they say that the farmers don't understand what's going on. the farmers are the ones actually facing the conditions your previous speakers are talking about. that is why they are protesting, why we might be seeing farmers on the street. we are also seeing organizations of farm labor and smaller farms trying to have their voice heard. this is not new. this protest has been going on in many parts of india for well over two months and the government would do well to hear what they are saying. >> i also wanted to ask you, there are 7500 regulated cultural markets in india. what sort of a role do they play in the communities where they

are? >> we have a nationalist government in power that is trying to tell us that what they will bring about is one market for one country. they have to understand the landscape in which these markets exist. there are farm marketing produce agencies. even today, most states allow people to sell at the farm door rather than taking the produce to a market. but the markets and the minimum support price available for some commodities in these markets has a signal effect for all the other goods being sold, even at the farm door. it's this sort of price that will be weekend -- weakened,

and therefore the signal will be sent, and it will have an adverse effect on farm prices. >> before you address the comments of our colleagues, can i try again to get you to specifically address the issue of farming subsidies? they are essential in europe. they are essential in the u.s. if you take them away from indian farmers, half the population risks its jobs. is there enough support for these farmers with these new laws? >> nowhere in the law has it been stated that msp is going to close. as far as contract farming is concerned -- i don't know if you are able to see this book. >> go ahead. >> this is on contract farming and reforms. the subtitle is entitled without

-- it was written in 2003. the third act here on contact farming makes it compulsory for the contractor for the farmer and the government -- >> please forgive me for interrupting you because we are very tight for time, but can i simply asked, is there enough to ensure with the new laws that these farmers will be financially compensated? >> these laws are not for financial compensation if somebody is thinking of that. no. financial compensation goes to the msp. the second thing is if we believe -- and that's what many people believe -- that our markets are properly functioning -- no. the cartels begin from the apm

c. they decide the prices and these prices are decided by even the signals in the air. there are two instances whereby -- >> sir, we will come back to you in a moment. he is talking there about the cartels currently setting the prices. there is some sort of reform needed, isn't there? is this the way to bring it about? >> absolutely, but the way they are functioning is not functioning perfectly or democratic. there are cartels. there are issues of corruption and so on. but the reform is not to get rid of them. there are some states in the country which did away with the apm c about 10 years back and

they find that the markets are even worse. the farmers have no access to the markets now. so, there is a need for reform, but it's not one that does away with any kind of regulation. that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. what we need is better recognition. just another point that the middleman is there because of access to credit for farmers. they are an important source of telling the farmers what is going on in the market. that is not being replaced, just completely removed. >> and big corporations have a significant effect on the pricing of agricultural products. for example, milk is often supplied at a less than cost price.

are there protections for that? >> absolutely not. it's true that the current laws do not do away with minimum support price in many commodities, but there is a systematic weakening of the bargaining power of the farmers, and a greater placement of large, agriculture corporations, and very few safeguards we have seen being built into current legislation. these laws and others we could talk about, where farmers interests are being put first, that is not the case. it is the corporations being pushed forward. even if you see the federal government using the concurrent list of the constitution, they are doing that because they are allowed to do that for commercial marketing of food.

the government, the central government sees this as a factor of agriculture marketing. the farmers see this as a factor of identity, livelihood, and power. there is a difference in how this issue has been seen by the central government as commerce and by the farmers as their own identity, livelihood, history, who they are. they are operating at different levels here. >> unfortunately, time is against us and we are out of time. thank you to all of our guests. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program at any time by visiting our website and get more information on our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for me, bernard smith and the

whole team here, goodbye for now. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

diep tran: i think people are aware of vietnamese cuisine, and most people don't want that cuisine to change or don't want to have their understanding of the cuisine to change. because the cuisine is changing all the time. the idea of a, like, this unifying national cuisine, vietnamese cuisine, it doesn't exist. really, it truly doesn't exist. even a unified vietnamese identity doesn't exist. [dings] like, it's kind of like saying italians--defined by tomatoes and olive oil. what people see as essential, it's because they're looking from like an outsider's point of view, and it's not granular.