The TLDR: Over the course of a six-hour meeting, the government indicated that it is ready to make a series of key concessions—except on the matter of price. The farmers aren’t satisfied, but both sides are now striking a remarkably cordial tone—which offers some hope for an agreement. However, the differences remain stark.

Below is a quick update on the latest developments. For the bigger picture, check out our previous explainers on:

• The three laws that sparked the protest.
• The smear campaign against the farmers.
• The great divide between what the farmers want and what the Centre is willing to concede.

The meeting 

Agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar, food minister Piyush Goyal and the minister of state for commerce, Som Prakash met with the national alliance of 40 farmer unions. While the negotiations did not resolve the stalemate, both sides took a far softer tone. Tomar told journalists: “The government has no ego. It is discussing all the issues with farmers with an open mind.” And the union leaders acknowledged that “talks were held in a conducive atmosphere.”

The big moment: occurred not during the meeting, but at lunch-time—when the farmers refused the government’s offer to feed them. Both lunch and tea were brought in from the nearby Gurudwara Bangla Sahib. A leader said: “We cannot be sitting down for a sumptuous meal offered by the government when our farming community is out on the street.”

Far less cordial: The atmosphere on the sidelines. A bitter verbal battle broke out between Kangna Ranaut and Diljit Dosanjh on Twitter—and which he conducted entirely in Punjabi, leaving many scrambling for a translator. Let’s just say Punjabi has never been this cool… 

Even with surly South Indians… Lol! Our fave tweet: “Whole of south Indian Twitter rushing to learn Punjabi in a day because of Diljit Dosanjh; Central government which has been trying to get us to learn Hindi since 70 years”:

The government’s concessions

After the meeting, Tomar listed several amendments the government is willing to offer:

One: Under the current law, buyers at government mandis have to pay a market fee and a rural development fee. But there are zero fees imposed on private mandis. The government is now willing to impose fees on private mandis to level the playing field.

Two: Currently, all disputes between farmers and private buyers must be referred to special boards created by local bureaucrats. Farmers worry that IAS officers are more likely to take the side of big companies. So the government is willing to allow the farmers to take their case to court—which is more likely to be independent.

Three: In government mandis, they have to offer a bank guarantee, and can lose their license if they default on payment. But in a private market, a buyer only has to submit a PAN card to become accredited. The farmers insist this will leave them vulnerable to fraud. 

Four: The law encourages big companies to enter into contract farming agreements— wherein the farmer agrees to grow a certain amount of produce at a preset price. The government is willing to put in a clear legal stipulation saying farmers’ land cannot be acquired in case of a dispute.

Five: Farmers are also upset about new laws that impose huge penalties for stubble burning, and potentially losing their electricity subsidies. The government is open to reworking both.

The big sticking point: is the minimum support price (MSP). Farmers want a guaranteed minimum price for their produce that applies to both private and government buyers (only applies in government mandis right now). The government is ready to offer a written statement that MSP will continue in government mandis. But a union leader said: “A simple assurance that the MSP regime will continue will not help; that requires a comprehensive (policy) overhaul and a legal backing.” 

The farmers’ response

While the unions have taken a more conciliatory approach, they described the amendments as “cosmetic changes.” They are holding firm to their core demand, which is the repeal of all three laws:

“Farmer groups say their problems with the laws are more fundamental and cannot be resolved with a few changes. ‘When a law goes wrong in its objectives, then the provisions will also be wrong. The list of all the problems is so long that it is not worth keeping the law. A bad law will only become worse,’ said [union leader]Kavitha Kuruganti.”

The big picture: The unions are not upset about specific clauses or rules. A letter to the government—sent ahead of the meeting—makes it clear that they view these laws as an attempt to enrich big companies like Reliance and Walmart at the expense of the farmer:

“We wish to reiterate that the farmers understand and even common farmers are correctly articulating, that these acts are only for providing new opportunities and alternatives to the giant food trading corporations who will make private investments, to earn huge profits, which entails controlling production, selling costly inputs, buying cheap to reap rich ‘harvests’."

Up next: Another meeting on Saturday when MSP will play a starring role.

Reading list

Indian Express has the most details on the government’s concessions—and point of view. The Telegraph reports on the meeting from the farmers’ perspective. Two very good reads: Mint on why the MSP is so important to cash-strapped farmers who are victims of a structural crisis in agriculture. Firstpost, OTOH, argues these laws are mainly being opposed by big farmers—who stand to lose the most.