 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we're joined by P. Sainath, the founding editor of the People's Archive of rural India. And we're going to be talking about the farmers protests, which began at number 26, as we know. They have intensified over the weeks. The government is engaged in talks, what it calls talks at least, but which have actually been more of a holding action for lack of better word. Sainath, thank you so much for joining us. I first wanted to go into an issue which came out at the latest round of discussions, where the government said it gave a proposal to the farmers which the organizations rejected because they wanted the repeal of the laws. But one of the key elements of the most important element was that they said they would give a written assurance that the current MSP system would continue. And now there's been a lot of debate about how MSP is at the heart of this. So what really is the catch when the government is saying that this current MSP system will continue? Well, first of all, I think there's been very little discussion. There's been a lot of posture by a government that was completely caught off guard. There was a reason why it passed these laws and do not forget the labor codes at the height of the pandemic. This is something the media refused to look at. Mr Modi had a very huge majority in parliament before the pandemic is likely to keep it two years after the pandemic is under control. Why did a government in the midst of a pandemic with, you know, second or third worst in the world with daily cases has a thousand things demanding its attention, but it passed these laws. There was a reason for that. Its calculation was that the farming community and the working class are at this moment helpless, cannot hit back, cannot organize. They are cowed down by COVID, pulverized by the pandemic. These guys can't hit back at us. That was a terrible miscalculation. Logically, it was a very, very valid assumption to make, but it misfired in that the farmers of Punjab, Haryana and nearby states did not accept that assumption and flouted. The second thing is that I love this idea of consultation after the fact. The consultant, even the government in its supposed discussion is admitting that these amendments, these new laws were enacted for trade and commerce. And any consultation that took place took place with the biggest of big businesses in this country. It did that. There was no consultation of farmers. The RSS, Kisan branches, they had no idea. They were never consulted that they had nothing to do with these laws. Right? So it's an absolute fabrication that there was any consultation when their own party units etc. are saying so. In fact, I understand that the BJP printed some 10 lakh Patraks, little leaflets for distribution in Chandigarh, Punjab and gave them to its local units. I think precious little distribution of that has taken place and the reasons why the activists are going dragging their feet on distributing that is so obvious. But even that's not important. Now this guaranteed MSP. Guaranteed MSP means nothing in itself. If you do not have guaranteed state procurement, we can describe and we can declare in writing or in words or in cinema is Kaihai MSP. But then you don't gather it. You don't procure. So it means nothing. Is there an, do I have an example of what I'm talking about? Many states have been doing this for years. Maharashtra under the UPA, under the Congress government of Velasra Foundation did this repeatedly when the suicides were at their worst in Vidarbha and Marathya. What it did, it would declare high MSP, per quintal, per bail, per quintal procurement, very high MSP it would declare. Then it would do three things. One, it would open half the number of MSP centers, minimum support, I mean half the number of procurement centers required. So suppose 10X was the number of procurement centers required for that region, it would open four, maybe five. The second thing it would do was to open the procurement centers 15, 20 days later. That would create huge pileups outside the markets at Ghatanji, at Karanjah. You could see kilometer long queues of farmers with their bullock carts cotton piled up to the skies. And that would obviously first when you start, when you open half the number of centers, then there is incredible pressure on that farmer who's got to settle his or her bills, pay for the kids school fees and they will sell at whatever price they can get. That is one. The second thing is by reducing the number, you're doubling the pressure because that person's creditors are not going to wait for him to have an expedition to Ghatanji for 10 days when they want their money and he's got to pay or she has got to pay huge bills that have piled up. Third tactic, close those centers 10 to 15 days early so that the late arrivals at the market are also forced towards private trade. So this is what that game is about. MSP is meaningless if there is no guarantee procurement. The second part of this offer, noble offer of the government of India is you've made it before. You made it in your manifesto in 2014 and you did not say till now, the second thing is that you have to define what is your understanding of cost of production on which the MSP is based. In 2014, Mr Modi declared that within 12 months of coming to power or some leaders even said within one month, we will implement the Swaminathan Commission's recommendation on MSP cost of production, COP 2 plus 50%. As you know, there are other methods of calculation. The ones that say Niti Ayog and private trade are very happy with when big corporations would be very happy with which is A2 is one way of calculating cost of production which is simply the paid out costs of inputs. Fertilizer, your seeds and stuff. A2 plus FL is the second which is input costs plus imputed cost of family labor. The Swaminathan Commission was very categorical in saying comprehensive cost of production plus 50%. Now the government somewhere on some of these went in for A2 plus FL. It went in for that and started claiming that it had implemented the Swaminathan Commission. Now by the way, between A2 plus FL and COP 2 cost of production, comprehensive cost of production plus 50%, A2 FL plus 50% and the latter, the difference can be between 400 and 500 rupees per quintal. It can be that high. So suppose you're selling 20 quintals, what are you losing? 20 into 400. Can anyone afford that? So that was yet another game they played with the MSP. The third is that if you just go up right now to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, you'll find a report there. Report of the Consumer Affairs Group 2011. And if you Google up the newspapers, you will see photographs of the great ceremony at which that report was presented to Dr. Manmohan Singh. The report on consumer affairs was anchored by a group of chief ministers. And it said 0.3B. It said no transaction between farmer and trader should be permitted below MSP. It said it in writing. And the chairman of that group of chief ministers was one, Mr. Narendra Modi of Gujarat. So he's an old hand at giving assurance. So how much these assurances are worth? You can see from the fact of how they behave with their manifesto, how they have behaved with the Swaminathan Commission report, how they have behaved with his own Consumer Affairs Group report, which says no transaction. Given all these, how does it mean anything? And the other thing is this, for big corporations, private trade, they are giving written parliament enacted laws. For the farmers, they're giving written assurance. And even that hasn't happened so far and we haven't seen what they look like. And this context, I just wanted to ask you about another key narrative that the government has been pushing from day one, not only the government, but you yourself have talked about how journalists, for instance, have called this the 91 moment for labour laws and agriculture as well. And this is the question of choice, the idea that somehow farmers are going to have this bonanza of choices. Once these laws are passed and it's all about the state stopping them from accessing all these beautiful choices. So after these laws are passed and once these laws are in operation of course, what exactly is the kind of choice that they're going to be confronted with? In an irreversible, irrefutable logic, the entire philosophy of the neoliberals of pro-capitalist thinking is that market offer you a choice. Now, I think that if the 1.2 billion human beings, the United Nations, classifies as very hungry. If the 1.2 billion very hungry people in the world had a choice, I suspect they would choose to eat. The fact that they're unable to do so tells you that the choice before them is a complete fake, a complete fraud. They do have another choice. They can starve, which is what they do. Yeah, this is the choice. The choice of the consumerist world is like you walk into a department, you walk into a mall or a supermarket or whatever, and you have a choice of which detergent you want to buy. There are 11 on the shelf before you and nine of them are manufactured by Procter and Gamble. So you have a choice. You can buy the one with pink bubbles or the one with blue bubbles. That is your choice. The third aspect of it is that you present something and say choice and that, you know, look, the government is so willing to discuss this. It's like I pass a law sentencing you to death. I pass the death sentence and then say, you know, I'm very reasonable and I'm willing to discuss with you amendments and we can see whether you can state a preference and make a choice and whether the death will be by hanging or by boiling you in oil. So, I mean, these are the philosophical aspects of, you know, what the basis of that choice is, what is meaningless. So that's one. Second, the entire media have been going on about this, that the choice is, even very well-meaning people write to me say, but isn't it correct that we break this choke hold of the APMC? You know, when you are blinded or when you are blinded by propaganda or drowning or because you are unable to get the blinkers of your eyes, you believe that when you start with a false premise, you can construct any fantasy on it. There was never a choke hold of the APMC. The bulk of farm produce is sold at the gate of the farm, at the farm gate, because most farmers, their crop is pledged in advance to private trade. There are most farmers and every Indian knows every, but a lot of those Indians don't pause to think out the contradiction between the fact that the choke hold is that of private trade, that of the Savukar, that of the corporation and whose agents very often are the collectors at the door. And the idea of the choke hold of the APMC. So this is the falsehood involved in this idea of choice of the APMC. The third is, see the middle classes and most of the editors pontificating on this, the 1991 moment, Well, actually, Mr. Gupta, former editor-in-chief of the Indian Express and running the print, has repeatedly said, never waste a good crisis. He's paraphrasing though I'm not sure he's aware of it, Winston Churchill, hardly the greatest Democrat in the world, who believed in the use of chemical weapons against the primitive races like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, well, he gave people a choice between being bombed with chemical and conventional weapons, and he chose chemical. Anyway, the thing is, never waste a good crisis, which is what I told you in answer to the first question, that these guys are on their knees now. Let's kneecap them or break their bones because they can't. Now, all of them, all of the stuff that has been directed has been based on demonizing the APMC and the purported lack of choice of the farmer. But the farmer has made a choice. Given access to MSP, given access to MSP, they will choose MSP. Now, another thing about that written guarantee, here's another problem about MSP covers some 23 crops, which together cumulatively must account for an overwhelming share of gross crop area indicator. Actually, MSP is paid out on two crops as everyone knows. The farmers from Punjab who are sitting outside daily will tell you that they have never been able to access MSP on anything other than wheat and rice. So that is their choice. They can grow wheat or they can grow rice. Now, if you paid out the MSP on all the 23 crops and included a couple more, you would have real diversification. The consumer as well would have choice. The farmer would have a far greater choice in what to grow. Whereas you are giving him or her no choice at present, this is all you will grow. So this is the whole game around the idea of choice. Absolutely. And in this context, I also wanted to ask you about an issue you've been highlighting for the past at least a few days. And this is regarding, of course, the provision in the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce Act, which says, which talks about the legal proceedings around it. And it's fairly, I mean, it's interesting. It's also scary in the sense that it gives a huge amount of immunity to all those concerned. The officers, of course, and it's one of those omnibus laws, which it's very unclear what it exactly is doing in a law that is supposedly supposed to do with farming. So could we also talk a bit about the implication to this for the democracy as a whole? Yeah, well, you know, the extra, see, see, Pranjal, many laws have a clause dealing with what are the legal protocols permissible and not. That in itself is not novel. What is extraordinary is the extent to which this immunity goes. It protects you from prosecution for crimes. You may not even have planned as it. It says, one clause says that no suit, no prosecution shall lie against the central government, against the state government, against any officer of the central government or of the state government, or any other person who has done something with good faith, intention and good faith. Now, who is this any other person? Is it the farmer? Obviously not because it's barring the farmer from the jurisdiction of the civil court. Any other person easily translates to corporation or big business, right? That's one set of things. Second, it bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. No court may pass any injunction, et cetera, on any matter under this. Third, it makes it clear that the low level executive subdivision authority, you know, you're talking about collectors, deputy collectors, et cetera, now become a judicial. That is spectacular. You are converting the lowest levels of the administration, low levels of the administration into judges, juries and executions. So with these three things, it goes way over the top. The last time you had something terrible on that scale was during the emergency of 1975-77. These suspended fundamental rights altogether, the Constitution itself meant very little. So that those laws are extraordinary. They do not affect only farmers. They affect every citizen. It means that news click cannot go in a PIL against large scale wrongdoing of some company or corporation in Odisha or anywhere else. No PILs, no public interest litigation. So look how terrible the clauses are that a body like the Bar Council of Delhi has protested vehemently and they have protested on several grounds. One, they've said this conversion of executive transfer of judicial power, the words the Bar Council has used dangerous and a blunder. It is dangerous and a blunder. The second thing the Bar Council has said is that what are you doing to lawyers? You're dismantling the district level courts. When you're dismantling the district level courts, what about for all the citizens around who need those courts? Third is that what happens to lawyers who cannot take up such cases? Now, if you are arguing that you can go much higher, you can put it, you know, to begin with, there is an incredible imbalance of power between private traders, corporations and the farm who is capable of taking legal recourse. So the laws on the laws exclude legal recourse of the Indian citizen to an extraordinary degree in a different way. They have done the same thing in the labor courts, but not with this language. There also, you make it impossible for a trade union to function. You make it impossible in the name of efficiencies for a trade union to work with workers in a factory to go on strike. So essentially, in fact, the ordinances that came during the lockdown were official declarations, proclamations of bonded labor by ordinance. Now you are codifying those in laws. So all of this together tells you how dangerous it is for every single Indian that this process of shutting out legal recourse goes. Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees the citizen the possibility of legal remedies, which means the legal action you can take. But when you have judges who are saying we would like to discourage, you know, the kind of frivolous petitions that go on at that is the most basic and fundamental right of a citizen in a democracy. So it's essentially this exclusion is striking at the basic structure of the Constitution of the right to legal remedy. Absolutely. And speaking of democracy, of course, one final question on the media. And this is an issue you've been talking about for decades, of course, the amount of coverage, for instance, that is dedicated to agriculture. Earlier on news clicks, a couple of months ago also you talked about the pandemic and how the media was responding. But now we have a scenario where actually farmers in such huge numbers in hundreds of thousands actually are at the borders of Delhi, not even that you have to assign an agriculture correspondent or a rural correspondent. We see hundreds and thousands of people actually sitting on the borders. And even now the media narrative has either been, like you said, the most well intentioned options might be talking about the stranglehold and we have the vicious elements talking about Khalista and talking about this being a rich conspiracy and etc. So how do you see the media scenario right now? Well, actually there are some journalists visiting there because now it is not about farming, but it is about, it's a political issue. It's an explosive political issue. But today the Indian Express has yet another editorial. Government is being reasonable. It's up to the farmers now. They have scored a moral victory. Now they should just shut up and get out of there and agree to whatever the government says. The point is, this whole understanding of what is compromised. You have passed a law in which I have had no say, no consultation and this nonsense of consulting and the media are peddling this, that consultations between daily think tanks or what I call stink tanks intellectually is equal to consultation. The farmers have made a choice and they are at the gates of Delhi giving the central government a choice. Right. So why don't we now celebrate the doctrine of choice over here? Why don't we celebrate that doctrine of choice now at this moment? The second part of it is that the consultations. There is only one body. Let me show you how much the farmers have asked for that consultation. This is in your recent history of the last 15 years. One body, far more representative than a bunch of stink tank intellectuals and a Niti Aayog chief who says India is too much of a democracy to do anything meaningful by way of reforms. Unlike that, there was an extraordinary body called the National Commission for Farmers. Do you know that if every farmer in this country knows two words of England or three? It is Swaminathan Commission report from Gurdaspur in Punjab to Guduvancherry in Tamil Nadu. Farmers have demanded that in the November 29th, 2018 at a rally at which you were present. I was present. Well, somewhere between one and two lakh farmers gathered outside Parliament making many demands including several of those that those farmers today at the Haryana Delhi border are making. Showing you that it's not, they made a choice, a recent choice when the country's most distinguished agro-scientists together with seven others, including the heads of NABAR one time had a very distinguished commission based on the widest possible consultation produced a report. The farmers were all for it. And you keep quiet about that after having promised to implement it in your 2014 manifesto. So who is the one who is running away from consultation? Who is the one who is not being unreasonable? You've just taken that off the table because it told you something you didn't like. So that is what the media are. Look at these editorials, show me one editorial, which even mentions the Swaminathan Commission. The second thing I am asking you, I'm asking fellow journalists, I am begging your audiences to stop looking at these media as some sort of independent or rental system. The very corporations the farmers are apprehensive of and who they are fighting. The media are part of those very corporations. You can hear the cries of against Mr. Ambani in the rallies and the slogans of the farmers. Mr. Ambani is the richest Indian in the world, the fifth richest man in the world, maybe fourth and the biggest owner of media in India, the biggest group. Now you have several other groups whose owners, if they aren't already in agricultural and agricultural food processing, they are in many ways Benami. They will come out very soon. So the editorial writers have made a choice between speaking the truth and voicing what their corporate bosses want. So I believe that today the Indian media, the dominant or corporate media, whether television anchor or editorial writer, is living up brilliantly to the definition of editorial writers, given by Murray Kempton, one time editor of the New Republic, one of the editors of the New Republic in the 16th. Looking at what was happening in Vietnam and elsewhere and how the media were covering it, Kempton said something that would totally fit for you today. He said, the job of the editorial writer is to go down into the valley after the battle is over and shoot the wounded. Thank you so much Sainath for talking to us. That's all your time for today. Keep watching Newsweek.