 Hello and let's talk about the farmers fight back against the agricultural ordinances. In the first week of June, the government introduced three ordinances which will drastically change the face of agriculture in the country. Farmers organizations say that they will open the window for a whole lot more of corporate influence in the sector. Corporates and agri-business firms may be able to dictate terms to farmers who might be at the mercy of global trade fluctuations. We will talk a bit more about this, but here are the details. The ordinances were promulgated by the president in the first week of June. One of the agriculture ministry statements in this regard says that it aims at giving a boost to rural India for farmers engaged in agriculture and allied activities. The first of the laws amends the Essential Commodities Act. According to this, cereals, pulses, oil, seeds, onions and potatoes are all out of the list of essential commodities. With this, limits on stalking these commodities have been removed except in very rare circumstances. The next is the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce Ordinance 2020. Now this takes away the monopoly of agricultural produce market committees in the field of sale and purchase of agricultural goods. So now this is open for all. The final law is the Farmers Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance 2020. This has to do with corporate farming and will allow a greater leeway for corporates to engage in contract farm. Now these decisions have been severely opposed by farmers organizations, agricultural workers organizations and trade unions. There was a day of protest on June 10th where members of organizations like the All India Kisan Sabha, the All India Agricultural Workers Union and a CITU burned copies of this cassette notification. Mobilizations are also going to be held on July 23rd and August 9th. So why exactly are the farmers protesting? We talked to Viju Krishnan of the All India Kisan Sabha to find out. Viju, thank you so much for joining us. So could you first tell us what exactly these ordinance, what will be the implications of these ordinances for farmers? Actually the three ordinances which have been brought will in effect lead to freedom for the agri-businesses to exploit the farmers and push the farmers into a situation of slavery. That is what will happen. However, the minister very audaciously claimed that while India gained freedom in 1947, the farmers have gained freedom only with these three ordinances. What is going to happen here is more of the same set of policies which have led to the distress of the farmers. In 91, when the neoliberal economic policies were initiated, it was claimed that it will get farmers the world market prices. Now the same set of policies much more aggressively are being pursued. And it is being claimed that this will ensure better prices for farmers and farmers will actually be empowered by this. Actually what is going to happen is the big agri-businesses, so-called aggregators, sponsors and processors and so on, they are going to dictate the prices. There is not going to be any control over them. The earlier system had a price support mechanism. And also a mechanism of price support mechanism for the farmers and the price control for the consumers. These are being totally dismantled by these ordinances. So what is happening? One is the APMC Act, dilution of that. Earlier itself there have been efforts in that direction. Now they are very clearly just ensuring that that is done away with. And the state governments will have no control over the agricultural produce and its marketing and so on. So any kind of protection that the farmers would have had, as far as price support is concerned, that is not going to be any longer there. By the Essential Commodity Act amendment, earlier this was actually brought in to ensure that there is no hoarding and so on. So the consumers would also get the agricultural produce, whether it is cereals, pulses, oil seeds and so on at affordable prices. Now those controls have been removed. And even foreign players as well as big agree businesses, it promotes hoarding in a way and also there is no control. There is no limits on how much they can keep. Even in times of emergency, it says that these exporting companies and so on, whatever their limits, they still can retain. So in effect, even in times of an emergency, in times of a war or a natural calamity, these agree businesses, the amount that they can hoard or they can procure from farmers, there is no difference in that. So they are getting total freedom in this regard also. Along with these three things, there is also the Electricity Act amendment, which is being brought that will lead to further increase in electricity costs and irrigation costs for the farmers. That is another danger which is there. So in these three ordinances, we find very clearly the earlier effort to promote whether it is contract farming or total liberalized markets. They are talking about one country, one market and so on, one nation, one market and such things. But in no way it ensures the farmers will get remunerative prices. The problem here is not the question of markets. As far as farmers are concerned, more than the issue of market, it is that the fact is that they are not getting the prices. While MSP has announced even that there is no procurement happening now. And with these changes which are happening, they are trying to paint a rosy picture that these big agree businesses will pay higher prices to the farmers. That kind of a campaign is being done. That is not going to actually translate on the field. The small farmer would not have the bargaining power with these big companies. And once they establish their monopolies, they totally dictate the terms. And these three ordinances in effect will also lead to farmers. It also talks about contract farming. It talks about some sponsors. You see even in terms of legal, if there is some dispute, they are talking about conciliation being the first step or you can go to the district SDMs. So the jurisdiction of courts also, the lower level courts, that is totally being removed. And how can the farmers engage in these kinds of dispute settlement mechanism with these big companies? Very clearly, it is an unequal system. They are strengthening that and they are promoting the corporate interest. That is what is going to happen. Could you also talk a bit about the last aspect you are mentioning in terms of contract farming? So what is the situation currently regarding that and how is that likely to change with this audience? See, if you look at what the CEO of Nitiayog mentioned, that this is an opportunity which is never going to come again. So grab it with both your hands and bring about changes in labour laws, in land laws and also market, so-called market reforms, these kinds of suggestions that, and they are resorting to the ordinance route. In all these cases, the ordinance route, they are also asking the states to make amendments to the land reform laws of those states, market reforms, market APMC Act and so on. So the companies, as far as they can take by the land of the farmers directly, they can lease in land for a long period from the farmers and they determine what will be cultivated. In terms of contract farming also, contract farming, we have had experiences before. You have a lot of hype was there around the Pukpa model in Andhra Pradesh where Chandrabapu Naidu and others promoted Gherkin cultivation in Chittur district, Kuppam region. In the initial period, this Israeli-American company was engaged and the farmers did benefit in terms of a higher price compared to the crops they were growing then. But gradually the company started saying these Gherkins don't meet the specifications, so the price is reduced or there has been overproduction in some countries like Ghana and so the price is reduced and in a systematic manner, the farmers end up losing the land also. So these mechanism is only going to further lead farmers into distress and dispossession. They would be dispossessed from their land. That is the direction in which these policies are going. And finally, I understand that the farmers' organizations, including the AIKS, the AIAW, you have opposed these amendments but you are also placing fresh demands to the government right now considering the state of the economy, the state of agriculture during this COVID-19 crisis. So could you talk a bit about what the key demands are? See, one is the losses in harvesting and we have already spoken. Compared to the last year, 53 lakh tons of wheat lesser than last year is what has arrived in the market. So while there was 11% increase in acreage of wheat, so despite that, the arrivals in the market are so drastically it has reduced. So in such a circumstance where all sections have lost income, income support is something required. We had initially demanded 7,500 for all non-tax paying poor people, including tenant farmers, agriculture workers, farmers, and so on. Later, all organizations of farmers decided 10,000 at least per month. That is one. Loan waiver is another. And under the NREGA, at least 200 days of work with 600 rupees wages or when there is no work, unemployment wage should be given. These have been, if you say three major demands, these are the demands that we have put across. We have planned a series of protest actions on these zones. There have been some protests earlier. Maybe I can speak about some of those. Right. So could you talk a bit about those also? Because especially at this point of time, how are farmers and agriculture workers coming out when there is, it may not be a full lockdown, but there are still restrictions in place. See, utilizing the lockdown scenario, the government is pursuing anti-farmers, anti-worker bills and ordinances are being brought in. So we have also, as organizations of the presentry and the working class, we have in a united manner decided to mobilize the presentry and the working class against these attacks, a big onslaught on the likelihood of presentry and the working class. So from April 21st onwards, initially at the doorstep, we had protests in which across the country, more than 10 lakh people are reported to have participated. So now we had, along with the 250 other organizations, the All India Kisan-Sanghar's Coordination Committee, we have had protests. And the trade unions have had protests in which we have actively supported. Now we are planning in the end of July, a campaign before that. And letters would be sent to the president of India, prime minister and others, enlisting our demands. And on August 9th, we are planning for a militant protest across the country. August 9th is the Kutindya anniversary of the Kutindya Resolution and the Kutindya Day programs. So we have earlier had, in 2018 also, on Kutindya Day, we have had nationwide jail-barrow program. Now we are planning to have a militant program on August 9th. We have also burned the three ordinances and the electricity act. This happened in more than 3,000 centers across the country. Earlier, if you remember, the land acquisition ordinance was brought. That was also, we began by burning the ordinance. The government was dismissive of these protests. But in the end, after trying to bring it in the parliament three times, they had to finally withdraw it. We are confident by building up these united struggles, we will ensure that these conspiracy against the present cultivation, against the working class, we will successfully defeat this plan of the government. Our next segment is an international story. Last week, the Donald Trump administration sanctioned the International Criminal Court over its probe into alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. Now this is the latest example of US exceptionalism and its disregard for international law. We bring you a discussion with Prabir Prakash on this. Prabir, thank you so much for joining us. So we do know that this issue has been going on for a while. In fact, we are looking at war crimes that took place from 2003. And it's a fairly long period. And the ICC did look into the issue last year. They initially said that they did not go ahead for a prosecution. This year, in March, they did. And so the US has been building up this campaign against the ICC for quite some time. But this is also part of a larger issue considering that the US never joined this court and has always questioned its legitimacy. Well, as far as joining the court is concerned, neither is Russia, China, or India. So the US is not alone in that. And of course, Israel. But the bigger issue is that these threats against international organizations actually has been there for quite some time. If you remember, John Bolton actually attracted the ICC International Criminal Court precisely on this ground about three years back. And the threat was that they will sanction the individuals involved in the investigations. And therefore, not only they, but even their families could suffer. So this is one track that they have been using that we are not going to only fight the institution concern, but we're also going to make, in some sense, examples of the key officials so that you suffer from the rest of your life. Now, and not only you, but your family. And Bolton, if you remember, had actually on the OPCW, the organization looks after chemical weapons, the chemical weapons treaty. And that, I think it was Jose Bustani who was the head of that, who was a Brazilian. He not only was threatened, but Bolton went so far, further than that, went, in fact, far enough to say, your children studied the United States. So it was an implicit threat against his sons. Now, this is the kind of politics that the United States has been playing sometimes openly, but certainly behind the veil, so to say. And this has now become far more clear on the issue of the sanctions against the ICC. Ben Suda, the chief prosecutor of International Criminal Court and also her associates who are investigating this case. But it is also not only the United States and Afghanistan case, it's also the Israeli's case. Israel has been also under investigations. I think it was announced in December last year and this has been building up. And the US threats against the International Criminal Court predate, in fact, it's opening investigations against Americans on the issue of Afghanistan, essentially atrocities. And they said they will investigate both the Taliban, the Afghan government and the United States, all three of them. So you can see clearly what the US is sending is a message that all international organizations have to accept US exceptionalism, which of course was there by default. And therefore, if you don't accept that as a default state, then of course we're going to come and use all the instruments that we can against you. And it's not only the organizations, but it is also the individuals. You can see also the Huawei case, which of course is a very different case, but you can see the target was not just Huawei, but also the daughter of the largest shareholder in Huawei. And when she was traveling on business and she was the chief financial officer of the CFO and she was arrested in Canada for violating the domestic laws of the United States. So the effective message that is being now passed and we had the earlier also the Noriega case, the US law runs all over the world, but international law does not run in United States. This is the broad position that the US has. It is not sanctified, shall we say, but the sanctions are imposing on the people involved. And of course, the international criminal court was really trying to rectify one glaring issue that has always plagued it, that it went after African states leaders, but it never went beyond that. It really except the Serbian case, it really did not go beyond that. And therefore this had been held that it was essentially a pawn in the hands of powerful Western powers. And that is what it was trying to get out of, that no, it can look at the issues of atrocities, international human rights violations in places like Palestine and Afghanistan. And of course that it does bring up the basic issue that is there in the world. Does the US writ run all over the world or is it that it is bound by international law and international treaties? And the US position is that it doesn't. And that's what comes out more brutally, shall we say, with the Bolton and the Trump than it does with more soft-spoken persons earlier, whether it be Barack Obama or it be Clinton. So when the Republicans of a certain stripe come into the administration, it becomes more open. George Bush of course was, as you know, the architect of various walls, but leaving that out. He also had Bolton and it was under his presidency that Bolton had threatened the OPCW head, Joseph Bustani. So, you know, those are the kinds of things which you normally associate with international thuggery. You don't associate with civil, shall we say, administrations which claim to be the global leaders, but what we are seeing is really that. And that is coming out in absolutely, shall we say, without any veil in very naked form. That's all we have time for today. We'll be back tomorrow with the latest news developments from the country. Until then, keep watching NewsClick.