Film on dangers of GM foods ignites 'fire'

This is a picture from the Mumbai launch of the film "Poison on the platter." Standing (left to right): Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat (retd.), former chief of Indian Navy; Ajay Kanchan, director of the film; Nandita Das, film actress; Mahesh Bhatt, film maker; and I.

"I am a soldier. And all through my life I thought we were fighting the enemy at the borders. But I now realise that the real attack is not from across the border but from inside the national borders. It is our food that is under attack now, " said Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of the Indian Navy. He was reacting after watching Mahesh Bhatt's documentary "Poison on the platter," screened at the Fun Republic Preview Theatre in Andheri, Mumbai, on Feb 27.

The film was screened to a packed house. People were sitting in the aisles, trying to crouch in every little empty space.

In an obvious reference to the overwhelming response from people across the country who were wanting to watch the film, make copies and distribute it widely, and express their angst and disgust at the nexus that operates between the regulatory bodies on the one hand and the companies dealing with research on genetically modified crops/foods, Mahesh Bhatt in his own indomitable style said: "When a fire breaks out, it does not require a PRO to promote it." The fire, he said has already started and is spreading fast.

Expressing faith in the peoples' wisdom and intellect, who may look to be ignorant but are certainly not foolish, Bhatt said that as the message spreads through the film, as people become aware of the inherent dangers, public opinion is swelling against GM foods. The film has surely ignited passion. "This is the fire that I am talking about."

"I am not surprised," he said, and added : "I wanted the people to know, and that is why I made this film. You can call me a fear-monger, but I think I have a responsibility towards this nation, towards the people of India." No wonder, Mahesh Bhatt is now flooded with invites and requests from across the country. He is being asked to come and launch his film, and explain the issue to the people.

Well-known film actress and director, Nandita Das too came. And as expected, became the darling of the media. She told me that she came because she wanted to understand what the issue was all about. And after watching the film, she too felt outraged and therefore came forward extending her support for the cause.

Not only the celebrities, the audience too was visibly upset. There were doctors who got up and extended support. They said that they were in a position to spread the message far and wide. "After all, people come to doctors whenever they fall sick, and we can tell them to be careful about GM foods," Dr Atul Shah and his wife, both doctors, told the audience. Dr Parvish Pandya, an environmentalist, offered to make thousands of copies of the film and take it to schools and colleges. Anand Shah, a jeweller, too wants to make copies and take it to the urban middle class. Pravin Jahangir, a well-known activist, even prepared a long list of people and groups that have to be involved in the battle to save our food.

These were only a few reactions.

I was amazed. As people walked upto me and offered support, in whatever form they could extend, I was overwhelmed. I felt little in front of these people who were not only moved, but felt motivated. They are the real catalysts, they are the real changemakers, and they are the real heroes. You can never be sure of human endeavour. Once people get inspired, they can really move mountains.

After New Delhi's launch of the film (on Feb 4), Mumbai was the second stop. And like New Delhi, Mumbai too has not disappointed. In fact, the film has sown the seeds of concern in the minds of the people and I think that is what Mahesh Bhatt probably was expecting. The director of the film, Ajay Kanchan, is clealry excited and at times appears agitated. He is now more charged, beaming with new found energy, from the people's reaction. "This is what I had anticipated," he said, adding "this is by far the best film I have made, a film that will surely bring about a change in people's perception about the food they eat."

Back into the hotel, I open my mail box and find updates from my colleagues in Punjab. They have presented a basket of brinjals to the Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal. Explaining why they presented brinjal to the Chief Minister, Kavitha Kuruganthi said she wanted him to know that the gift of brinjals was with a specific reason – THIS COULD BE ONE OF HIS LAST CHANCES TO HAVE SUCH NATURAL BRINJALS. Once the Government of India approves Bt Brinjal, he would have no choices left with regard to eating particular kinds of Brinjal. He would not know which brinjal is what, by appearance. Natural brinjals will get contaminated by the GM Brinjals as genetic contamination is inevitable."

Kavitha was joined by Umendra Dutt, director, Kheti Virasat Mission in Punjab. They are certainly not alone. Krishna Prasad of the Sahaja Samrudha in Bangalore/Karnataka too has been sending a parcel of brinjals to the State Health Minister for nearly a week now. In neighbouring Kerala, I am No Lab Rat campaign was launched at the Cochin University of Science and Technology.

Justice Narayana Kurup (Retd.) launched the campaign. Film actor Anoop Chandran, All India Kissan Sabha State Committee Member Com P K Mathew, PUCL treasurer and trade union leader Mr Jacob Lazer and Purushan Eloor, Student union leader Ms. Asha joined the event. The event was jointly organised by Thanal, PMVS and PUCL under the banner of the Coalition for GM-Free India.

You are right, Mr Bhatt. The fire is spreading

We call it 'biopiracy', they say 'seed piracy'

Isn't it interesting. Civil society groups all over the world, and now even the academia and the policy makers and planners, often accuse multinational seed companies and agribusiness giants of indulging in biopiracy. There have been innumerable instances when private companies have appropriated and misappopriated, legally and illegally, rich biodiversity resources from the developing countries.

The global seed giants in turn accuse farmers who save seed of 'seed piracy' -- a term coined for those farmers who do not buy seed every year. Or in other words, those farmers who save seed after a harvest and keep it for sowing next crop are accused of indulging in 'seed piracy'.

Well, farmers in the United States who resorted to seed saving were drawn in protracted legal battles. This sent the right signal down to the smallest of the farm. Farmers stopped saving seeds, and began queing up to buy seed before every harvest, and that is what the companies wanted. What happened in the US will soon become a norm in India, where still more than 70 per cent farmers keep seed for replanting. With the Government of India facilitating the process over the years, and the pending Seed Bill before Parliament if turned into a law will gradually make it difficult for farmers to save seed. Policy makers in India are surely moving cautiously -- step by step -- to take away seed rights from the farmers and hand it over to the companies.

Already countries signing FTA with India are insisting on amending the seed laws to conform it to UPOV 1991 provisions, which is more or less like drawing patents on seed varieties. The time is not far away when Indian farmers too would be accused of 'seed piracy'.

---------------------------
Thousands of farmers who have been pursued by Monsanto in the US have paid the company at least $ 85 million (£ 59.4 million) in damages for the so-called crime of saving seeds from their harvest, says a BBC report
---------------------------

Nevertheless, let us take a look at how Monsanto won the seed battle in the US. I am providing below relevant excerpts from a BBC World Service report (Feb 17) by Jean Snedegar, entitled GM battles rage down on the farm:


Pressure is mounting from some scientists for Europe to end its resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops but fears remain about the impact of such technology on the rights of farmers.

Many American farmers like the ease of operating a GM system which involves regular spraying of chemicals which kill weeds but don't hurt their crops.

The problem is that GM pollen can blow across fields and anti-GM campaigners say the fear of being prosecuted for growing GM accidentally leads many farmers to give up traditional methods and take the GM route for a quiet life.

David Runyan, who has 400 hectares in eastern Indiana where he grows maize, wheat and soybeans, says he feels intimidated by the tactics of the biggest GM seed firm, Monsanto."

Although Mr Runyan plants some genetically-engineered corn, he grows only conventional soybeans - something he admits is now rare. "Approximately 90% are growing GMO soybeans," he says, "Although when the first-generation of glysophate-tolerant soybeans came out the yields were not there. "My neighbours like them because there's less management," he says.

"They don't have to walk out to the fields. A lot of them don't even feel the dirt. "They plant it; they hire somebody to spray it; hire somebody to fertilise it and they just go and harvest it," he says. "They're not farmers like we used to be."

'Black listed'

Mr Runyon says he is not allowed to buy any products from Monsanto. "I'm on what you call a Monsanto black list - a few years ago they came out and tried to investigate and search my farm and I prevented that," he says.

"I've never signed a contract. I do not use their products and it will be a cold day before I ever buy Monsanto products." He believes that Monsanto's past history has not been good for the world or for the people. "They're only out for Number One. Most farmers in the United States do not care for Monsanto but they stand in line to buy their products," he laments. "I think it's just because it's easy for them - that's the only reason I can think of, there's less management."

In 2005, investigators sent by Monsanto arrived at Mr Runyan's farm unannounced. "They came to my house and wanted all my production records," he says. They asked questions about his farming operation and wanted to know who he was selling his food-grade soybeans to. "They wanted to know who I'd bought all my herbicides from and they wanted records and phone numbers," Mr Runyan recalls.

Three months after the investigators left empty handed, Mr Runyan received a letter stating that he had seven days to turn over all his production records to Monsanto."

One reason why Mr Runyan refused was because the letter stated that Monsanto had an agreement with the Indiana Department of Agriculture, but the department didn't exist at that time. Mr Runyan hired a lawyer to deal with his case.

David vs Goliath

David Runyan's story is not an isolated one.

To protect their patents, biotechnology companies have fiercely pursued farmers they suspect of saving and replanting their seed and farmers who may have biotech crops growing in their fields accidentally.

Either way, companies like Monsanto call it "seed piracy".

Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety says Monsanto will force farmers to sign a technology use agreement which basically forbids the farmer from saving seeds from his harvest for planting the next season.

"Seed-saving is a long tradition in agriculture dating back millennia and it's actually still practiced quite a bit even in the United States and other developed countries," he says.

Thousands of farmers who have been pursued by Monsanto in the US have paid the company at least $85m (£59.4m) in damages for the so-called crime of saving seeds from their harvest.

When asked about their tactics, Monsanto directs people to the "For the Record" section on their website. Statement on Monsanto's website: "Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without evergoing to trial. In many cases, these farmers remain our customers. Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with about 120 lawsuits having been filed within the last decade. Less than a dozen cases required a full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor."

Biotech scientist Michael Fromm believes these law suits are fair practice on Monsanto's part. "They do have patented technology," he says. "The farmers sign agreements not to save the seed as a way for Monsanto to make money on their crop. They've gone after a few farmers pretty hard in terms of litigation. If somebody doesn't enforce their property rights - the market tends to abuse it more."

(For the full story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7892328.stm)

Farmers Manifesto - 1

Elections are around the corner. And like in every elections, farming and agriculture appears to be something that the political parties do talk about, but to be forgotten soon thereafter. The election manifestos surely talk about agriculture, water, livelihood security and the plight of farmers but during the election process itself you would have noticed that these issues are seldom mentioned, and other useless issues dominate.

One obvious reason is that even farmers and farmer groups have failed to make a serious effort to put agriculture on the top of the political agenda. They have tried it here and there but haven't succeeded so far. Come elections, and the farmers forget about farming; and what takes over are other politically hot issues, sometimes local issues, caste configurations etc etc. If only farmers had seen to it that they are not forgotten on the political map, I see no reason why and how the political parties could have avoided putting farming and agrarian issues on the top of the political as well as the national agenda. Isn't it sad that world's one-fourth farming population -- 600 million farmers that India has -- have failed to use the democratic process to their advantage. Farmers have themselves to blame for the plight they are in.

No wonder, they have been relegated to the bottom of the pit.

Some of my colleagues in Andhra Pradesh, led by Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture in Hyderabad, have worked hard to produce a Farmers manifesto for Andhra Pradesh. This document has been improved upon in the process of continuous interactions that Dr Ramanjaneyulu and Kiran Vissa, a young volunteer with Association of India Development (AID), had with several political leaders, cutting across party lines. What I gather is that there is a general acceptance for these proposals.

I am sure the farmers manifesto can become the Common Minimum Programme for all political parties. Not only for Andhra Pradesh, the same manifesto needs to be adapted with suitable modifications in other States. And of course at the Central level too. I am sharing the manifesto with you, with the hope that you will be able to sensitise various actors of the civil society, including the politicians. I present below the first part of the farmers manifesto:

A Manifesto for Farmers in Andhra Pradesh
What farmers want from the next government

The time has therefore come when we should focus more on the economic well-being of the women and men feeding the nation than just on production.
-National Commission on Farmers, 2007.

Introduction

Five years ago, the farmers of Andhra Pradesh who were going through a terrible crisis, much of which was precipitated by government policies articulated as Vision 2020, spoke loud and clear through the ballot to bring down the Telugu Desam party that was in power for two terms. The Congress government which came to power on the wings of the deep discontent and distress of the farmers has seen and projected itself as “farmers’ rule” or raitu raajyam. The government did take some steps which resonated with the farmer community and provided some relief from extreme distress – such as free electricity, loan waivers, employment guarantee scheme which benefited the agricultural workers and welfare measures targeted at the rural poor – though these measures left much to be desired. At the least, in the past few years, issues related to farmers’ welfare have been given prominence by the government and the media.

However, the reality after five years of raitu raajyam is that the agricultural crisis persists and has worsened in some ways, and the farmers’ deep distress continues. The recommendations of Proj. Jayati Ghosh Commission and Justice Ramachandra Rao Commission have not seen the light of the day. Farmers’ suicides have continued at an alarming rate despite good monsoons. They have seen the input costs going up steeply while the market price remains low. Meanwhile, their family living costs including health, education and transport have jumped as government withdrew from many of these public services, leaving them at a loss. In short, farmers across the state are in despair that agriculture is no longer remunerative, and feel that their children would be better off in any profession other than agriculture.

The visions for successive governments for agriculture development seem to exclude majority of the farmers. Earlier and current governments propose to move into highly mechanized-external input agriculture, based on the analysis that small holder agriculture is not viable and 50% of the farmers should be moved out of agriculture in 15 years. If 50% of the farmers move out of agriculture, as many policy-makers have proposed/predicted, or even 20% of them move out, there are no viable alternative livelihoods available either in rural areas or in cities which are already unable to cope with their current expansion. On the other hand, the growing ecological crisis and resulting climate change threat have clearly brought back the evidences that small farms practicing sustainable agriculture holds the promise for the food secure future.

The dire situation of crisis has not improved in a major way in the past few years, as the fundamental underlying problems have not been addressed. A comprehensive alternative vision for agriculture has not been developed which rejects the Vision 2020 formulation. The question looms, “Where do we go from here?” The last elections succeeded in putting the farmers’ issues squarely on the agenda but not in solving them. Can we use the upcoming elections and the next five years with a sense of urgency to introduce fundamental policy changes based on a new vision of agriculture? This manifesto is proposed as a step in this direction.

Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh – the Crisis Continues

We look at some salient points that highlight the agricultural crisis in our midst.

(1) Out of the 32 districts across India identified by the Central government as the worst-affected, 16 are in Andhra Pradesh!
(2) In 2005-06, it is observed that 95.48% of the operational holdings in the State are held by farmers who own below 4.0 hectares and operate on a total area of 10.85 million ha (constituting 74.90% of the cultivated area). The number of farmers in small and marginal farmers’ category is under gradual increase and the average land holding size is reducing.
(3) 1797 farmers committed suicide in 2007, and 2607 in 2006! AP stands second only to Maharashtra in terms of Farmers’ suicides. The number of farmers committing suicide in AP during 2004-07 is more than the number who committed suicides in 1997-2003. The rate of farmers’ suicides is 3.24 per lakh of population which is highest after Chattisgarh and Maharashtra.
(4) 82% of farmers in the state are indebted, out of which 66% is from non-institutional sources, which carry higher interest rates, are more exploitative and are of course not eligible for loan waivers or interest waivers (NSSO report, 2007).
(5) 30 % land has become saline and unfit for cultivation –latest report of Status of Environment by Min of Environment (http://www.soeatlas.org/), among many reasons important are irrigation and high fertilizer use.
(6) Input costs (specially seed, pesticides etc) have risen by 300% in the past five years
(7) New technologies like Bt cotton have brought new ecological problems like decreasing soil fertility, animal deaths and allergies.
(8) Agricultural commodity prices have not increased at the same rate as the rise in input costs. The fact-finding committee of Planning Commission found that the cost of production of cotton per quintal was Rs.2215 whereas the MSP was Rs.1960.
(9) This year, MSPs have been raised but unless procurement mechanism is implemented successfully, the farmers will not benefit from the rise. Cotton traders have already declared that they are unable to purchase at the MSP (refer to recent news item).
(10) There is an increasing tenancy in the state and the tenancy act is not implemented for more than 50 years and the tenant farmers do not receive any support from the government.

Major Problems

Decreasing incomes to farmers: The increasing costs of cultivation on one hand and un-remunerative prices have let to dwindling net incomes for farmers over years.
· The agriculture prices are not fixed taking into livelihood needs of the farmers.
· The rising inflation always had a double impact on farmers with increasing costs of living and decreasing incomes due to reduction in agriculture prices as a result of price intervention mechanisms of the government.
· Minimum Support Prices are announced for 33 commodities and market intervention operations exist only for rice and wheat. So farmers growing other crops are left to the mercy of the markets.
· Removal of quantitative restrictions and allowing cheaper imports as a result of WTO commitments

High External Input based agriculture: The high external input based agriculture production practices have caused heavy ecological and economic crisis.
· The heavy pesticide usage has polluted the soils and water across the country. Pesticide residues are found in all kinds of foods. Studies show that, residues were also found in alarming levels in mothers’ milk and human blood. The acute and chronic poisoning is rampant in the villages.
· Chemical fertilizers have killed life in the Indian soils and water bodies. The subsidy burden on chemical fertilizers on the country exchequer has increased to 15 % of Indian budget this year. Government is unable to supply the needed fertilizer.
· Seed industry is completely in the hands of corporations with complete failure of institutions (Agriculture university and State Seed Corporation) and regulations (Seed act is kept in abeyance for last four years, cotton seed removed from essential commodities act, still farmers die in police firing standing in long queues for seeds).
· The Genetically modified crops have brought in new threat not only in terms of ecological and economic crisis but also political (farmers and governments completely loosing control)
· Groundwater level is decreasing at alarming rate

Skewed Support systems: The agriculture support systems research, extension, credit, subsidies, minimum support prices, market procurement, insurance etc are all designed based on external input based green revolution model. The more sustainable practices do not receive any kind of support.

(to be continued)

FTAs facilitates biopiracy: The case of Peru

The United States has done it, and done it again. As part of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Peru, the US has managed to wrest an amendment in the existing Intellectual Property laws that virtually 'facilitates biopiracy and hamper Peru's position as a protector of traditional knowledge,' reports SciDev.net

Well, I am not surprised. In fact, those of us who have followed the regional and bilateral trade agreements, are aware that the US is forcing a TRIPs-plus agreement the world over. The Barcelona-based GRAIN had earlier done a comprehensive report entitled: "Bilateral agreements imposing TRIPs plus intellectual property rights on biodiversity in developing countries." (The updated report in case you missed it was made available in Mar 2008 and can be accessed at http://www.grain.org/rights/tripsplus.cfm?id=68)

What makes Peru's case very interesting (and a lesson in how trade regimes are being used to seek control over genetic resources and its accompanying traditional knowledge) is that it leaves enough scope for misusing the provisions of Decision 148 of the regulations of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), of which Peru is a member. This provision makes it amply clear that "biological material existing in nature or those which can be isolated, including genome or germplasm of any natural living being, cannot be subject of a patent."

According to Scidev.net, the Peruvian amendment now says biological material "in whole or in part" cannot be considered an invention, but there is no explicit mention of genes or micro-organisms. The definition of micro-organisms has over the years been enlarged in the light of the TRIPs agreement, and now includes genes and cell lines. And microorganisms can be patented.

As if this is not enough, rules concerning traditional knowledge have also been suitably changed. Earlier, CAN made it mandatory for companies/research institutes to present a 'certificate of origin' before seeking patents, but the Peruvian amendment now requires only a license to be filed for the purpose. Failing to adhere to the terms of the license does not lead to scrapping of the patent anymore. The terms of condition for seeking a patent on traditional knowledge therefore have been amply diluted.

Government officials in Peru were, as expected, quick to say that the Peruvian amendments would not facilitate biopiracy. The news report quotes Manuel Siguenas from the National Institute for Agrarian Innovation, as saying: "The changes of the law do not allow the patenting of genes, because the amendment reiterates that the biological material existing in nature, either in whole or in part, is not an invention."

This is an absurd arguement in defence. We already have hundreds of genes from the human body, as well as from other biological forms including plants, microorganisms, insects, and animals, being patented. Swiss Multinational seed giant, Syngenta, for instance has filed for bulk patents on rice genes. There are numerous other examples of patents granted on genes. I fail to understand who this government official (quoted in the report) is trying to befool.

This amendment was psuhed hurriedly to see that George Bush can put his signatures before he quit office on Jan 20. Like an obedient servant, Peru passed the amendment to the IPR laws six days prior on Jan 14 and that too without a debate, well in time for George Bush to claim it as another feather in his tainted cap. Ironically, it was on Jan 14 that the regional government of Cusco in Peru had approved another law against biopiracy and indigenous knowledge. The new amendment will now over-ride the Cusco legal initiative in protecting traditional knowledge.

Not that I am very fascinated by the Cusco initiative, which claims to be the first in the world to enact a law outlawing biopiracy and protecting indigenous knowledge at a regional level (see the report Peruvian region outlaws biopiracy at http://scidev.net/en/news/peruvian-region-outlaws-biopiracy.html). Documenting biodiversity by creating registers and then developing protocols for providing access is not an effective legal and institutional framework to protect indigenous knowledge. I have seen such meaningless exercises being done at several other places, including India. It looks fine on paper but weak in strength (maybe, I am wrong in this case. I haven't seen the Cusco law in detail).

I think what is being very conveniently overlooked in this entire debate on protecting traditional knowledge is that biodiversity has a price. Unless we first find a mechanism to add a price tag to biodiversity and its related traditional knowledge, we too are failing to help the communities on whose behalf we are fighting. At the same time the Peruvian amendment sends a loud and clear message: developing countries must hurry up in finding a legal mechanism to protect biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Let us not wait for WIPO or UPOV to tell us how. We should put our heads together to collectively prepare a tight legal framework.

Some of us in India had recently taken an initiave on these lines. We have already completed the first stage of defining the policy imperatives. In the second round, we will aim at laying out the legal outlines. If you have any suggestions or advise, please write to me.

Budget Basics, Basic Instincts and Shobha De

What has Budget to do with sex?

Better ask Shobha De. The soft porn queen of India who cannot ever see beyond sex, copulation and erectile dysfunction. How disgusting to read her latests column in the Sunday Times (Feb 22), and still more deplorable to see the Times of India actually publishing it. Isn't it a reflection of the moral cesspool that we as a nation have plunged into, where everything has to be viewed through the bedroom window.

Sample this: The Interim Budget was a lot like coitus interruptus — it started off on a high note, promised a lot, tickled and tantalised the imagination... before going phut. It had little to do with size (though size does matter), and much more with performance. The country's financial libido is flagging (and how!), so what was desperately needed was an aphrodisiac called money. It is the only stimulant that can do the trick, provided the partners are in sync.

Read on: Big problem — how will the union between a frustrated, demanding partner (the public) and the man on top (finance minister) be consummated? Via artificial insemination, say the experts. Everything counts — stamina, staying power, the desire to succeed, culminating in a climax that offers a big bang for every buck.

And if you think, Shobha De is finished with her lurid imagination, hold your breath. This is how she concludes: As climaxes go, this one didn't make it. There was no foreplay to speak of. And the after-play was restricted to a few grumpy snorts. In true desi tradition, women, the perennial passive partners in a liaison, were left out in the cold — panting for sops. None seem to be forthcoming. So, what's the message here? Lie back and enjoy it? Not a chance. This UPA menage a trois has disappointed us all. Let's get back to the old missionary position, and keep our fingers crossed.

If you still feel like reading the entire piece, click on http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Shobha-De-Budget-hardly-uplifting/articleshow/4167037.cms

Sickening, isn't it?

The tragedy is that we as a nation accept this kind of rubbish thrown at us day in and day out. Everyday we wake up to what Shobha De calls as: Voyeurs, who get their cheap thrills ogling at the shapely legs in Page 3. This orgy, must be kept at bay, especially at this critical juncture. I am picking up the previous line from her latest writing only, but placing it in a different context. For her, money is viagra. That is why she champions for the cause of the elite and big business, and in the language they easily understand.

Money may be viagra for the bourses, but for the poor it is the lifeline. People like Shobha De live in their own make-believe world, thriving on the corporate largesse, and therefore use their dirty pen to seek more alms from the State exchequer for their partners. I wonder whether Shobha De would ever acknowledge that there are more pressing needs for the country than to improve corporate balance sheets. And I don't care, if the corporate world remains dissatisfied after a prolonged session, even if it goes phut after starting off on a high note.

The corporate world can surely live on artificial insemination.

But it is the poor, and India has the dubious distinction of having 834 million people who cannot spend more than Rs 20 a day. This is more than the population of poor anywhere in the world. We are worst than even Sub-Saharan Africa. We rank 66th in the Global Hunger Index. Shobha De can keep her eyes wide shut to this damming reality. But it is these hungry and the marginalised, who go to bed hungry everynight, hoping that the Gods would be kind to them the next morning, who need to be rescused by the annual Budgets. If only we had attempted to do so in right ernest through the annual Budgets presented for 60 years now, the face of India would have been different. A happy nation, and a well fed nation is what actually constitutes a vibrant economy.

Hiding the real face of India behind the imaginary growth figures is like faking an orgasm.

Come on, wake up India. You don't need the cheep thrills of such voyeuristic writings. You need to react each time the old bed creaks. Don't let yourself be titillated anymore by a B-grade film, or by soft porn. You have had enough. And it has only turned you into a pervert, turned your healthy mind sick. Come out of this sickness, which is morally degrading than the worst depression you can ever encounter.

It has to begin with inner transformation. Money may be a viagra for the bourses, but heavens are not going to fall if the bourses go without viagra. We need to provide money in the hands of the millions who cannot manage two square meals a day. It has to begin with certain short term and many long term measures that can lead to sustainable livelihoods. It has to be environmentally sustainable, and should not suck any more on the precarious natural resources. We cannot leave behind a world for our children which is not good enough to live and survive. We must make sincere corrections in our approach, and we can do it.

This can happen only if we come out of our obsession with growth economics. It helps widening the disparity still further. This in reality is violent economics. The sooner we realise this, the better it will be for the world.

Corporate take over of democracy

This is where dangerous liaisons happen. This is where money power sways public decisions in favour of big business. And still worse, it happens right under our own eyes, and in a perfectly legitimate way. Yes, I am talking about the political system of the country.

Why talk about the political system in a blog on food, agriculture and hunger you might ask. The answer is simple. It is here that the national policies are framed that impact the masses, the environment, the food you eat, and the way you farm. You must therefore keep a watch on what happens in the corridors of political power. You will then ask that there is nothing new in this, it has been happening for long now. Well, you are right in a way. Agreed, there was a time when big business would back up selected candidates for Lok Sabha or State Assemblies. Even the Bollywood had been talking about it. Haven't we seen in several Bollywood movies how the villains thrash the poor politician when he fails to deliver (what the businessman wants).

That was the time when big business didn't want to be seen in politics.

They have thrown away that overcoat, are now openly into politics. They realise it is no use sending some stupid fellow when they can do the job much better themselves. Instead of sending surrogate representatives through the electorate, they now get themselves directly elected to Parliament and State Assemblies, or get nominated. The Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament, has a number of businessmen and corporate heads as members now. And the tribe is growing. In the coming elections, you will see a large number of millionaires contesting, and of course many of them will sail through.

While millionaires get into Parliament, slumdogs remain in the street.

Once they are in saddle they infuence all decision making. The environmental laws, the biodiversity law, forestry and tribal rights, biotechnology and genetic engineering, food processing etc etc all are framed keeping in mind the commercial interests of the corporates. Civil society therefore has also to focus on governance issues, not in the manner in which it is doing now, but in a more aggressive, in a more investigative way. It has to draw out the nexus that operates in decision-making. Otherwise, we would be left to count only the alms under Corporate Social Responsibility.

At times when Corporates are slowing taking over control of democratic institutions, it is heartening to see at least one senior politician having the courage to stand up and be counted."The political system of the country is being vitiated and increasingly coming under the direct influence and power of the "big capitals", CPI (M) general secretary Prakash Karat had told PTI in New Delhi this week. My admiration for Mr Karat has gone up tremendously. I have always respected him for his fearlessness, and his courage and determination to say it loudly.

"If you make an analysis of the professions or the occupations of the elected representatives starting from the state legislatures to parliament, you (will) find people who are directly in big business, who are direct executives, CEOs of corporates, are occupying the benches in the parliament," he said.

"And they are sitting on committees of Parliament which decides policies regarding their own sector, regarding their own industries," he said. What Karat means is that they manipulate and design the policies in such a way that it brings profit to business. While we go on struggling at the grassroots to influence public policies in favour of the poor and the marginalised, with the struggles turning bloody at many a places, the decision-making machinery is simply ignores the ground realities.

Karat said that it is the Parliamentary democratic system alone which has protected the country so far from much of the dangers which visited upon other countries and society. "But the political system we have is increasingly being vitiated. Earlier we used to attack, criticise the fact that you have elected representatives in the legislature, in the parliament, who are acting at the behest of the big business, corporate interests. But today you can't say that any more because those corporate interests or the big business have got themselves elected into parliament and into the legislatures," Karat said.

"The path which the present government and the previous governments have gone into in the country particularly in last two decades, goes against every thing which was set out originally by the founders of our constitution," he added.

Shouldn't other senior politicians also stand up? Irrespective of the political parties they come from, shouldn't they call for reforming the Great Indian Democracy to ensure that it remains in people's domain? Shouldn't the nation be debating the Corporate take over of democracy before we allow Parliament to be turned into a Corporate Club?

We have allowed the Corporates to take over the media, both print and electronic, and now they are eying the Parliament.

And this reminds me of what Nobel laureate Amratya Sen had written sometimes back. Lauding democracies, he had said famines do not happen in countries, which are democratic. Most of the famines, he had detailed out, were happening or had happened in autocratic regimes, and in countries under military dictatorships and so on. I wonder whether Amratya Sen would have the political courage to analyse how the natural resources are being usurped, how the environment is being destroyed, and how the have-nots are being marginalised by big business interests, and that too in world's best known democracies.

Why paint the military dictators only as villains. Given a choice, we all love to be like one of them. Democracy or no democracy, the urge to exploit the community resources for private profit has always dominated human intention.

Farmers innovation -- Who cares?

Debal Deb is an independent researcher based in Kolkata. I have had the pleasure of knowing him for quite some years now, and I admire his work, his dedication and his commitment to the cause of agriculture and farmers. He runs an organisation called VRIHI, which in Sanskrit means paddy. No wonder, Debal has been working on paddy issues for quite long now, and as you all know West Bengal is a paddy growing region.

On Feb 12, he was recognised by the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers Rights Authority in New Delhi for conserving and characterising 416 traditional rice varieties, which includes Jugal, a double seeded variety and Sateen, a triple seeded variety. I am so glad that his exceptionally rich work has been finally recognised by the PVPFRA. The award was presented by the Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar.

In Karnataka, I had recently visited a farmer who evolved a rice variety called Mysore Mallige. In a test carried out by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, his variety out-performed the popular high-yielding variety that has been developed by the University. The farmers carries a certificate from the university detailing out his achievement. I narrated this example at a conference jointly organised by the Alumni Asoociation of the UAS, Bangalore and the Department of Information, Karnataka, in Bangalore today. Delivering the keynote address, I asked as to what is the purpose of recognising this farmers variety, when it is not being promoted and released by the State Department of Agriculture for cultivation. If it is performing better than the best paddy variety, and irrespective of the fact whether it has been developed by a farmer or a scientist, the variety should be made available to farmers. The State Agriculture Minister Mr SA Ravindranath was present.

This is not an exception. I find all varieties that have been developed by farmers receive only certificates as recognition. But otherwise it gets a step-motherly treatment from the scientists and the State governments. What is the use of recognising farmers varieties when they are not being put in the official system for release and cultivation. When will the scientists over come this superiority tag that they self impose on themselves? Why don't they also accept that farmers have traditionally been breeders, and still have the knack of developing superior varieties?

It is primarily for this reason that farmers are reluctant to come forward and register their crop varieties with the PVPFRA. They feel that the farmer-bred crop varieties would be gobbled up by the system, and they will not get their due share. Some even fear that their varieties would be re-released under a different name by the universities. The PVPFRA therefore has a monumental task for confidence building among the farming community. Unless PVPFRA takes up this exercise in right ernest, I don't think farmers will come forward to get their varieties registered. Much of farmers innovation would therefore remain hidden.

In the days to come I will bring more such examples to you.

Mahesh Bhatt battles against GM Foods

This picture is of the panel discussion that followed the New Delhi launch of Mahesh Bhatt's documentary "Poison on the Platter." Seated on the dias are (from left to right): Ajay Kanchan, the director of the film, Jeffrey Smith, author of 'Seeds of Deception," Mahesh Bhatt, the well-known film maker and I. The Delhi launch before a packed house in the Indian Islamic Cultural Centre, Lodhi Estate, happened on Feb 4.

Mahesh Bhatt was asked what motivated him to produce a documentary on such a hot and controversial subject. This question in fact has been asked to him repeatedly. And every time he has pointed towards me saying that it was after one of our meetings that it made him think again and again on the need to take up the cause. Well, the credit certainly does not belong to me. It is simply Mahesh Bhatt's humility that he names me.

Actually, we had met for a breakfast a few months back in Guwahati (as Bhatt has said), where he had gone to launch another documentary. We had a wide ranging discussion on various aspects of the economy, and the politics attached to it. We talked at length about the great perseverance and courage demonstrated by an unknown, illiterate and poor Dashrath Majhi of Bihar, who spent some 25 -years to build a road through a small hill that separated his village from the nearest hospital. Every morning, Majhi would walk to the hill and sit down to break the rocks, and everyone thought this old man had become a mental recluse. He finally split the hill into two.

Dashrath Majhi's heroic feat was recognised by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. When Majhi fell sick, he was moved to AIIMS, New Delhi for medical treatment, and when he died he was creamated with full State honours.

It was during this talk that I mentioned about genetically modified foods. Mahesh Bhatt's curiosity to understand the political economy of the technology made me explain certain nuances and the complexities associated with it, and of course draw out the bigger frame where money and big money called the shots; where science becomes subservient to financial power, and where scientists begin to look beyond good science; where regulatory system turns into a rubber stamp for the industry, and where media -- more often the bigger media -- starts lapping up their industrial masters.

And this reminds of an interesting story. In 1994, the then Indian Prime Minister, P V Narasimha Rao, visited the United States. Like any other visiting head of the State, the Prime Minister was expected to figure prominently in the news columns of the American newspapers. After all, he was the Prime Minister of the world’s biggest democracy.

During his visit, Mr Narasimha Rao addressed the US Congress, and on behalf of India, co-sponsored a resolution of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the United States. The American media however completely blacked him out. There was not even a single line on the Indian Prime Minister’s visit. For the media managers, this was a nightmare. All their efforts had fallen flat. To show the presence of the Indian Prime Minister on American soil, the media planners had no alternative, except the following: they bought a full-page advertisement in The New York Times announcing the Prime Minister’s visit.

Ten years later, in 2003 to be precise, the American media went berserk over the news of a genetically modified potato, with a higher protein content, that had been developed by Indian scientists. The transgenic potato was projected as the probable answer to India’s gnawing crisis of malnutrition. Within hours of the breaking of this news, the international news wires were abuzz with excitement. Dailies like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and almost all the Indian newspapers for that matter had played up the story. The television channels had broadcast the report in the prime bulletins, and suddenly for the media the transgenic potato became a hot potato.

Well, it should be clear to you now as to what makes news.

Coming back to the launch of the documentary, Mahesh Bhatt was visibly agitated over the way GM foods were being pushed. He immediately told my friend Ajay Kanchan, who was also present, to take it up as a project. Ajay did the rest. The film is now released, but what is lesser known is that even the news report of the launch of the film was scuttled by many publications and TV channels. We learnt that representatives of the GM industry, which has big stakes in the introduction of the technology, had been on rounds of the newspaper offices prior to the launch convincing the managements not to publish the news report. Mahesh Bhatt however remains unfazed, and appears determined to lead the battle against the manipulation of our fundamental and basic need -- food.

Bt brinjal is now ready to be approved. It will be the first genetically modified food crop to be served on your plate. It is now your chance to accept it or reject it. If you accept it, don't blame the politicians and scientists for pushing it down your throat. Don't try to pass on the buck. It will happen only if you remain a silent spectator. Believe me, if you were to raise your voice against this unwanted and risky technology, you will actually be helping your children to live long. There will be no need then to bless them saying chiranjeev raho. If their food is safe and healthy, they will surely live long. It is therefore not your blessing but your actions that will detrmine the future of your children.

Mahesh Bhatt has played his part. It is now your turn. Are you ready ??

Farmers, Abhimanyu and Chakravyuah

Yesterday, I was asked by a journalist whether farmers have any reason to cheer from the interim Budget, presented a day earlier. My reply was: "If you look at the kind of agricultural situation we have today, I think the stimulus package or the entire effort which is going to corporates unfortunately, should have gone to agriculture."[http://ibnlive.in.com/news/social-sector-neglected-in-interim-budget/85583-3.html]

Why I say so is because to me, what we have done to Indian farmer is actually like taking a scene out from the Mahabharata epic. In Mahabharata there is this classic story of the brave Abhimanyu who knew how to get through the seven rings of Chakarvyuha. We know that Abhimanyu had learnt this in the mother’s womb. But what he didn’t know was the way to get out of the Chakarvyuha. The story tells us that by the time his father was ready to share the secret his mother had gone off to sleep.

The Indian farmer is also like Abhimanyu in the Chakravyuha. We have thrown the Chakravyuha around the farmer. We’ve pushed him deeper and deeper into the Chakravyuha or the trap. It is high time now that instead of pushing him still deeper with genetically modified crops and futures trading we need to pull him out of the Chakravyuha. Otherwise the Indian farmer will also meet the same fate as Abhimanyu. Mahabharata tells us that Abhimanyu died fighting valiantly. The Indian farmer’s fate is no different than that of Abhimanyu. He too is destined to die fighting bravely. And that is exactly what he is doing.

I have always used the example of pesticides, Abhimanyu and Chakravyuha. Over the years, Indian farmer has been pushed further into the Chakravyuha. If you have missed it out, here is what I had written some years back, illustrating with an example from Punnukula village in Andhra Pradesh [No Pesticides, No Bt Cotton, No Pests ! [http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/mar/dsh-punukula.htm]. What began from this village has now spread to over 14 lakh acres in 12 districts of Andhra Pradesh. Isn't this the way forward, to take Indian farmer out of the Chakravyuha trap?

You will agree that it is high time we pull farmers out of the Chakravyuha. We have the capacity to do it. Let us not be ashamed in saving the Indian farmer. Given our environment, given our ability and adaptability, we can surely make it possible. We don’t have to feel embarrassed. We need to take the first step towards ensuring sustainability. This requires courage, requires leadership, requires statesmanship. The nation will applaud the person who has the courage to take the first step. It will then have a domino effect, like a spiral it will spread throughout the country. This is where the future lies this is where your collective strength is under trial. Let us do it together, ladies and gentlemen. I can assure you we do have the potential to turn India into God’s Own Country.

Extraordinary circumstances also requires ordinary solutions

It was a very busy and hectic day for me. Hopping from one TV studio to another, talking to the print media in between, essentially called upon to analyse the interim Budget 2009-10, presented by Pranab Mukherjee today in Parliament.

Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions. This is what Mr N K Singh, a former bureaucrat and now advisor to Bihar government, had written sometimes back in an article on economic meltdown. I am sure he may not have then realised that this particular sentence would be used aggressively by the corporate world and of course the electronic and print media to seek more and more sops from the government. No wonder, this sentence reverbrated throughout the day today in media analysis. The corporate honchos made ample use of it, and so did some of the media.

The reason was simple. The corporate world had expected a series of sops and concessions in the interim budget. The real estate, the automobile sector, the exporters and you name it; they were all in a sombre mood, you could see their sullen faces and you knew what pained them. Mr Pranab Mukherjee had certainly failed them. He surely had upset all their calculations. How could Manmohan Singh's government not realise that extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions? Agreed, that this was an interim budget but how would the national economy run in the next four months? How come Manmohan the economist didn't think about it?

I was feeling amused. I silently looked at their faces, trying to read their expressions. I realised how indignant the rich and elite feel when denied alms from the state treasury. I recall the time when the former Finance Minister P Chidambaram had opened up the state chest for the business class, it was promptly termed as a Dream Budget. They gave him 10 out of 10. Today, they were reluctant to give Pranab Mukherjee even 2 or 3 out of 10.

We talk of the booming economy, of the unprecedented economic growth trajectory. I wonder how many of us know that the net economic wealth of 36 individuals in India is equivalent to one-third of country's 9 per cent GDP. If ever these 36 families were to migrate to say Switzerland, Indian economy will crash to 6 per cent.

So much for country's growth. With exports down, manufacturing down, industrial production down, agriculture down, you begin to question what is driving this economic growth.

And that makes me wonder what is this Budget all about. And what are these extraordinary times? Aren't we already living in extraordinary times? After all, over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years or so. More than 837 million people, about 77 per cent of the population is living on the edge, somehow surviving on less than Rs 20 a day. Have we ever given a thought as to how do these millions survive if they are spending less than Rs 20 a day? Do they even manage to get two square meals a day?

The per capita intake of food is going down ever since Manmohan Singh had unleashed economic reforms in his previous avtaar as Finance Minister in 1991. We were told as people earned more their food habits change, they begin to eat less of grains and shift to more nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables, milk and eggs. For several years, mainline economists and agricultural scientists used this argument to defend the fall in food intake, a sure indication of growing hunger and malnutrition. The latest projections of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) have proved them wrong. The NSSO tells us that not only the food intake is going down, the intake of fruits, eggs and milk is also on the decline.

Aren't these extraordinary times?

And yet, the former Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Mr Bimal Jalan, told a TV channel that this government and successive governments should make heavy capital investments meaning more money to be made available for infrastructure. What for? To stimulate the economy faced with a slowdown. What a shame, I thought. Why don't these economists realise (and I know they were never taught this in their colleges) that feeding the poor and hungry too is an investment. The poor and hungry too can stimulate the economy. Give more money in the hands of the poor and you will surely generate more demand, and that is what is required to trigger off the economy.

I wonder why do we feel elated, as if we have done a great service to the poor, by assuring them 100 days employment. Do we ever think that how difficult it must be for them to earn for 100 days only and from that earning survive for 365 days. If the poor can do it why can't we do it in the cities? Why do we need to provide the employees with a pay hike under the 6th Pay Commission? Why can't we give them instead salary for 100 days? Well, if we can't survive in 100 days salary how do we expect the poor to live with that meagre amount?

Wouldn't removing the upper cap of 100 days employment under the NREGS be the real stimulus?

But who cares? The poor and hungry are nothing more than statistics. When I talk of the poor, the farmers, the unorganised farm workers in the media, fellow panelists look at me with disdain. I can see their faces, and I know how uncomfortable it is for them to even listen to me. It happens to me quite frequently. But it doesn't upset me. I give a damm to what they think. To me it is an opportunity to voice the voice of the voiceless. And I will continue to do that, for slowly and slowly I find the message is getting across. More and more people call me, talk to me, write to me and back my analysis. I realise that this world is full of people with good intent, and they are willing to stand up and walk along with you. They are willing to believe in you provided you first believe in yourself, believe in what you are saying.

We surely are living in extraordinary times, and believe me it also requires ordinary solutions. #

Farmers need direct income support

On a TV Channel today, I was asked as to what I consider the most important step that needs to be taken to bail-out Indian farmers. I replied: Indian farmers need to be given direct income support, need to be paid a fixed monthly income. The anchor was visibly baffled, and asked me later whether it was possible.

For a couple of years now, I have been asking for a direct income support for farmers. It has taken some years for the people to grasp the implications, understand what I meant, and now I find that I am not the only one asking for a fixed monthly income for farmers. My colleagues from Thanal in Kerala were the first ones to realise its importance and necessity. They made a lot of effort to take this to farmer groups and consumer organisations in the region. The National Commission for Farmers too raised this but in a slightly different way. And now, some NGOs in Andhra Pradesh, led by my friend Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, have lately been building a political consensus on farmers income issue just before the ensuing elections in the State.

But let us first see why there is an urgent need for a direct income support to farmers. This is what I wrote a couple of years back.


Amidst reports of a terrible agrarian crisis sweeping across the country, Indian government has formally announced the setting-up of the sixth pay commission. At a time when thousands of farmers have taken the fatal route to escape the unbearable loan burden, India has instead opened up the state exchequer for its employees.

Citing the reasons of “price rise” and “globalisation and liberalisation”, the terms of references for the sixth pay commission have been spelt out. Nearly 4.2 million central government employees, and 20 million state government employees, will receive a salary bonanza that will cost the state exchequer more than Indian Rs 1,00,000 crore a year. For the 110 million farming families all that is being promised is more credit -- doubling farm credit in the next three years.

The dubious fiscal policy is clear: loans for farmers and assured income for employees.

No wonder, the suicide death dance continues. Suicide rate in Vidharba has actually doubled ever after the Prime Minister’s Rs 3,750-crore relief package was announced on July 1, 2006. In other parts of the country, the rural landscape remains equally depressing -- mounting rural indebtedness, unmanageable glut at the time of harvest, swelling rural to urban migration. With agriculture turning into a highly losing proposition, more than 40 per cent of the farming population has expressed the desire to quit and migrate to the urban centres.

Such is the apathy towards agriculture that the government has announced a mere Rs 16,978- crore ‘rehabilitation package’ for millions of farmers in the predominantly-suicide-prone districts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra. While more than Rs 10,000-crore of this will go towards rescheduling bank loans and interests, the remaining amount is for the agribusiness sector to provide more external inputs to farmers. Interestingly, at the same time the government has in principle agreed to provide almost an equal amount of Rs 17,200-crore to set up three more campuses of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

A majority of the cotton farmers who died in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have left behind a family of five and an unpaid debt averaging Rs 60,000 to Rs 80,000. Except in Punjab and Haryana, where the level of indebtedness is a little higher at Rs 1,20,000 or so, farmers in other parts of the country too have had outstanding dues not exceeding Rs 80,000 on an average. In Vidharva region of Maharashtra, nearly 60 per cent of those who committed suicide in 2004 had an outstanding debt of a mere Rs 8,000. That no employee of the government or the private sector will ever consider ending his/her life at such a “meagre” level of indebtedness is a pointer towards the stark realities that exists in the countryside.

The unpaid debt that has been left behind by the unlucky farmers has actually accumulated over the years. Initially, all they may have required by way of farm credit may not have been more than a few thousand rupees. What also remains hidden from the public glare is the rampant corruption in the banking system that denies the farmers access to easily available credit. At the same time, the bank loans are tied with ‘improved’ technology, which means the real beneficiary is the agribusiness company. Promotion of such irrelevant technologies, including farm machinery, is the bane of the farming system thereby compounding the crisis in growing indebtedness.

Let us take a look at the latest report of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). The average monthly income of a farm household (comprising five members) in 2003 stood at a paltry Rs 2,115. In other words, all farmers by and large are below the poverty line. Compare that with the monthly salary of a peon in government service, the average monthly packet is at least five times more than what a farmer gets. While government employees look forward to a fixed monthly income packet every month and gets the benefit of an annual increment as an adjustment for general price rise, the farmer is left high and dry and at the mercy of the moneylender or the banker.

For a country, which has 650 million people dependent upon agriculture (including the families of the farmers) and another 200 million agricultural workers, the cost of faulty economic liberalization has just begun to show. Withdrawing the State support to agriculture and farming, and increasingly leaving farmers at the mercy of the monsoon and the markets, the national policies were in reality being drawn to shift the national resources for the benefit of only the business and industrial houses. Successive governments have only exacerbated the crisis by moving the scarce resources to bolster the industry. While agriculture continued to be neglected, industry continued to receive tax-holidays, cheaper credit, highly subsidized land, and excise duty relief. The recent shift towards Special Economic Zones (SEZ) is a pointer.

For farmers, as much as 85 per cent of its earnings come from crop cultivation and wages earned by family members from employment generation programmes. In fact, what is more startling is that over the years the farm earnings of marginal farmers have dropped to less than that of the daily wage labourers. Imagine an average farm family comprising five people surviving on a monthly income, which is not more than what is paid to household helpers in the metros. Moreover, the sharp decline in farm incomes is happening at a time when urban areas are witnessing an upswing.

Uttar Pradesh farmers had the lowest income – Rs 1630 per month. Farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa were only a trifle better. The highest farm income was recorded in Jammu & Kashmir - –Rs 5,500 a month, followed closely by Punjab and Kerala. Earlier, studies by the Ministry of Agriculture point to declining farm incomes in the past five years.

To make it still worse, farm income all over the world has remained static between 1980 and 2003. Adjusting for inflation, a recent UNCTAD report states that the prices of all major commodities showed a declining trend. The report stated that between 1997 and 2001, the combined price index for all commodities fell by 53 per cent in real terms, thereby “commodities lost more than half their purchasing power in terms of manufactured goods.” Knowing this, the developed countries compensated its farming community with direct subsidies. Farmers in India were left at the mercy of the monsoon gods. The resulting impact therefore has been much more severe. Recurring farmer suicides is a reflection of that.

Let us accept that like everyone else, farmer too needs an adequate monthly take-home package that takes care of his family needs and leaves him with a little surplus to sow the next crop. What also remains unexplained is why a farmer is expected to live on credit while the rest of the society is provided with a fixed income? While the government clerk and for that matter all employees continue to get the benefit of unwarranted pay hikes, annual increments, medical allowances, paid holidays and of course financial loans at the drop of a hat, the farmer remains out of bound for all these bounties.

In an era of “globalisation and liberalisation”, farmers are being further penalised. Mainline economists are suggesting that the government needs to withdraw the minimum support prices for crops and also divest from food procurement. The underlying objective being to let the market forces decide as to who is an efficient producer. Only those farmers who can ‘compete’ in such a global environment will survive. Surprisingly, such an advice is coming from those economists whose job remains secure. No economist anywhere in the world is working without a fixed salary and pension benefits. If market can work for farmers why shouldn’t it work for economists and academicians? Why shouldn’t the markets decide who is an efficient economist or an academician?

Surviving against all odds, and despite the low earnings, farmers have worked hard to ensure national food self-sufficiency. A healthy and vibrant farm sector is to the benefit of the national economy. Probably the only way to ensure the economic viability of the farm sector is to either enlarge the scope of the 6th pay commission to include farmers or to set up a separate pay commission for the farmers. Based on the minimum land-holdings, and de-coupled from production, there is an immediate need to ensure that farmers get an assured income.

Like the minimum support price, which was applicable in reality to a few crops, the
Commission for Costs and Prices (CACP) should be entrusted with the task to work out a minimum farm income for the farmers. Irrespective of productivity, and depending upon the agro-climatic conditions in which a farm is situated, a formula that entails a ‘minimum take-home’ income for a farmer has to be worked out. Based on that, the government should ensure that each farmer receives a monthly remunerative packet, with the agricultural workers getting the minimum income that the peon in the government receives.

No farmer will then like to be divested of his land, his only economic security. #

Conservation Agriculture: For Who's Benefit?

The 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture (from Feb 4-7, 2009) was held in New Delhi. This comes at a time when global agriculture is faced with a terrible crisis in sustainability.

At the face of it, it looks that agricultural scientists all over the world are now trying to mend ways, trying to learn from the farmers on the need to conserve natural resources with a view to improve efficiency, equity and environment. The unprecedented global food crisis in the first half of 2008, and the continuing agrarian crisis in India, I thought had brought about this change in their thinking and approach.

It didn’t take me long to realise that I was wrong. They haven’t learnt anything from the agriculture debacle, nor are they serious in tackling the fundamental crisis of sustainability that agriculture is faced with. Using the right vocabulary, and ensuring it is politically correct they have now come up with another buzzword -- Conservation Agriculture. It looks so appropriate and timely, that for once you feel like patting agriculture scientists. ‘Better late than never’ you would say.

It isn’t so. Conservation Agriculture is all about “sustainable agricultural intensification” – and I wonder how intensive farming practices can be termed sustainable? At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future they start promoting chemical pesticides under the garb of “sustainable pesticides use”. Coming back, wasn’t Green Revolution all about intensive farming, wasn’t it aimed at increasing cropping intensity, increasing per unit productivity?

Conservation Agriculture is in reality about no tillage. At least, that is what appears as of now. It is based on minimal soil disturbance, organic residue retention and crop rotations. It is believed that the shift to zero tillage or minimal tillage will not disturb the soil and therefore help in conserving natural resources. In a country where earthworms are integral to the soils, I thought earthworms were the nature’s tillers. If nature had provided us with tillers where does zero tillage comes in. Moreover, Bhaskar Save tells us that earthworms turn around 6 tonnes of soil in its short lifespan. Doesn't Zero tillage, therefore, sound unfamiliar in the Indian context?

But there must be some reason for promoting zero tillage? Otherwise, why should GM seed companies like Mahyco (which collaborates with Monsannto for GM research in India) sponsor a dinner for the Congress delegates?

GM crops are also part of Conservation Agriculture.

You guessed it right. Zero tillage has brought about its own set of industry. And that is what primarily interest’s agricultural scientists. Among the new conservation technologies required are: Laser land leveller, which is so far being imported but some of its parts are now being fabricated locally; Zero till planters, including the second generation ‘Happy Seeders’ and ‘Turbo Seeders;’ Rotatory Disc Drill used for intensive soil working; and of course a range of herbicides.

These equipments have been suitably modified and redesigned. Among the planter prototypes, you now have the multifunctional-multicrop-ferti-seed-zero till/raised bed planters. Before you try to understand its multifunctional operations, you realise there are 150 fabricators and entrepreneurs breathing down your neck. And that makes me wonder why agriculture scientists do not think beyond costly equipments and chemicals? Why do they have to rely on imported concepts of sustainability and the technology options? Why can’t they look inwards, search for the wonderful low external input technologies that farmers have perfected over the years?

The answer is that the industry does not gain when you promote low external input technologies. And when the industry is not interested how can the scientists be promoting LEISA practices. Scientists therefore are actually not working for farmers. Farmers just happen to be incidental, came in handy to promote the machines, chemicals and the hybrid/GM seeds. For instance, it has taken a lot of public pressure for the Indian Council fof Agricultural Research (ICAR) to finally accept SRI technology as an altertaive rice cultivation practice. Why it took so long was primarily because there was no industry supporting the SRI technology, no machine to be sold. (Also see: The Politics of Farm Technologies http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/oct/dsh-poltech.htm and another article 'Seeds and Robbers' available on http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/seeds-and-robbers.html)

If only scientists listened to farmers, spent more time to understand and then improving the sustainable farming systems that farmers have evolved, the face of Indian agriculture would have been ever-smiling. Farmers have all the answers, and can show us the way towards sustainable agriculture, wherein the natural resource base remains protected and preserved. They have done it for ages.

We do not need an agriculture which is dependent upon external inputs. We do not need an agriculture that destroys the soil health, mines the groundwater and contaminates the environment. We don’t need an agriculture where farmers are pauperised and the service providers rake in money. We need a farming system where the entire input needs of the farming community should be locally available from within a radius of 100 Kms. We need a sustainable farming system which is economically viable, where money flows into the pockets of the tillers. We need agriculture where farmers don’t think of quitting farming. Only then can agriculture become truly sustainable. #

How safe is the food you’ve been eating?

The documentary film Poison on the Platter was screened at India Islamic Cultural Centre in the capital recently. The film seeks to make people aware about Genetically Modified (GM) crops which have already made their way into the country.

The film, directed by Ajay Kanchan and presented by Mahesh Bhatt, seeks to promote the idea that it is our fundamental right to choose safe food.

The film makes a mockery of Indian government’s claim of not allowing import of any GM foods in the country as it conclusively demonstrates that supermarkets in India are flooded with harmful food stuff. The film also shows the hazardous impact that has been felt by countries in Europe and America after using GM crops for the last two decades. The film opened to a packed audience, most of who were visibly shattered and angry at how can they ensure what they eat is safe.

Post-screening, Mahesh Bhatt said, "As a child I remember seeing the Anacin ad. The ad stated that every four out of five doctors recommended it. I always wondered what the fifth doctor had to say. I wanted to know the voice of that one person who is not allowed to voice his opinion."

He added, "Ajay educated me about this subject. When I saw the film, it hit me hard. Our responsibility doesn’t end with this screening, we will carry it to the rest of India. Just imagine what would be the fate of a man who toils from morning to sunset, not knowing what he puts in his mouth at the end of the day is poison."

Food policy analyst Devinder Sharma said, "In India, the only commercially cultivated GM crop Bt Cotton, has so far proved extremely harmful for human beings and animals. Hundreds of farmers working in Bt Cotton fields developed skin allergies that were not known before, while thousands of cattle, sheep and goats that went for grazing there died in no time."

He added, "India is fast becoming the world’s biggest dustbin for this risky and unwanted technology. We are being told that these crops are essential for feeding the growing population, but there is not even one GM crop that produces higher yields. In fact, many of the GM crops produce less than the existing crops."

Jeffrey Smith, author of Genetic Roulette & Seeds of Deception, who is also an active voice in the film said, "Consumer awareness is very important. The long-term solution to GM is public education, we need to act quickly, we need to tell the Indian government not to import any GM food in the country."

From: Saumya Bhatia, How safe is the food you've been eating? The Asian Age, New Delhi, Feb 7, 2009

Poison on the Platter

“Right to choose safe food is a fundamental right of consumers in a democracy. However, the onslaught of GM crops has been robbing the people of their right to choose.” This is the theme based on which Mahesh Bhatt (Filmmaker and Presenter of Poison on the Platter) and Ajay Kanchan (Director) have put together the film ‘Poison on the Platter’ - portraying the introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in India as the end of choice. The film was recently screened at the India Islamic Cultural Center Auditorium in Delhi and was viewed by an auditorium packed with a mix audience. Everyone from children to citizens of all age groups were present to witness the screening.

The film is aimed at raising awareness and to enlighten the people about the introduction of GM crops in the Indian market and the irreversible adverse impacts on human health. Dignitaries like Mahesh Bhatt, Ajay Kanchan, Jeffrey M. Smith (Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, USA), and Devinder Sharma of the Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security were present for the screening. Before the screening, Ajay Kanchan and Devinder Sharma gave a brief introduction of the film and the issue at large. This was followed by the screening of the of the film.

The film shows the hazardous impact that has been felt by countries in Europe and America after using GM crops for the last two decades. Damage to human and animal health to the extent of causing death after consuming GM crops has been experienced by countries all across the globe, as shown in the film. Such untold miseries of GM food are highlighted in the film. The ethical and religious angle of the issue has been highlighted and the film warns how the introduction of GM crops will also hurt the sentiments of almost all religious groups.

After the screening, Mahesh Bhatt came forward and shared his personal opinion on the issue. He has already spoken against the issue on several occasions and has called the production and promotion of Genetically Modified foods as an act of Bio-terrorism. Following this, the above mentioned four member panel tried to answer the questions raised by the audience.

The film definitely succeeded in getting across the message to the public at large and in making everyone think about the issue. Several people from the audience raised their questions and concerns and also came forward to help take the message even further. People also questioned the inaction from the Government’s end and called for the involvement of every citizen to prevent the entry of GM crops in the Indian market.

(Source: Anjana Dey in http://delhigreens.com/ )

For how to get copies of the film, and how to get involved in taking this message forward, you can write to poisonontheplatter@gmail.com

Corporates look for rural gold

Business honchos are descending on the rural markets, expecting to make a killing from whatever is left in the pockets of India's poor, led by an NCAER forecast of robust sales growth here.

All eyes are now shifting to the rural areas. Trucks carrying consumer goods are being directed to the nearest village. Rural India is now up for grabs.

It is no longer only hair oils, toothpastes, shampoos, soft drinks and potato chips that you will find stacked on the dusty shelf in a village shop. Corporate India now believes that the loan waiver, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGA) and successive bumper harvests have brought enough cash surplus in the hands of the rural community. It is therefore time to encash the newly found richness in the rural areas.

Is rural India really becoming prosperous? Or is Corporate India’s greed that is driving them to the hinterland? Before we look at the ground realities, let us first see how the markets are shifting gear. The mobile phone has already made an aggressive foray. Sale of computers is being pushed through the government-sponsored e-governance programmes. Cars, two-wheelers, and consumer durables are eyeing the smaller markets. Coca Cola, Pepsi and Dabur India have relaunched specific marketing programmes. The wedding industry is already camping in the smaller towns. And the Futures Market too is excited.

According to news reports, Samsung, Nokia, Sansui, Philips, Maruti, Mahindra & Mahindra, LG, Tata Motors, Hyundai, Tata Sky, Hero Honda, Air Tel, Vodofone, BSNL, ICICI and Nestle are some of the corporate giants eyeing the rural markets. There are innumerable other smaller companies who have now ramped up their marketing operations in the tier II and tier III towns.

No, there isn’t an economic revolution happening in rural India. It is only that the business honchos are descending on the rural markets, expecting to make a killing from whatever is left in the pockets of India’s poor. Leading the corporate march into the rural areas is the industry think-tank, the National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER). It believes that the rural middle class is steadily growing, and the corporate can expect a sales turnover of 60 per cent from rural India.

Not only the domestic majors, global giants too are looking at India’s rural sector as a potential kill. American agribusiness giants -- Monsanto, Cargill, Wal-Mart and ADM -- among the world’s top multinationals have already found a foothold in the rural retail segment through the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture Research, Development and Marketing (KIA) agreement. These multinationals have already made it clear that they are not interesting in collaborating on agricultural research but keen to sell their products.

Meanwhile, not satisfied with the marketing opportunities under the agreement, two American senators have demanded a detailed study of the potential that Indian agriculture markets contain. Their plea is to open up the Indian farm sector to American agricultural products. At present, only 5 per cent of American produce finds its way to Indian farms. Well, the eagles are descending, and from all directions. The village mouse may find it hard to find a suitable cover to escape the attack.

The reason is obvious. So far, it is the sale of alcohol -- both domestic brands and the locally produced – that has been the biggest destroyer of rural homes. Much of the farm income is known to have found its way to the liquor shops. No wonder, cereal consumption has further declined in rural areas, even though families are spending more on it. According to the latest report of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), monthly expenditure on cereals has gone up from Rs 101 to Rs 115, and yet per capita cereal consumption has climbed down from 13.4 kg per person per month in 1993-94 to 11.7 kg in 2006-07.

This report also comes at a time when the National Commission on Enterprise in Unorganised Sector very clearly and loudly states that 77 per cent of India’s population (and bulk of it inhabits the rural areas for sure) equivalent to 836 million people spend not more than Rs 20 a day. I am sure with Rs 20 a day expenditure, you cannot expect 836 million people to buy even two square meals a day. To these hungry millions, selling a growth dream through a consumer durable is certainly something that cannot be easily digested.

I stall can’t fathom what the ICICI chairman H V Kamath had said sometimes back: “There is a lot of money to be made from the rural areas.” If this is true, I see no reason why India should rank a dismal 66 out of 88 countries on the 2008 Global Hunger Index. As many as 12 of the 18 states measured, and that includes ‘vibrant’ Gujarat, technology-savvy Karnataka, suicide prone Maharashtra and the rice bowl of Tamil Nadu, are listed in the category of ‘alarming’.

In fact, India stands much lower than Sub-Saharan Africa in the Hunger Index. Even Punjab, the food granary of India, is worse off than Gabon and Vietnam.

The villages of India have traditionally been victim of what is called reverse terms of trade. All these years, more money has actually been taken out from these villages than what has been invested. Some studies have shown that from a rural landscape of the size of 1000 acres, agricultural-input companies and that includes fertiliser, pesticides, and seeds, on an average pump out anything between Rs 30 crore and Rs 70-crore every year, depending upon where these areas are located.

If only this money had stayed back in the villages, the face of India’s village would have been in any case looked bright and vibrant. You wouldn’t require the skills of organised money-lenders, through the micro-finance route, to exploit the poor and gullible. Although 50 million poor households are being given micro-finance, the poor are actually being forced to fork out returns at an exorbitant interest of an average of 20 to 24 per cent. In urban centres, you would be up in arms if you were made to pay such a high interest rate. But than, you need to know that the poor are being ‘empowered’.

If the poorest of the poor women in a self-help group wants to buy a goat, which she needs for earning a livelihood, she has to pay an average interest of 24 per cent. I am sure, for a TV, fridge or a two-wheeler she will now get interest-free loans. After all, economists will tell us that the more she buys consumer durables, the more the GDP will grow. Even if they have to go to bed hungry instead, these are small sacrifices that need to be made for the sake of country’s growth. Who said, selling dreams is only a Bollywood’s prerogative? #

http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/jan/dsh-ruralgold.htm