Left in Electoral Lurch: Do Farmers Count?

Farmers have themselves to blame for the plight they are in. No wonder, they have been relegated to the bottom of the pit.

Elections are around the corner. And like in every general elections, farming and agriculture appear to be something that the political parties do talk about before they go to the ballot, but to be soon forgotten thereafter. We are already seeing that the election manifestos of various political parties talk about agriculture, water, livelihood security and the plight of farmers.


During the election process itself you would however notice that these issues are seldom mentioned, and completely off the economic agenda for the next five years. One obvious reason is that even farmers and farmer groups have failed to make a serious effort to put agriculture on 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, and farming gets lost in caste configurations.


Farmers’ political strength

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 top of the political as well as the national agenda. Isn’t it sad that one-fourth of the world’s farming population — 600 million farmers that India has — has failed to use the democratic process to its advantage? If the farmers had realised their collective political strength, they would have been ruling the country by now.


Farmers have themselves to blame for the plight they are in. No wonder, they have been relegated to the bottom of the pit.


In 2004 general elections, it was essentially the rural anger against the ‘India Shining’ brigade that put the UPA by default in the saddle. Soon after coming to power, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did talk about reviving agriculture. He did repeatedly say that agriculture is passing through its worst crisis, and needs immediate attention. But he could not see beyond industry, and his government laid a red carpet for the corporate takeover of agriculture. Almost all laws have been suitably amended to favour corporate control over natural resources.


Farmers meanwhile continued to demonstrate their anger against the apathy and neglect of farming through the serial death dance being enacted throughout the country. Since 1997, more than 1.80 lakh farmers have committed suicide. The tragedy is that even this human sacrifice, massive from any political standards anywhere in the world, has failed to shift the national focus on the plight of farmers.No political party has actually extended more than lip-sympathy to the plight of the farming community.


Nor do I expect the political scenario to undergo any drastic change in the coming elections. This is primarily because the farmer leadership has failed the farming community. In many parts of the country, I find farmer leaders are keen to contest elections than to make any meaningful contribution to the welfare of the farming community.


In the 14th Lok Sabha there were nearly 350 members who came from the rural areas and claimed to be representing the farmers, and yet they were never to be seen when agriculture issues were discussed. As many as 57 MPs never debated and 78 had no questions to ask. In the past too, MPs were rarely seen to be concerned about farmer issues. Even in debates about WTO negotiations, I haven’t seen more than 10 members in the House. Contd....

To read the full article, visit

Deccan Herald, Mar 31, 2009. http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Mar312009/editpage20090330127138.asp

'Humans have hypnotised themselves with their own wizardry'

Normally, I do not talk about the responses I get to my writings. But this one certainly coaxed me to put it up for a wider view. Responding to my article "G-20 Summit: Learning From a Frog in A Pond" published on Countercurrent (link below), David Kennedy penned an enlightening commentary. I am sure you too will be drawn by the honesty and the heartfelt angst that the letter reflects.

But before that a small note of appreciation from An Indian in the comment section:

This is one of the best article I have read on CounterCurrents about global economic meltdown. Qudos to you Dr. Devinder Sharma, I thought you are an agri/vet-guru. But from your writing it appears you write about global economics pretty well.

Here is what David Kennedy wrote:
http://www.countercurrents.org/sharma300309.htm


Humans have hypnotised themselves with their own wizardry.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution that ushered in the Machine Age, human imagination has gone from strength to strength, inventing more and more ways of utilising fossil fuels for things we don’t need and an economic system that keeps people locked into the system of infinite waste.

The human brain is worshipped. People believe in intelligence and creative imagination. It separates us from other animals. Just look at the wonderful achievements: electronic gadgetry, radiation wizardry, chemical wonderment, medical miracles and, most of all, the magnificence of money. How clear that the human brain is made in the image of God! There is nothing quite like it on earth or anywhere else in the universe as far as we know.

It is stupendous! The human brain is SO clever – yet it cannot perceive the obvious truth of existence. The planet does NOT belong to us! We are here under sufferance.

The condition of our tenure is that we treat natural creation with respect, that is, we take what we NEED and try not to destroy life for others, be they of our species or not.

If we abuse our presence by destroying the conditions for life to continue then our tenancy will cease. It is as simple as that.We can destroy conditions for life in lots of ways. We can simply devise means of exterminating those forms of life we don't happen to like, wilfully ignoring the 'web' of life and its inter-dependence. For example, if we destroy the habitat required by bees there will be no pollination and all the gold in the world won't save us. We can select those forms of life that are useful to us and make sure they increase.

One way of doing this is by monoculture. This results in a lopsided, man-made creation, inimical to the natural balance. We can destroy those that are useful to us that in our greed we blindly exterminate.

This is happening to the EARTH'S forests - not OUR forests. Once again, we get lopsided, man-made creation, with atmospheric oxygen going down and carbon dioxide going up.It has happened and continues to happen to a variety of forms of terrestrial and marine life. The largest mammals ever have been hunted almost to extinction because of their oil. Ironically, whale oil - which COULD have been sustainable - has been replaced by rock oil (petroleum), which is finite and highly destructive to life on earth because of what it does to our atmosphere.

We can destroy the conditions for life by polluting water supplies on which ALL life depends. The seas are becoming increasingly acid, thus becoming less congenial for marine life. Ultimately, this will lead to mass extinction. We can pollute the air that most living things require as an essential part of their energy metabolism. This too will lead to mass extinction.

We do this by burning fossil fuels, returning hundreds of millions of years' worth of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere within a couple of hundred years.We can poison the land, rendering it infertile. We are well on the way to completing this task, thanks to the mass use of chemical fertilisers and over-cultivation. This will result in the earth being able to sustain less and less life until eventually life will cease.

We can amuse and delude ourselves by playing with the structure of matter, releasing various kinds of radiation and leaving radioactive material that makes an uncongenial companion for life (as we know it). Life will cease long before the radioactivity decays to levels compatible with life. Yes, we like to think how clever we are, all of the wonderful things we can do, all of the wonderful things WE have created. In our conceit we fail to realise that, like Pandora, we have opened a box that contains the means - not of life lived to the full for all eternity - but of death and destruction within our own lifetimes that we are unable to control: just as we cannot control radioactive waste from our 'playing' with natural matter.

We are here because matter WAS sufficiently inoffensive until WE began to play with it. We have turned it into something that is offensive and incompatible with life. That is how clever we are! ‘Evil’ is a human construct, just as ‘wisdom’ is a human construct. They each describe a form of human behaviour. They are part of human self-recognition. We have spent so much time trying to understand ourselves that we have lost sight of the importance of our relationship with the rest of creation. We imagine ourselves to be above nature rather than part of it. This arrogance is our downfall.

Whether we can change our behaviour in time to save us from self-destruction remains to be seen. There are few signs that humans are aware of the evil they do to themselves and to the rest of life, and non-life, on earth. We are violating the terms of our tenancy with ever-increasing contempt. There will surely be a day of reckoning and all the brainpower in the world won't save us...

David Kennedy 03.30.09 - 2:16 pm #

G-20 leaders need to learn from a frog in a pond

Top leaders from the largest 20 economies of the world -- called G-20 -- will assemble in London on April 2. As the Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros said: "this will be the world's last chance to avert economic disaster."

George Soros is an honourable man. He is not the only one. Almost each one of the so called top economist, policy maker, and humanitarians -- and I am including the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in this category -- have actually misled us to believe that the economic stimulus, which now exceeds US $ 10 trillion, needs to be further strengthened to bailout the global economy from the clutches of a likely depression. I am in fact amused when I see people who are in one form or the other responsible for the economic meltdown trying to preach us about the possible way out.

In India, it is the likes of lesser-known people like a state minister in Karnataka. Mr G Janardhana Reddy, himself says that he is worth Rs 1500-crore now. He exports iron ore to China from the hot and dusty mineral-rich district of Bellary, some 290 kms from Bangalore. He and others rake in money, but the mining activity has turned a vast rainwater reservoir Lakshmipura Kunte rust red and laced with poison, the forests destroyed, farms ruined.

Undeterred, as a report in The Hindustan Times says he is helping draft the Karnatka’s state mining policy which allows fresh mining leases only for those who can ‘value-add’, meaning industrialists like him. Business barons like him surely need more than one economic bailout package.

The G-20 Summit will be not look beyond such levels of growth. These political leaders haven't learnt any lesson. They are like the weak students in a classroom trying to sit behind the intelligent ones in an examination so that they can copy some of the answers. I am therefore no longer shocked at their inability to stand up and show the way. You will see these leaders will end up parroting what the likes of George Soros have to say, the man who reportedly made one billion dollars on short-selling sterling on "Black Wednesday" in 1992.

While the likes of George Soros, World Bank chief Robert Zoellick and WTO director general Pascal Lamy are moving in the corridors of power seeking more thrust on 'inclusive growth' -- inclusive only to the rich barons and the financial tycoons -- G-20 is unlikely to take even a notice of the strong message that comes out from the march that thousands of people participated in Britain, France and Germany last week to protest the global economic crisis and urge world leaders to take action on poverty, jobs and climate change.

The G-20 leaders suffer from myopia. They can only see the corporate and big business interest. Rest everyone is beyond their visibility coefficient. I sometimes wonder why can't these leaders ever realise that if the worlds best brains and scientific acumen that has been generated over the past several decades was so brilliant why is it that forests are disappearing at an alarming rate, oceans have exhausted the fish stocks, crop fields are turning barren and sick, water is becoming scarce, environment has been polluted beyond redemption, hunger is growing in the midst of growing trade, and the world is warming up to an extent that if we do not make a radical correction now, it would be too late.

Just sit back and think. If these scientists, economists, and management gurus were so good, why should the world gobble up its natural resource base? Why is that that the growth economics that we are taught in the university curriculum actually ends up in violence? I mean violence against nature, violence against the environment and finally violence against the human beings. How can we be led on a garden path to believe that our future is safe in the hands of these Nobel laureates, and the likes? If they were so good they should have shown us a way out of the crisis rather than pushing us deeper and deeper towards an environmental catastrophe.

I have nothing against these distinguished scientists and economists, but sometimes I wonder with so much of brilliance around us why are we fast sliding on a downhill path? What is the use of this brilliance if the Earth is fast becoming an unsuitable place to live? Why do we need to switch off the lights for one hour to draw the attention of the political leadership towards the dangers of global warming staring at us?

The answer is simple. In our quest to demonstrate our brilliance we have forgotten some simple lessons that nature provides. We feel ashamed to even acknowledge that nature provides us the right solutions. If we do so, people would scoff at our post-doctoral degrees that we pick up from Harvard, Yale and Cambridge. You have to look different, and the more you are educated the more sophisticated form of confusion you create. This in turn kills traditional wisdom.

If the G-20 leaders had ever stopped by a village pond and looked at the frog swimming in the waters they would have found the answer to the global economic meltdown that the world is faced with, which in reality is the cause behind global warming. Just pause and think, and you will understand what I mean. The frog has lived generation by generation in that small pond. But it did not drink the pond. It lived in harmony with the pond. The pond has not dried up, nor has it become unbearable for the frog to migrate or look for fresh water sources elsewhere.

We haven't learnt from the frog. We live on Earth, and yet we have eaten up the natural resources. In our quest for economic growth, we have destroyed the planet treating nature as an economic commodity to be sold. Is this the path we should continue to move on? Should we not learn from the frog, and try to reverse the destructive path? Should we not try to preserve the pond that we live in?

I wish someone could take the G-20 leaders to visit a village pond. The world will not be the same again. This is our last chance.

ग्रामीण भारत के उत्थान का मंत्र

For many of you, this article in Hindi will come as a surprise. Well, several language newspapers in India translate my writings in the local language, and this helps me to take my message to the masses. This article below is from Dainik Jagran, the largest selling newspaper in India. The title of the article, if I am translating it correctly, is something like: The Solution for the Upliftment of rural India.

In this article (published in the edition of Mar 22), I have analysed the economic plight of the farming community, some 650 million Indians, who are living in a pathetic condition. They produce food for the country, but often themselves go to bed hungry. An ungrateful nation has very conveniently dumped them, and is keen to off-load the burden.

ग्रामीण भारत के उत्थान का मंत्र

देविंदर शर्मा

सरकारी कर्मचारियों के वेतन आयोग की तर्ज पर किसान आय आयोग गठित करने की मांग जोर पकड़ रही है। तीन वर्ष पूर्व सबसे पहले मैंने किसानों के लिए सुनिश्चित मासिक आय के प्रावधान की मांग की थी। अब धीरे-धीरे देश हताश किसान समुदाय की आय सुरक्षा के बुनियादी मुद्दे पर ध्यान दे रहा है। अर्थव्यवस्था के आधार स्तंभ किसानों को सुनिश्चित आय प्रदान कर हम वास्तव में अर्थव्यवस्था को फिर से पटरी पर लाने के लिए जरूरी टानिक दे रहे हैं। कुछ समय पहले जींद में एक रैली में भाजपा नेता लालकृष्ण आडवाणी ने साफ-साफ कहा था कि अगर उनका दल सत्ता में आया तो वह किसानों को प्रत्यक्ष आर्थिक सहायता प्रदान करेंगे। तेलगूदेशम पार्टी के चंद्रबाबू नायडू भी किसानों समेत तमाम गरीबों के लिए काफी कुछ देने की घोषणा कर चुके हैं। इस बात का अहसास होते ही कि भारतीय राजनीतिक नेतृत्व किसानों को सीधे-सीधे आर्थिक सहायता की जरूरत के संबंध में सचेत हो रहा है, अर्थशास्त्रियों और नीति निर्माताओं में बेचैनी शुरू हो गई है। कुछ ने कहना शुरू कर दिया है कि किसानों को धन देने से वे आलसी हो जाएंगे।

इस प्रकार के विश्लेषण से मैं विचलित नहीं हूं। हममें से बहुत से लोगों को, जो किसानों को करीब से जानते हैं, यह पता है कि केवल किसान ही धन का सही इस्तेमाल करना जानते हैं। इसीलिए हम चाहते हैं कि वित्त मंत्री केवल उन्हीं के लिए अपनी तिजोरी खोलें। अन्य सभी इन संसाधनों को बर्बाद कर डालेंगे। वैश्विक कृषि की समझ के आधार पर कहा जा सकता है कि आधुनिक कृषि में खेती की दो तरह की अवधारणाएं हैं। पहली है, पाश्चात्य देशों में उच्च अनुदान प्राप्त खेती और दूसरी अवधारणा गुजारे की खेती में देखने को मिलती है, जो विकासशील देशों में प्रचलित है। गुजारे की खेती को बचाने का एकमात्र उपाय यही है कि विकसित और धनी देशों की तर्ज पर उन्हें भी प्रत्यक्ष आर्थिक सहयोग दिया जाए। अगर आप सोचते हैं कि मैं गलत हूं तो धनी और विकसित देशों में प्रत्यक्ष आर्थिक सहयोग बंद करके देख लें, इन देशों की खेती ताश के पत्तों की तरह भरभराकर ढह जाएगी। इसलिए समस्या कृषि की इन व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकार की है, जिन्हें अपनाने के लिए विश्व को बाध्य किया जा रहा है। पहली हरित क्रांति औद्योगिक कृषि व्यवस्था में फली-फूली, जिसने हमें उस संकट में फंसा दिया है, जिसका हम आज सामना कर रहे हैं। इसने भूमि की उर्वरता खत्म कर दी, कुपोषण को बढ़ाया, भूजल स्तर सोख लिया और मानव के स्वास्थ्य व पर्यावरण पर तो कहर बनकर टूटी पड़ी। इससे कोई सबक सीखने के बजाय हम दूसरी हरित क्रांति की ओर तेजी से बढ़ रहे हैं। यह हरित क्रांति वर्तमान संकट को बढ़ाएगी और जैसा कि विश्व बैंक, अंतरराष्ट्रीय मुद्रा कोष और विश्व व्यापार संघ की मंशा है, किसानों को खेती से बेदखल कर देगी।

दूसरी हरित क्रांति जीएम फसलों के घोड़े पर सवार होकर आ रही है। यह कड़े आईपीआर कानूनों में बंधी हुई है। इसके तहत बीजों पर निजी कंपनियों का नियंत्रण हो जाएगा। साथ ही बाजार व्यवस्था में भारी बदलाव कर किसानों की जेब में बची-खुची रकम भी निकाल ली जाएगी। कृषि को फायदेमंद बताने के नाम पर इस व्यवस्था में अनुबंध खेती, खाद्य पदार्र्थो की रिटेल चेन, खाद्य वस्तुओं का विनिमय केंद्र और वायदा कारोबार आदि आते हैं। अगर ये व्यवस्थाएं कारगर होतीं और किसानों के लिए लाभदायक होतीं तो फिर अमेरिकी सरकार किसानों की मुट्ठी भर आबादी को किसी न किसी रूप में भारी-भरकम प्रत्यक्ष आर्थिक सहायता क्यों देती? तकलीफदेह बात यह है कि कृषि का यह विफल माडल ही भारत में आक्रामक तरीके से स्थापित किया जा रहा है। मुझे कभी-कभी हैरत होती है कि कृषि वैज्ञानिक, अर्थशास्त्री और योजनाकार वास्तव में कर क्या रहे हैं? 40 साल से असरदार नौकरशाह और प्रौद्योगिकीविद किसानों को यही बताते आ रहे हैं कि वे जितना ज्यादा अन्न पैदा करेंगे, उनकी उतनी ही आमदनी बढ़ेगी। इस तरह चालीस सालों से वे किसानों को गुमराह करते आ रहे हैं। ऐसा उन्होंने क्यों किया, इसकी सीधी-सी वजह है। वास्तव में वे किसानों की मदद नहीं कर रहे थे, बल्कि किसानों की आड़ में खाद, कीटनाशक, बीज और कृषि संबंधी यांत्रिक उपकरण बनाने वाली कंपनियों के व्यापारिक हितों को बढ़ावा दे रहे थे। इसीलिए एनएसएसओ के इस आकलन पर हैरानी नहीं होती कि इन 40 साल के बाद एक किसान परिवार की मासिक आय मात्र 2115 रुपये है। किसान परिवार में पांच सदस्यों के साथ-साथ दो पशु भी शामिल हैं।

छठे वेतन आयोग में सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत चपरासी को 15 हजार रुपये वेतन का वायदा किया गया है। एक राष्ट्र के रूप में क्या हम यह नहीं सोच सकते कि किसान की कम से कम इतनी आय तो हो जितना कि एक चपरासी वेतन पाता है? जब एक किसान परिवार की मासिक आय 2115 रुपये है तो नौकरशाहों और प्रौद्योगिकी के धुरंधरों को शर्म क्यों नहींआनी चाहिए? यदि वे शर्मिंदा नहीं होते तो हमें उन्हें अपनी गलती स्वीकारने को बाध्य करना चाहिए। उन कृषि अर्थशास्त्रियों के बारे में सोचिए जो शोध प्रबंधों, अध्ययनों और विश्लेषणों के माध्यम से हमें यह घुट्टी पिला रहे हैं कि आधुनिक कृषि लाभप्रद है। अब वे कहां हैं? क्या उनकी कोई जवाबदेही नहीं है। उनके गलत आकलनों की वजह से ही लाखों छोटे और सीमांत किसानों का जीवन उजड़ गया है। इन बीते वर्षों में किसानों को गुमराह किया गया। उन्हें इस बात का विश्वास दिलाया गया कि अगर वे और प्रयास करते हैं तो उन्हें और लाभ होगा। यही नहीं, ये अर्थशास्त्री, वैज्ञानिक और नौकरशाह अब मुक्त बाजार, कमोडिटी एक्सचेंज, वायदा कारोबार और खाद्य रिटेल चेन की दुहाई देने लगे हैं कि इससे कृषि आर्थिक रूप से समर्थ होगी। अमेरिका और यूरोप में यह प्रयोग सफल नहीं रहा है। भारत में भी यह सफल नहीं हो पाएगा।

यह ध्यान देने योग्य है कि किस तरह एक दोषपूर्ण नीति को भारत में इतनी तेजी के साथ बढ़ावा दिया जा रहा है। वायदा कारोबार, कमोडिटी एक्सचेंज का फायदा किसानों को नहीं, बल्कि संट्टेबाजों, परामर्शदायक संस्थाओं, रेटिंग एजेंसियों ओर व्यापरियों को होगा। विडंबना यह भी है कि किसान नेता किसानों के लिए एक निश्चित मासिक आय की मांग नहीं कर रहे हैं। वे केवल अधिक न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य की मांग कर रहे हैं। इनमें से कोई इस बात को नहीं समझ पा रहा है कि मुश्किल से 35 से 40 प्रतिशत किसान ही ऐसे हैं जो अंतत: सरकारी खरीद का लाभ उठा पाते हैं। शेष किसान समुदाय, जो वास्तव में बहुसंख्यक है, खाद्यान्न का उत्पादन करता है। अगर उनके पास थोड़ा-बहुत बेचने के लिए है तो भी उन्हें कम से कम भोजन की पूर्ति तो करनी ही है। अगर वे खुद के लिए अनाज नहीं उगाते तो देश को उतनी मात्र में खाद्यान्न आयात करना पड़ेगा। दूसरे शब्दों में वे आर्थिक समृद्धि पैदा कर रहे हैं। इसलिए उन्हें भी देश के लिए पैदा की जा रही आर्थिक समृद्धि के बदले में क्षतिपूर्ति मिलनी चाहिए।
[देविंदर शर्मा: लेखक खाद्य एंवं कृषि नीतियों के विश्लेषक हैं]

The Protein Myth and How it Adds to GDP

Yesterday, I was on a very interesting and sensible TV show. Anchored by a well-known social activist, Swami Agnivesh, this show on Lok Sabha TV is called Vichar Manthan. This particular segment touched on consumerism, the growing meat consumption, impact on health and environment, and the role beef and meat production plays in global warming. I must say it was conducted so well that it made me sit back and think.

With me on the panel was Sadhvi Bhagwati Saraswati, who originally hails from the United States, but now lives in Parmarth Niketan in Rishikesh. She is a disciple of Swami Chidanand Saraswati. I must admit that her answer to a question from the studio audience about how much protein a body needs, and how much of it would come from meat consumption, actually cleared a lot of misunderstanding. I too had till then not realised that we actually do not require so much of proteins that the industry is telling us. I couldn't wait to go through a book entitled Vegetarianism: For Your Body, Your Mind, Your Soul and Your Planet, written by Swami Chidanand Saraswati, a copy of which she gave me.

The Protein Myth

Protein is used to build muscle and bones. Our building and growing needs are naturally greatest when we are very young. New babies are at their greatest need of protein. Yet, what is the perfect food for newborn babies? Mother's milk. Mother's milk is only 5 per cent protein ! Yet, the meat and dairy council would like us to to believe that as fully grown we need between 30 - 40 per cent of our daily intake from protein. This is absurd. It is nothing less than a marketing strategy.

In fact, if you look at the advice given by unbiased, scientific organisations, you will see that their recommended percentage of proteins is significantly, markedly less than that suggested by the meat and dairy industry sponsored 'research'. For example, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recommends 2.5 per cent daily intake of protein. The World Health Organisation recommends 4.5 per cent. The Food and Nutrition Board (after factoring in safety margins) recommends 6 per cent.

Second, plant food -- vegetables, grains and legumes -- all have sufficient protein for our daily requirements. If we eat a balanced diet, we are sure to get enough protein. Good sources of proteins are lentils, tofu, low-fat dairy products, nuts, seeds, tempeh, and peas. many grains such as wholegrain bread, pasta, and corn also add protein to our diet. For example, lentils are 29 per cent protein, split peas are 28 per cent, spinach is 49 per cent, cauliflower is 40 per cent, lettuce is 34 per cent, and even tomatoes are 18 per cent. Nuts range from 12-18 per cent.

The book then goes on to tell about some of the commonly asked questions as to where from can we get our daily fill of protein, what about iron, calcium and Vit B 12, and a lot more.

We also discussed the ecological impact of beef production and the growing craze for meat consumption. I mentioned that on an average an American consumes 125 kg of meat, a Chinese intake is 70 kg whereas that of an average India is only 3.5 kg. Add up all this, and you find that some 55,000 million animals are slaughtered every year worldwide for meat purposes. For beef production, you require normally 16 kg of foodgrains to be fed to produce one kilo of meat. Each kilo of beef requires 70,000 litres of water in the entire production process till it reaches your plate. Newsweek once reported that "the amount of water that goes into a 1000 pound steer (male cow who will become beef) could float a Naval destroyer ship!"

For each hamburger you eat, 75 kg of carbon dioxide (one of main greenhouse gases) are released into the atmosphere. If you drove your car all day long, it would release only 3 kgs. Somehow, we have never been told about the damage and destruction industrially-farmed food is doing to our body and to our environment. We have somehow been made to believe that everything is fine with the food we eat. Food processing companies are taking proper care of us, and in any case we have enough regulatory systems that will ensure that good food reaches our table.

Adding to GDP

This is all bunkum. Agribusiness industry, food industry, pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies are all hand in glove. They thrive on each other. The more the corporatisation of agriculutre, the more will be industrially produced food in the market; the more the junk food you consume, the more are the chances that you will fall sick, and it is where the pharmaceutical companies gain; the more the chances that you will fall sick, the more is the need for expensive medical care and that requires health insurance.

This is how the vicious cycle operates. And this is what actually adds to economic growth. In laymen terms, GDP is the amount of money that exchanges hands. So the more you get trapped in this industry-driven cycle, the more is the money that you are made to shell out, and this translates into a higher GDP. What a remarkable growth model we have, isn't it? And you thought we were actually becoming prosperous?

I admire the mainline economists who are asking us repeatedly to cosume more, and that in turn will generate demand, which will kickstart the economy. Even after the great economic collapse of 2008, we haven't learnt any lessons. Governments are infusing massive stimulus packages to keep the industry alive, the same industry (and banking system) that is doing the damage to human health, environment and adding on to global warming.

Hats off to the economists and policy makers for their ability to befool all the people for all the times. Who said you can't make fool of all the people all the times?

Controlling the world's seed supply

Let there be no doubt. There is a global effort -- some call it a master plan -- (involving not only seed corporations, but also governments, CGIAR and the FAO) to control the entire seed heritage. Privatisation and commercialisation of seed, which means through it controlling the entire food chain, began several decades ago. With governments, CGIAR/World Bank/FAO facilitating the process, the private seed companies are slowly and steadily ensuring that farmers all over the world fall in line. They are left with no choice but to buy seed every cropping season from the agribusiness companies.

The new seeds are not only being genetically modified but are also being genetically programmed. We will talk about the genetic programming of these seeds sometimes later, but first let us look at the ways of the seed mafia.

The WTO/TRIPs provides the legal instruments to make it possible. Strengthening of intellectual proprietary control over seed comes through UPOV and WIPO, both being the public face of the seed industry. These IPRs are being further tightened through the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), bilateral and regional agreements. All these agreements seek IPR-Plus treatments, and developing country governmets are being made to swallow the bitter pill.

The governments are more than willing to facilitate the process. India is a classic example, where the Agriculture Ministry appears to be on a fast track mode to increase the seed relacement ratio. In the next 15-20 years, it wants to replace 50 per cent of the farmers seed with so called 'improved seeds' being produced and marketed by the private companies. No wonder, more than 500 seed companies are operating in India now. All looking forward to the farmers pocket, keen to take out the last penny from his soiled kurta.

As the article below (excerpted from the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith) tells us briefly, an alert civil society and some farming groups worldwide have slowed down the process of takeover of the seed supply -- as per the master plan. For the full article, scroll down to the end of this post.

Seeding a Master Plan

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa [1] using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe's "unfounded, unscientific fears" of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world's food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan.

First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto's influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, "The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender." [2]
The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.

While some audience members were appalled at what they judged to be an arrogant and dangerous disrespect for nature, to the industry this was good business. Their attitude was illustrated in an excerpt from one of Monsanto's advertisements: "So you see, there really isn't much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those made by man. What's artificial is the line drawn between them." [3]

To implement their strategy, the biotech companies needed to control the seeds-so they went on a buying spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world's seed companies. Monsanto did achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the GM food market. [4] But the industry has not met their projections of converting the natural seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry's conviction that these foods are safe or better, have not "just sort of surrendered."

Widespread resistance to GM food has resulted in a global showdown. U.S. exports of genetically modified corn and soy are down, and hungry African nations won't even accept the crops as food aid. Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate to open new markets. The U.S. government is convinced that EU resistance is the primary obstacle and is determined to change that. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that the European Union's restrictive policy on GM food violates international agreements.

On the day the WTO suit was filed, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick declared, "Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods are safe and healthy." [5] This has been industry's chant from the start. It is the key assumption at the basis of their master plan, the WTO challenge, and the president's campaign to end hunger. It is also, however, untrue.
The following chapters reveal that it was industry influence, not sound science, which allowed these foods onto the market. Moreover, if overwhelming scientific research suggests anything, it is that the foods should never have been approved.

References:

[1] See the White House press release on this available here. The comments mentioned are about two-thirds of the way down the web page.
[2] Stuart Laidlaw, "StarLink Fallout Could Cost Billions," The Toronto Star, Jan. 9, 2001. Article can be purchased in the Toronto Star archives available here, or find a free copy by clicking here.
[3] Robert Cohen, Milk, The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998, p. 133
[4] See www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2003/butterfliesvsusda.html
[5] See www.ustrade-wto.gov/03052102.html

(See the full article at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds-of-Deception-10-pg-by-Rady-Ananda-090322-919.html)

Mrs Obama, I admire your organic gardening initiative in the White House. Please extend it to entire America. They too need healthy food.

This is the White House organic garden lawn. It will soon be supporting up to as many as 55 different fruits and vegetables, all grown organically. [This picture is sourced from www. treehugger.com]

US First Lady Michelle Obama amazes me. I must confess that I only know a little about her from what I read in the newspapers. But whatever little I have read, she is really amazing. I know she loves to dress elegantly. I am aware she didn't approve when someone tried to market baby dolls designed after her daughters Sasha and Malia. Also, I remember having read that she wants them to keep away from celebrities visiting the White House. She is so caring and protective like any mother, wants her children to grow up with as little influence of the White House as possible. Admirable, isn't it?

I must admit I was completely bowled by her latest initiative. That the first lady is laying out an organic vegetable garden in the White House, which will be the first since Mrs Eleaner Roosevelt planted a 'victory garden' some 60 years earlier, my admiration for her grew manifold. "I want to make sure that our family, as well as the staff and all the people who come to the White House and eat our food, get access to really fresh vegetables and fruits," she was quoted as saying.

Newswire agency Reuters reports that the garden will produce up to as many as 55 different fruits and vegetables. The garden, which will be organic, will be planted later in the spring and will include berries and mint. It is being started as the country faces an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

The link between organic food and obesity/diabetes is very vital. I am sure Mrs Obama's efforts will send the right kind of signal considering that over 400,000 people die every year in the US from obesity and its fallout, much of it the result of unhealthy food (and lack of exercise) that they are forced to eat. Yes, I am talking about industrially-farmed and factory produced junk food that people have become so accustomed to. They don't even realise that the food they are being made to eat is unhealthy and can be a potential killer.

Before I analyse the broader implications of Mrs Obama's initiative, let me first say how envious I feel about Americans. No, it is not the bland and junk food that I crave for. I am happy with the traditional Indian food, and I must say I have a wide variety to choose from. But what makes me envious is that after long the US has got a first lady who really cares for healthy food. How much I wish the Indian Prime Minister's wife, Mrs Gursharan Kaur, who I see inaugurating an exhibition here and there or attending a book launch, had also drawn the nation's attention to healthy food. Nor do I ever see the UPA president, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, trying her hand at organic farming, growing vegetable in her heavily guarded and sprawling garden house.

And what about the successive lineage of India's Presidents? They all lived in opulence, in a massive Presidential estate called the Rashtrapati Bhawan. None of them, and that includes the former President Abdul Kalam, ever tried their hand at growing fruits and vegetables. If any of them had thought of setting up an organic garden, believe me Indians would have followed the trend by setting up kitchen gardens at least on the terraces and other empty spaces.

But then, we were not so lucky. No one inspired the nation to grow safe and healthy food.

Coming back to the US, while I appreciate Michelle Obama's initiative, I wonder why does the US President not think on the same lines. Organic food is not only healthy for those who live in or visit the White House. It is healthy for all Americans. Why can't Mr Obama therefore make sure that Americans too eat healthy food, grow organic and eat organic. His mandate runs beyond the White House, and I am sure if he decides to do so he can turn America into a healthy and ecologically safe nation, and at the same time set a precedence for most other Heads of State to follow his example.

Growing organic would also reduce dependence on fossil fuel, is environment friendly and reduces global warming by at least 30 per cent. What more can you ask for, Mr Obama?

Am I am dreaming too much? Or you feel I am thinking of an utopian dream which cannot be realised? Well, let me tell you categorically, this is easily possible. All it needs is a firm resolve from a leader who thinks he can.

Before Mr Obama took oath, US was in the grip of the GM food industry. Barbara Panvel, an equally amazing activist and crusader on GM foods (living in Britain) sends out regularly a Food Security alert. I am listing below what she sent me sometimes back, detailing why the US is being force fed with GM foods (see FSC-87) : Instead of the usual debates about GM the focus was on the power of vested interest and lack of independent political scrutiny which enabled the technology to get firm hold in USA. When the drive for GM in the US was at its height it had powerful support:

-- Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court Judge who voted for the legality of George Bush’s election, was Monsanto's lawyer.

-- The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Anne Veneman, was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

-- The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

-- The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

-- The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

-- The man in charge of overseeing the GMO evaluations at the FDA, Michael Taylor, was not a scientist but a lawyer who had previously represented US biotechnology giant Monsanto. After leaving the FDA he went back to his private practice, eventually becoming Monsanto's vice president.

-- The US Center for Responsive Politics points out that this is a classic case of the revolving door syndrome, the conflict of interest caused by the constant movement of professionals back and forth between the private and public sectors.

Does Mr Obama know that Michael Taylor - the man who forced genetically engineered rBGH on US (unlabeled so us, unaware) when the Clintons placed him over "food safety" in the 90s (as mentioned above) - is back in government, this time to act with massive police power as a "food safety tsar" from inside the White House? Does he know that a new food safety bill -- HR 875 -- would gradually outlaw organic agriculture?

Shouldn't Mrs Obama be equally worried? If GM food is 'substantially equivalent' to organic food, I am sure Michelle Obama wouldn't have felt the need to lay out an organic garden in the White House.

The HR 875 is a controversial bill. Linn Cohen-Cole, again an amazing crusader and researcher based in the US, has done extensive research on the new bill. I am sure Mrs Obama would like to know more about the new food safety law that will eventually push farmers out of agriculture, and at the same time make organic agriculture illegal. If the bill comes through, Michelle Obama must know that by the time Mr Obama is ready to face his 2nd term, US farmers would have become extinct.

This is the time for Mr Obama to apply brakes on this bill. If he doesn't take this seriously enough or is taken for a ride by the USDA officials and the agribusiness companies, which work hand-in-glove, it will be too late. In the years to come, food will be produced entirely by the corporations, and the first and foremost casualty would be that safe and healthy food will disappear. Organically produced food would be outlawed, which means you wouldn't be able to grow it even in the White House.

Isn't this outrageous?

Well, Mrs Obama, you are an amazing person. You are not only the first lady but also carry a mother's heart that always tries to provide safe, healthy and non-contaminated food to children. You ensure your kitchen is clean, your cutlery is clean, the children wash their hands before they sit on the dining table -- all this to ensure proper hygiene lest your children fall sick. This mother's instinct is what the American nation needs. They too need safe and healthy food that is grown in their own backyards, and grown organically without harmful chemicals and unwanted and risky genetic modification.

You need to know more about this bill. I suggest you read Linn Cohen-Cole's article: Monsanto's dream bill, HR 875. [This article is available at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html]

I hope America remains in safe hands. Only you can ensure that.

Why not jail for guilty bankers, Mr Obama?

Look at that. The Economist is trying its best to protect the guilty bankers. And you always thought it was an objective and unbiased economic weekly. Yes, I am talking about the executives of the American International Group (AIG) who have received US $ 220 million in bonuses ever since the insurance giant was bailed out with US $ 170 billion of tax-payers money. Summing up the growing worldwide hatred against the bankers who are at the heart of the economic meltdown, a comment by Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, London, states: The behaviour of the bankers who first blew up the world's financial system and then proceeded to loot it, is genuinely outrageous and deserves political retribution.

How true. And look at what The Economist has to say. In a news analysis entitled "Easy does it", The Economist makes a fervent plea to let the bankers go scott free. Under a sub-head "Revenge is pleasant, but dangerous", it goes on to say: Raging at bankers, however, is a dangerous road to tread. Banks and insurers are being bailed out not because they deserve it, or for the sake of their employees, but because there is no choice.

And finally, it goes on to conclude: Mr Obama's best course is to explain, calmly and patiently, why bailing out banks and honouring contracts are necessary evils. He needs to eschew easy gestures, just as he should have avoided delighting a few populists this week by closing down a scheme that lets Mexican trucks into America. It demands leadership, which he was elected to provide. In the past few weeks he has shown signs of forgetting that.

I am glad President Obama so far has not shown signs of heeding to the advise of The Economist. Otherwise, he would fail in demonstrating leadership, for which he was elected. The US House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a 90 per cent tax on bonuses paid this year to the employees of AIG (and the bonuses amounts to US $ 165 million). I hope Obama stands by it.

Interestingly, the Citigroup chief executive Vikram Pandit was among those who lobbied against the legislation. If you and me default on our Citibank loans for our car, the bank sends goons to recover the money. But when rich and elite loot the banking system, Citibank comes to their rescue. We now know why people like Vikram Pandit are elevated to the chief executive's position !

Coming back to AIG and the guilty bankers, the US house has done what the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed to do. He tried and failed to get the chief of the Royal bank of Scotland to surrender part of his pension. The row over Sir Fred Goodwin's pension continues to grow, states the letter in The Times. Timid, isn't it. that the Prime Minister of a country should fail to stand up to people's anger against the guilty bankers?

I agree with Anatole Kaletsky. In Britain, the best approach would probably be for the Treasury and Financial Services Authority to launch civil lawsuits against Sir Fred and other senior bankers alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of numerous investment regulations by publishing misleading information about the financial conditions of their companies.

He thinks the cost of lawsuits alone, even if no damages were awarded, would be more than enough to ruin most bankers. And even those rich enough to bear the financial costs of defending themselves would have their personal lives destroyed by being dragged through to courts.

I must say that the writer is being very kind. I feel this is too soft a punishment for a ghastly crime committed by these bankers (and don't forget the credit rating companies). The least we must do is to put them in jail for financial fraud. The US President and the British Prime Minister must demonstrate leadership, for which they were elected. Don't be cowed down by what The Economist writes (and this is true for all major economic publication), stand up to the expectation of the people who are reeling in anger and disgust. They were the ones who voted you to lead, not the financial publications.

At the outset, when the economic crisis began, I had said: Isn’t it a sad travesty of truth? If you rob a bank of a few thousand, you are arrested and sent to prison. If you rob the entire banking system, you not only receive a pat but also paid a handsome retirement package. If you are unable to pay your debts to the banks, you are hauled up and both your movable and immovable property confiscated. But if the bank is unable to pay its debts, it is bailed out with catastrophic urgency. If you fail to pay your insurance premium, your policy is terminated. But if the insurance company falters, it is nationalised and the chief executive officer is relieved of his job with a multi-million package.

This was in an essay I wrote in Nov 2008, entitled: Nineteen Blind Men and a Woman, and the Economy. In case you missed it, here it is: http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3690

Bundelkhand -- Another hotspot of farmer suicides

Talk of farmers misery, and you immediately think of Vidharba region in Maharashtra. You have read about suicides committed by thousands of farmers in Vidharba at a regular interval. There have been a number of committees, not less than 19 by a last count, that have gone into examining the reasons behind the serial death dance being enacted in Vidharba. And yet, there seems to be no respite for the beleaguered farmers.

I draw your attention to another hotspot of farmers misery. It has not caught the nation's attention like Vidharba dots the distress chart. But perhaps in many ways it is is faced with much worse natural conditions, where continuous drought for a few years has played havoc with the farm economy, and which has turned into a 'political battlefield of the deaths'.

Thanks to the ensuing elections, The Hindustan Times has sent its team of reporters to different parts of the country. One of the dispatches published on Mar 18, 2009, is about Bundelkhand region in Uttar Pradesh. The report titled " Guess the price of misery: Rs 10, Rs 20, Rs 800" by Pankaj Jaiswal, brings out the poignant reality. Says the report: Those are the amounts two successive governments gave as compensation to farmers in the drought-hit Bundelkhand region. Some want to dump the cheques this summer -- in the ballot box.

Shame, isn't it?

What caught my attention was the startling figure of farmer suicides. So far, we knew about the statistics churned out about Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Vidharba, and Andhra Pradesh where the suicide rate is very high, but I was stunned when I read what a three-time BJP MP Ganga Charan Rajput from Bundelkhand had to say. "I had filed an application under the Right to Information Act in 2006 and the reply by state police said 1,275 farmers had committed suicide in the region between 2001 and 2005."

Mr Rajput has since collected area-wise statistics and sent them to both the central and state governments, to ensure they knew the details of the situation. The report further states: In the years since, residents say suicides have continued but officials and the police often put them down to unexplained deaths.

There is nothing new in this approach. All state governments follow the same strategy to avoid taking the blame for the farmer suicides.

[You can read the full report at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=IndiaSectionPage&id=ffb802f9-e5a3-4142-bdae-7a7119f73c7bMyIndiamyvote2009_Special&Headline=The+price+of+misery%3a+Rs+10%2c+Rs+20%2c+Rs+800]

I have visited Bundelkhand a couple of times in the past two years. I have travelled to some parts of the misery belt. And every time I have returned sad, very sad The appalling human tragedy continues to haunt me. I wonder why people should be living in misery and despair at a time when India is sending unmanned vehicles to the moon, at a time when we claim to be a knowledge superpower, and at a time when our granaries are overflowing. Why should farmers, who are the real annadata, be living in misery. Why should an ungrateful nation be in a hurry to dump its farmers, the real backbone of the economy.

Here is what I wrote after my first visit. I am sure it will help you understand what is going wrong in what was once a very productive and prosperous region.

Bundelkhand - kalahandi of central India http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Nov232007/editpage2007112237214.asp

Credit Suisse, NREGA and Sugarcane

Credit Suisse is a Swiss bank. And like many other foreign banks which are in the process of setting roots in India, it too has begun to come out with policy studies/reports. In addition, we have several consultancy firms, both national and international, which have been regularly coming out with such studies/statements and also are being increasingly asked by the State governments and the Central governments to write the farm policy. Mckinsey & Company wrote the infamed Vision 2020 policy of Andhra Pradesh, which was discarded after the inglorious exit of the former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu.

Tata Consultancy Service (TSC) was invited by ICAR to examine its research activities and look at the future. Food Corporation of India also had entrusted TCS to do a study on the public distribution system, and how to make it more effective.

McKinsey also wrote West Bengal's policy, and more recently we have the PricewaterhouseCoopers write the Karnataka Vision 2020. At this rate I wonder what will be role of Planning Commission and the State Planning Boards in the years to come? They are already becoming reduntant, their job being increasingly outsourced. But that is not what we are going to discuss today. I am looking at a recent report by Credit Suisse that examines the role of NREGA in Uttar Pradesh especially on sugarcane plantation. Interesting isn't it that foreign banks appear so interested in micro-analysis, and more importantly how they give it a twist that suits their thinking.

In his recent column in the Economic Times, Rajrishi Singhal (I like his column, and eagerly look forward to it) quotes a report by Credit Suisse: "The government's national rural employment guarantee scheme (NREGA) has resulted in shortage of agricultural labourers in the region. Migration of labour from Eastern UP and Bihar has slowed cosiderably as work is easily available under NREGA. The average daily labour cost has increased from Rs 50-60 per day to Rs 60-100 per day (NREGA daily wage is Rs 100 per day in UP). labour shrtage and cost affect cane more than R-W (rice-wheat). For one, cane requires about 75-90 man days of labour per acre, while R-W requires about 60 man days per acre per year. Moreover, many jobs in R-W cultivation is readily mechanisable (harvester combines, threshers etc. readily available for hire in the region) while cane is not amenable to mechanisation (due to lack of or high cost of machinery in the area or due to lack of technology)."

He goes on to write: "there is another government policy -- ostensibly to insulate poor farmers from the vagaries of an unpredictable marketplace -- that is also boomeranging on the people it is supposed to protect. Many years ago, the government introduced the minimum support price (MSP) to assure farmers of a reasonable price for their produce. The government announces a price at the beginning of each crop cycle, thereby providing an artificial and administered floor price below which market prices can't fall. Sometimes, competitive politics forces the government to announce further price increases in mid season.

Again, nothing arguable with this noble objective says the author. But as the report from Credit Suisse says: "Over the last four years, the increase in rice (+61 per cent) and wheat procurement prices (+69 per cent) have significantly outpaced the increase in cane price (+31 per cent)." The writer concludes that the end consequence of this shift in cropping pattern is already showing up in the inflation indices where, despite the downward pressure exerted by petro-products prices, inflationary pressures exist for food items.

I must add here that I have not read the original report prepared by Credit Suisse. But I find the blame on NREGA for the shift in cropping pattern to be deliberate. Although, the report does say that it is one of the reasons for the shift, but the way the writer has tried to examine the noble intentions and how it can sometimes go wrong clearly tells you how we want to look at the agrarian issues, the role of NREGA and MSP included.

I have at the same time been following the writings of Harvir Singh of Business Bhaskar and Harish Damodaran of Hindu Business Line. Both have been keeping track of the upheavels in the sugar sector, and of course have a much better understanding of the agricultural scenario. Both blame the ad hoc government policies for the mess that the sugar sector is in. It is because of the faulty cane pricing policy, and the knee-jerk reactions leading to temporary bans on exports and the threat of importing raw sugar at zero duty, among other decisions that has led to the present crisis. This year, 2008-09, sugar production is estimated to fall to 15 million tonnes, from 26.3 million tonnes in 2007-08 and 28.2 million tonnes in 2006-07. In just two years, sugar production has slumped by half.

Now you can't attribute this decline in area and production even remotely to NREGA. Even if the daily wages work in favour of rice-wheat rotation, it cannot have such a significant impact so as to lead to a shift in cropping pattern from sugarcane to R-W on such a large scale.

When the wholesale price of sugar started to came down even from Rs 1200 per quintal, it became difficult for both the cane growers as well as the sugar mills to surive. The cane arrears had reached its peak at the end of the three years period. The case of cane arrears is still pending before the Supreme Court. Under such difficult scenario, farmers found a solace in rice-wheat rotation. Over the past four years, the MSP of rice and wheat had seen a quantum jump thereby making its cultivation more profitable and assured than cane. Farmers were quick to seize this opportunity and shift to rice-wheat pattern.

Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, support prices of wheat has gone up from Rs 640 to Rs 1080 per quintal, while that of common rice from Rs 560 to Rs 900. I am glad that the rise in rice-wheat prices came to the rescue of the cane growers in UP. Otherwise, we would have seen a spate of farmer suicides in the sugarcane belt.

And then, the NREGA and the higher MSP for wheat and rice is also being blamed for the inflationary pressure on food. I wonder where were the economic analysts when the real estate prices zoomed, and housing went beyond the reach of an average person on the street. In the past four years, property prices witnessed an unprecedented increase of 450 per cent. Not even one of the economic newspapers (and the electronic media) ever questioned this scandalous rise in property prices. It looks as if property and real estate has no influence on inflation, and does not impact the masses, including the poor farmers and NREGA workers.

But then that is in reality the main reason behind the economic crisis that we find ourseleves confronted with. No one wants to address the fundamental flaws, we are only trying to find escape routes. And the removal of NREGA and MSP is something that the neoliberal economists and policy makers are actually striving for. They think the answer to the crisis lies in taming NREGA and the MSP. Credit Suisse, McKinsey and PricewaterhouseCooper are the instruments being used to demolish the safety net that have been created, and with a noble intention.

Reviving Nutri cereals

Yesterday, we discussed the need to rename millets as Nutri cereals. Continuing with the subject, let me share with you the salient features from a Hyderabad declaration of Millet Network of India. This declaration came up from a conference that was organised by the Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, on June 5-6, 2008.

Millets can definitely play an important role in mitigating the terrible impact of the agrarian crisis that engulfs the countryside. These crops have to be brought back in the mainstream farming. These are the crops that are suitable for the rainfed areas, and can rescue farmers from the ecological, climate change and energy crisis.

The declaration states that millets can grow under completely rainfed conditions and therefore do not need irrigation for their cultivation. They can be raised in the harshest of environments and therefore can support farming in the most challenged ecological zones. They can earn India energy independence since they can be farmed with either none or very minimum external inputs. This potential of millets has the capacity to make millet farmers food sovereign.

Unfortunately over the last three decades millets have been progressively marginalized from the Indian agriculture and have lost nearly 35% of their cultivated area from 45.9 Mha in 1990 to 31.5 Mha in 2005. A slew of policy measures that have ignored millets, a hostile market and their social undermining by many sectors including media have been the root cause for this marginalization.

Therefore there is an imperative need to reclaim millets into our farming and policy landscape. In order to realize this, the Hyderabad declaration calls for:

1. The first need is to put millets into the Public Distribution System. Different parts of India grow different kinds of millets. Rajasthan along with a large part of Rainfed India cultivates Pearl Millet [Bajra]. Deccan plateau [Marathwada in Maharashtra, Telangana in Andhra Pradesh and North Karnataka in Karnataka] is well known for sorghum. Southern Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Southern Karnataka are the home of Finger millet [Ragi]. Uttarakhand and other hill and tribal areas cultivate a range of small millets such as Foxtail, Proso, Kodo and Barnyard. The Indian PDS system will be enriched with the high nutritive quality of these millets if they are included in it.

2. A nutritive analysis of millets vis a vis the major grains such as rice and wheat prove that nutrient to nutrient, millets score over the other grains. They have 30 to 300% more nutritional elements such as Calcium, Minerals, Iron, Fibre, and many other micronutrients,
The pro millet PDS paradigm must depend on a completely decentralized approach, supported by the government, both in procurement and in storage. This will resolve the question of availability and keeping quality.

3. Government must urgently provide space for millet based foods in the ICDS, Mid Day Meals, Residential schools meals and welfare hostel programmes. All these together will open up new markets for millet farmers and revitalize them. There are a number of institutional mechanisms that needs to be created, nurtured and developed.

Enabling conditions

Millets need a number of enabling conditions. One of them is to increase livestock which are local breeds and adapted to local ecosystems. This will create a symbiotic relationship between the farming and pastoralism, such as increased organic manure, fodder availability, milk production and increased incomes for farmers.

The rainfed lands where millets are grown need urgent attention for their productivity enhancement. This could be achieved through special watersheds on millet lands and dovetailing government’s empowerment programmes such as NREGA to support millet cultivation from sowing to harvesting.

Millet farms are intrinsically biodiverse. This aspect must not be overlooked. Therefore farming system development should become the aim and not single crop development. The monitoring, evaluation and research on millet cultivation must be tailored to this special quality of millet farming system.

Policy makers and donors must take note of the fact that millets make way for a dynamic diversity on farmers fields.

Millets can be cultivated without using groundwater or any irrigated water. Their energy requirement from sources such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, water and power can be near zero. Therefore this production system must be honored through offering socio-ecological bonus to millet growing farmers. Appropriate institutional mechanisms must be developed to assess this.

Institutional finance and insurance which is offered generously to farmers who cultivate preferred grains such as rice and wheat and non food crops must be extended to millet farmers also.

Research institutions must concentrate on a new thrust on millets particularly on areas and issues that involves productivity and nutrition. The research must also take on the agenda of conserving the germplasm and using the diversity in crop improvement programs, particularly for traits related to nutrition and productivity. While such research from formal science is extremely necessary, farmers' involvement must also be brought to the forefront with several people-centered and people-directed studies which are are bound to offer exciting perspectives.

MARKETS

Apart from the focus on community-controlled local food security, millets should enter the new and emerging markets for the burgeoning health conscious, urban populations with value addition as health food using appropriate processing and other technologies.
A network of NGO-facilitated markets which promote millets from their areas is key to this market promotion. This rescues millets from the trap of the corporate controlled organic markets which have narrow parameters of profit and not the wider concept of millets.
This should ultimately lead to an autonomous federation of millet growing farmers markets.

EDUCATION

1. There is an urgent need to produce a range of educational materials highlighting the health, nutrition and theraputic values of millets addressing the consumers and ecological values of millets addressing the farmers.
2. Countrywide there are excellent practices and experiences concerning millet farming, processing and cooking. These must be documented and experiences shared and information disseminated.
3. Farmer Exchanges can be key to the revival of millets. Such exchanges should be supported through appropriate funding support in order to build a new confidence and vibrancy among millet farming community.

Coarse cereals should be called Nutri cereals

What is there in a name, you would say. Well, a lot, would be my reply. I agree that a rose is a rose and is a rose. But this is not true for every other plant. I know a number of very important and nutritious plants whose use has been restricted simply because they were clubbed as "coarse cereals." They may be coarse in appearance but are highly nutritious. They were used predominantly in our traditional cuisine but because of the nomenclature have gradually disappeared from our platter.

We often believe coarse cereals are inferior grains. The moment you say coarse grains you think these are probably meant for cattle. Superior grains that suit our palate are only wheat and rice. Somehow this has gone into our psyche. Much of the fault I would say actually rest on how we categorised these highly nutritious, wholesome and rich grains. If only we were to start calling them Nutri cereals (instead of coarse cereals) I am sure our thinking and approach towards these grains will change, and change dramatically.

When I was a student, I was always puzzled why Bengal gram or Kabuli chana in Hindi (botanically called as Cicer arietinum) was called chick pea. Similarly, why red gram or arhar in Hindi (botanically Cajanus cajan, syn. Cajanus indicus) was called pigeon pea. Both are very important part of the Indian diet, and are rich nutritious legumes, but somehow the popular English names do not do justice to them.

Pigeon pea contains high amounts of proteins, and amino acids, methionine and lysine. It not only supplements the Indian diet, which is rich in cereals, with proteins thereby making it well-balanced, pigeon pea is also used for green manuring and medicinal purposes. Chick pea on the other hand is also highly nutritious, has about 23 per cent protein, and is a rich source of carbohydrates and calcium. Wikipedia tells us:

Chickpeas are a helpful source of zinc, folate and protein.They are also very high in dietary fiber and hence a healthy source of carbohydrates for persons with insulin sensitivity or diabetes. Chickpeas are low in fat and most of this is polyunsaturated.

One hundred grams of mature boiled chickpeas contains 164 calories, 2.6 grams of fat (of which only 0.27 grams is saturated), 7.6 grams of dietary fiber and 8.9 grams of protein. Chickpeas also provide dietary calcium (49-53 mg/100 g), with some sources citing the garbanzo's calcium content as about the same as yogurt and close to milk. According to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics chickpea seeds contain on average:

23% protein
64% total carbohydrates (47% starch, 6% soluble sugar)
5% fat
6% crude fiber
3% ash

There is also a high reported mineral content:

phosphorus (340 mg/100 g)
calcium (190 mg/100 g)
magnesium (140 mg/100g)
iron (7 mg/100 g)
zinc (3 mg/100 g)

Recent studies by Government agencies have also shown that they can assist in lowering of Cholesterol in the bloodstream.

I remember posing this question to Dr M S Swaminathan. He told me that actually the name pigeon pea and chick pea became popular because the British and French found these grains to be mainly suitable for feeding the pigeons (and hence the name pigeon pea) and for feeding the chicken (that is how chick pea got its popular name). Since legumes are not an essential part of the European diets, they named it according to what they used these nutritious grains for.

So the moment you hear pigeon pea and chick pea you think that these grains are meant for the birds. Well, I am sure you will now agree that a name does the trick.

The British also tried to distort the name for mango, the king of fruits. The late Dr M S Randhawa once wrote that the British did not saviour the site of Indians squatting on the floor and sucking mangoes, with the juice flowing down their elbows. They often referred it to as the 'bathroom fruit.' And they would ensure that the Indian staff in their houses (during the British Raj) would eat mangoes only in the bathroom.

Imagine, mango being called 'bathroom fruit' !

Nevertheless, coarse cereals too have distorted the image of highly nutritious cereals, which should form part of the modern Indian diet. Because these are called coarse grains, we think these are rough and unhealthy. On the contrary, coarse cereals are a staple diets of millions of people living in the dryland regions of the country. Predominantly grown in the fragile ecosystems, these crops include jowar, bajra, ragi and other small millets.

The Indian Council of Medical Research has worked out the nutritional superiority of millets. Compared to rice (on a 100 gram weight basis), Fox tail millet has 81 per cent more protein, Little millet has 840 per cent higher fat, 350 per cent higher fiber and 1229 per cent higher quantity of iron.

Kode millet also contains 633 per cent more minerals. Finger millet has 3340 per cent higher calcium and Pearl millet has 85 per cent higher phosphorus. In addition, these millets are also very rich in vitamins such as Thiamine (Fox tail millet), Riboflavin (Pearl millet), Niacin (Kode millet) and Folic acid (Pearl millet). By virtue of being highly nutritious, millets posses several medicinal properties such as improving digestibility, curing coronary heart diseases and diabetes etc.

You still think they need to be classified as coarse cereals ?

Let me simply this further. Dr T N Prakash, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bangalore, explains in a much easier way. He says that eating a meal with chapatis made from Pearl millet provides sufficient Vitamin A required for body that othereise would have come from a kilogram of carrot. Taking a meal made from Fox tail millet provides protein equivalent to what an egg contains, a meal of Ragi bowl provides calcium much more than what could have been obtained by drinking three glasses of milk, a breakfast of Little millet provides more iron than what could have been obtained by consuming 50 gms of leafy vegetables.

As these carrot, egg, milk and leafy vegetables are not at all within the reach of poor people, the millets are rightly described, from the nutrition point of view, as the “poor man’s gold.”

Well, isn't it time therefore that we change the name of these nutritious grains to Nutri cereals? If we can change the name of Bombay to Mumbai, and Madras to Chennai, why can't we create a new classification for these nutritious grains? Why can't we simply drop the term coarse cereals and replace it with Nutri cereals?

Call them Nutri cereals (and include legumes like pigeon pea and chick pea also in that category), and you will see our entire approach towards these so-called lowly grains changing, and changing for the better.

Farmers Income

The demand for setting up a Farmers Income Commission, on line with the Pay Commission for government employees, is now gaining strength. I am happy to find noted agricultural scientist Dr M S Swaminathan also endorsing the need for such a body to address the fundamental issue of income security among country's exasperated farming community.

Speaking at an inter-disciplinary dialogue yesterday at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, Dr Swaminathan stated this (See the full report at http://www.thehindu.com/2009/03/15/stories/2009031554040500.htm). I remember that it was some years back that Dr Swaminathan had asked me for a set of suggestions for policy actions, that I thought were required, to address the issue of farmer suicides. Direct Income Support to farmers was one of them.

In my opinion, based on my understanding of the global agriculture, modern farming leads to two kinds of agriculture. First, is the highly subsidised agriculture in the western countries. And second, it results in subsistence agriculture, as is being witnessed in the developing world. The only way to bail out subsistence farmers is to provide them with direct income support, as is being done in the OECD countries. Withdraw the direct income support from the rich and industrialised countries, and you will see that agriculture would collapse like a house of cards in those countries.

The problem therefore is in the kind of farming system that the world has been forced to adopt. The 1st Green Revolution ushered in an industrial farming system which has led to the crisis that we are witnessing today. It destroyed soil fertility, added to malnutrition, mined groundwater, and played havoc with human health and environment. Instead of learning any lessons, we are fast moving to the 2nd Green Revolution, which would only compound the existing crisis, and as planned and designed by the World Bank/IMF/WTO, push farmers out of agriculture.

The 2nd Green Revolution is buoyed with GM crops, and stricter IPR laws that will shift the control over seed into the hands of private agribusiness companies. At the same time, the market structure that is being laid out -- contract farming, food retail, commodity exchanges, and future trading -- all aimed at making farmers economically viable, is actually allowing the companies to rob the farmers of whatever is left in their pockets. If all this was workable, and was bringing income to farmers, there is no reason why the US government for instance should be providing huge subsidies, much of it direct income support or income transfer in one form or the other, to their miniscule population of farmers.

What pains me is to find the same failed model of agriculture being pushed aggressively into India. I sometimes wonder whether those agricultural scientists, economists and planners who swear in the name of this actually know what they are doing?

We as a nation always end up blaming the politicians. For this nation, politicians are our favourite whipping boys. We treat the Agricultural and Food Secretaries, Science & Technology, Biotechnology (both in the Centre and in the States), the joint secretaries, the directors, the vice-chancellors, planning commission members, the heads of departments in universities as holy cows. We have never tried to measure the damage done by these officials and that too (you will often find) for small monetary gains or consultancies or even foreign trips. Not all of them were like that. Those who stood up and questioned, have been very conveniently marginalised.

It is time we take a closer look at the games being played in the name of improving agriculture, you will find out where the blame lies.

For 40 years, this breed of bureucrats and technocrats, have been telling farmers that the more they produce the more will be their income. For 40 years (Green Revolution has completed 40 years) they went on misguiding the farmers, and the reason is simple. They were actually not helping farmers, but under the garb of farmers promoting the commercial interests of fertiliser, pesticides, seed and mechanical equipment companies. No wonder, after 40 years, the average monthly income of a farming family, which includes five members of a family plus two cattle, has been worked out by NSSO at a paltry Rs 2115 (around US $ 40).

If this is the monthly income of a farming family shouldn't the bureaucracy and the technocrats hang their head in shame? If they are not doing it, shouldn't we force them to accept their mistake? Think of those agricultural economists who have been telling us, and repeating this folly through innumerable desertations, studies, analysis, that modern agriculture is profitable. Where are they now? Why shouldn't they be taken to task? After all, their faulty analysis has played havoc with the lives of millions of small and marginal farmers. Farmers were misguided all these years, and made to believe that putting more inputs would bring them more profits. They did it, and eventually have been pushed deeper and deeper into a chakravyuah.

It doesn't stop here. These economists, scientists and bureaucrats are now clamouring for free markets -- commodity exchange, future trading and food retail -- as the way to turn farming economically viable. It didn't work in the US and the European Union. But look at the way it is being aggressively promoted in India. The beneficiaries of future trading and commodity exchange are not the farmers but speculators, the consultancy firms and rating agencies, and the business. And again, this is being done in the name of farmers.

I had requested a few distinguished economists to work out a mechanism to provide direct income support to farmers, and after some time they finally expressed their inability. The reason they cited was that it doesn't get into their frame of thinking. Quite obvioulsy, the mindset is fixed, and we think by providing farmers with a higher support price, farmer's would become economically viable.

The tragedy is that farmer leaders too have been saying the same. Some NGO leaders, and I don't want to name them, have also refused to look beyond procurement prices. None of them have visualised that there are hardly 35 to 40 per cent farmers who ultimately get the benefit of procurement prices. The rest of the farming community, which is in a majority, also produces food. Even if they hardly have anything to sell, they at least produce food. If they were not to produce food for themselevs, the country would be importing that quantity of food. In other words, they produce economic wealth. Therefore they too need to be adequately compensated for the economic wealth they produce for the country.

At several places, senior bureaucrats have asked me this question. At other events, even farmer leaders have asked me where would the money come from. No one however has ever questioned as to where would the money for the 6th Pay Commission come from. We have all been made to believe that higher income is the birth right of only employees. Farmers don't deserve a fixed income, they should simply live on credit.

It is time to break through the rotten mindset. The sooner you do, the better it would be for the country's sovereignty.

Meet the rice saviours

Continuing with our series on Farmers as Breeders, I present below a news report from today's Indian Express. It introduces us to a few rice saviours who were awarded recently by the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers Rights Authority. You would recall we had carried a small report on the award ceremony earlier. We need to applaud their effort, and also find out more such plant saviours.

Recognising and providing small incentives to these protectors of the genetic wealth is one good step, but what is the use if we don't put these traditional varieties back in the public domain by conserving them in situ. The public sector research and development infrastructure must be used in promoting these strains before these are lost to posterity.

Meet the rice saviours
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/meet-the-rice-saviours/433790/

Four farmer communities from different parts of the country were recently felicitated by the Government for their efforts at preserving different original varieties of rice genomes. The communities are Vrihi Beej Binimoy Kendra (Bankura, West Bengal), Kuruchiya and Kuruma tribal communities (Wayanad, Kerala), tribal communities from Jharkhand, and P Narayanan Unny (Palakkad, Kerala).

At a time of depleting bio-diversity and the need for new varieties to sustain against climate change, the role of these farmer groups, who have preserved different original varieties of rice, is important as the genomes from the original varieties preserved by them can be used by scientists and private seed companies for development of new plant varieties with high productivity, heat tolerance, early maturity and superior quality.

The Vrihi Beej Binimoy Kendra, which is a consortium of farmers and scientists, has been actively engaged in conservation of several varieties of rice for over a decade. They were felicitated for their preservation of Jugal and Sateen varieties, which are multiple seeded rice land races. In fact, researchers at Kolkata’s Bose Institute had confirmed the unique original property of these varieties that could be useful for future development of rice varieties.

“We have been working for the preservation for different varieties of rice for over 13 years now. As a consortium, we sensitised the farmer communities in and around Bankura about the uniqueness of the varieties and thus the need for preserving them,” says Debal Deb of Vrihi, who along with colleagues Debu Dulal Bhattacharya and Subroto Das was felicitated for their active role in preserving rice varieties important for preserving the bio-diversity.

While Vrihi was a consortium engaged in preservation of rice varieties, P Narayanan Unny of Palakkad has been a kind of one-man army engaged in preserving the traditional Navara rice land races, which has been grown since long for its nutritional and medicinal value.

“I have been consciously engaged in preserving Navara variety in a family-owned farm for over 10 years. In fact, now over 30 farmers, covering a total of about 60 acre, have taken up Navara rice cultivation,” Unny said after Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar awarded him last month. He said he would also try to sensitise farmers growing other crops to undertake conscious efforts to preserve plant varieties and contribute in maintaining the rich-biodiversity of the country.

The Kuruchiya and Kuruma tribal communities from Wayanad, who were felicitated, have conserved drought tolerant, flood tolerant and scented varieties of rice in their fields. Their varieties like Palthondi, Palveliyan, Thonooranthodi and Urunikaima are drought-tolerant and short-duration varieties cultivated in Kuni Vayal type of soils. They have also preserved flood-tolerant Marathondi, Chettuveliyan and Chenthadi varieties over the years.

Along with these tribal communities from Kerala, the tribal communities from Ranchi in Jharkhand were also felicitated for preservation of 19 varieties of rice over the years. Researchers have found that Hardim, Kalijiri, Bhatani, Sitwadhan, Swarna Gor, Sita Gora, Lamba Asari and Jhulat varieties had particular strains that made these varieties bacterial leaf resistant. The unique varieties were brought to light by the Gene Campaign Organisation, which persuaded these communities to get it registered with the government.

“These varieties were being sidelined by new varieties, but the Gene Campaign made us aware about the properties of our traditional varieties and consequently we started increased cultivation of our traditional varieties,” said Sumitra Devi.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Right Authority, which came into being in 2005, has made provisions for recognising and providing incentives to farmers and communities for their role in protection of original varieties that could be used for future research and development.

Scientists who are responsible for the agrarian crisis, should not be asked to provide solutions.

We need to thank our agriculture scientists once for all for what they have done for the country’s agriculture. Many of them have already retired, and are unnecessarily being drawn in again and again as chairman or members or for consultations for the new programmes and projects. It is time we let them retire gracefully. There is no need to recall them. If they were so good, India wouldn’t have been faced with an agrarian crisis of such a grave magnitude.

In a few weeks time, the government is likely to come up with a National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture. The proposed Rs 83,000-crore project (I hope my figures are correct) is to be introduced in 100 districts across the country, and will operate for five years. Read the document carefully and you find that it follows the same beaten track. It uses the right kind of language, and under the garb of sustainable agriculture new technologies and machinery is getting ready to be introduced.

Take dryland farming, which constitutes more than 60 per cent of the country’s cultivable lands, the strategy that has been spelled out has been repeated again and again ever since the subject was accorded top priority in Mrs Indira Gandhi’s 20-point programme. I find the National Action Plan on Climate Change that is being prepared under the direction of the Prime Ministers Office too following a flawed approach. I am appaled to learn that in the last meeting called by the PMO it was stressed that the GM technologies are the only answer for the drylands, and in fact it was suggested that we don't even need to reinvent the wheel, we simply need to import these GM crops (and also nanotechnology).

The agriculture section of the National Action Plan on Climate Change is more or less a useless component. It will only add on to climate change. But do you think it will be changed? No, it has been dressed up in an appropriate language, and promotes the commercial interests of the agribusiness companies. So who cares for farmers and the environment destruction that it will bring in?

Coming back to the proposed National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture, Rs 54,000-crore is proposed to be allocated for dryland agriculture. A careful perusal tells you that the emphasis again is on introduction of sophisticated technologies and genetically modified crops. In other words, the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture is merely a facilitating process for the large-scale introduction of genetically modified crops and balanced use of chemical fertilisers. At a time when world over there is an increasing realisation that chemical farming has destroyed soil health and in turn devastated agriculture, how does India’s planners hope to resurrect agriculture by applying faulty technologies and imported concepts of sustainable farming.

The sub-committee that has prepared the approach paper for the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture is dominated by people who were actually part of the system that turned agriculture completely unsustainable in the past 40 years of Green Revolution. The agriculture part of the 11-Plan document too has been written by experts who were largely responsible for the agrarian crisis that we witness today. Karnataka's Agricultural Mission too is headed by a person who was part of the same faulty system. Punjab's Farmers Commission or for that matter several State Farmers Commissions are chaired by scientists who were part of the system that pushed agriculture into a terrible crisis. I fail to understand how you can expect people who were responsible for the crisis to provide the right solutions. If they were so good, India wouldn’t have been faced with an agrarian crisis of such a grave magnitude.

Why can’t we thank these experts once for all for what they have done to the country’s agriculture? Now don’t get me wrong. Many of them have already retired, and are unnecessarily being drawn in again and again as chairman or members or for consultations for the new programmes and projects. I find them in various committees, commissions and of course form part of the national consultations that agribusiness companies and foreign institutes/universities are regularly holding to promote their own set of technologies. This is certainly not what the country needs.

The proposed National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture will therefore only deepen the crisis.

What we urgently require is a change in mindset, a change in approach and a willingness to listen to the farmers and NGOs who are working relentlessly towards regenerating agriculture. Why this is not happening is because you and I, I repeat YOU and I, accept these faulty decisions without saying a word. We are overawed by the designations of these scientists and policy makers, and so we keep quiet. It is time you stood up, raised your voice, demand correction and if possible over-hauling of such useless plans and programmes. You should ask also for a change in the composition of these committees.

As long as you remain quiet, believe me it will be business as usual.

(I draw your attention to my article today in Deccan Herald: Agricultural Reforms: On the Wrong Track . Part of it had appeared in this blog earlier. but still, it provides a linkage to the issue we are discussing. http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Mar112009/editpage20090310123264.asp)

Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The answer is No

Lies, damn lies and the Monsanto site. Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it would appear to be a truth. Monsanto makes that effort, probably for the umpteenth number of time. And the chances are that you too could be duped to accept these distortions as truth.

My attention has been drawn to an article "Do GM crops increase yield?" on Monsanto's web page. I must confess this is first time I am visiting Monsanto's site. This is what it says: Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false.

And then, it goes on to explain what germplasm is, what is breeding, biotechnology, and finally comes to yield. This is what it says:

The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.

Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.

Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.

Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.

Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.

India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

This is not amusing. It can't be taken lightly anymore. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and swing the facts, dress them up in a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them without asking any question.

At the outset, Monsanto's claims are simply flawed. I have seen similar conclusions, at least about Bt cotton yields in India, in an IFPRI study. But then, I have always been saying that IFPRI is one organisation that needs to be shut down. It has done more damage to developing country agriculture and food security than any other academic institution.

Nevertheless, let us first look at Monsanto's claims.

The increases in crop yields that it has shown in Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Hawaii and India are actually not yield increases. In scientific terms, these are called crop losses, which have been very cleverly repacked as yield increases. What Monsanto has done is to indulge in a jugglery of scientific terminologies, and taking advantage of your ignorance, to build up on claims that actually do not exist.

As per Monsanto's article: The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.

This is true. And still more, herbicide tolerant plants and insect resistant plants in a way perform the same function that chemical pesticides do. Both the GM plants and the chemical pesticides reduce crop losses. Come to think of it. Doesn't the GM plants work more or less like a bio-pesticide? The insect feeds on the plant carrying the toxin, and dies. Spraying the chemical pesticide also does the same.

In the case of herbicide tolerant plants, it is much worse. Biotech companies have successfully dove-tailed the trait for herbicide tolerance in the plant to ensure that those who buy the GM seeds have no other option but to also buy the companies own brand of herbicide. Killing two birds with one stone, you would say. Exactly.

GM companies have only used the transgenic technology to remove competition from the herbicide market. Instead of allowing the farmer to choose from different brands of herbicides available in the market, they have now ensured that you are left with only Hobson choice. The use of herbicide therefore does not come down. Several studies have shown conclusively that the use of herbicide in the US for instance actually has gone up.

Now, the question that needs to be asked is that if the chemical herbicide -- Roundup Ready --that Monsanto's herbicide tolerant soybeans use, increases yield than how come the other herbicides available in the market do not increase yield? Since all herbicides do the same job -- killing herbs, all herbicides should be therefore increasing crop yields. Am I not correct? Why do then we only think that Rounup Ready soyabean (which is a GM crops) increases yields, whereas other herbicides do not?

When was the last time you were told that herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are known to be reducing crop losses. This is what I was taught when I was studying plant breeding. And this is what is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the world.

Similarly for cotton. We all know that cotton consumes about 50 per cent of total pesticides sprayed. These chemical pesticides are known to be reducing crop losses. For the kind information of Monsanto (and I am sure they will agree to it without any question) pesticides do not increase crop yields, and I repeat DO NOT increase cotton yields.

Monsanto's Bt cotton, which has a gene from a soil bacteria to produce a toxin within the plant that kills certain pests, also does the same. It only kills the insect, which means it does the same job that a chemical pesticide is supposed to perform. The crop losses that a farmer minimises after applying chemical pesticide is never (and has never) been measured in terms of yield increases. It has always been computed as savings from crop losses.

If GM crops increase yields, shouldn't we therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields? Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases crop yields?

That brings me to another relevant question: Why don't agricultural scientists say that chemical pesticides increase crop yields?

While you ponder over this question (and there are no prizes for getting it right), let me tell you that the last time the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat (and subsequently the same trait was inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in the yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has been no further genetic break through in crop yields. Let there be no mistake about it.

Monsanto is therefore making faulty claims. None of its GM crop varieties increases yields. They only reduce crop losses. And if Monsanto does not know the difference between crop losses and crop yields, it needs to take lessons again in plant breeding.

But please don't fool the world. Don't distort scientific facts.

For the record, let me also state that when Bt cotton was being introduced in India in 2001 (its entry was delayed by another year when I challenged the scientific claims made by Mahyco-Monsanto), the Indian Council for Agriculural Research had also objected to the company's claim of increasing yield. It is however another matter that ICAR's objections were simply brushed aside by the Department of Biotechnology, and we all know why.

Interestingly, ISAAA and several consultancy firms (how can you believe them after their role in the economic collapse the world is faced with) have been claiming that cotton yields in India have gone up after Bt cotton was introduced. Not only for Bt cotton, such claims are made about other crops too. I have seen this happening for the past two decades, whenever the crop yields are higher the scientists and the companies take credit. But when the crop yields are lower the blame invariably shifts to weather. And it makes me wonder why don't the scientists pat the weather at times of bumper harvest? You guessed it right.

At least I have never seen scientists and companies thanking the weather for record harvests. A former Indian Agriculture Minister Mr Chaturanand Mishra always used to say that he is not the Agriculture Minister, the real Agriculture Minister is Mr Monsoon.

This year, cotton production estimates in India have been scaled down by 14 per cent. Using the same yardstick, does it not mean that productivity of Bt cotton is falling? No, how dare you say that. The fault is not of Bt cotton, but you guessed it right -- inclement weather.