Indian
scientists do not promote sustainable technologies because they are
disconnected from the farming community.
There was a stunned silence. For a few minutes they didn’t know how to
react. They stared blankly at me, not many of them believing my words.
It looked as if the biotechnologists and scientists who do not fail to
swear in the name of genetically modified (GM) crops at the drop of a
hat were for a change caught on the wrong foot. They had in fact never
heard of it.
Growing crops without the use of GM seeds and chemical pesticides and
yet getting a bountiful harvest is something agricultural scientists
have never been taught to believe. When I told a recently concluded
National Summit on GM crops, organised at the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for
Biotechnology at Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala, that if there is an
alternative and sustainable way of reaping a plentiful harvest, wherein
millions of small farmers cultivate a large number of crops without GM
crops and chemical pesticides, they accused me of romanticising
subsistence agriculture.
When told that millions of farmers in almost all the districts of
Andhra Pradesh, in an area extending to 7 million hectares, were
actually following sustainable farming systems that automatically takes
control of dreaded insect pests and diseases, and does not result in
any productivity fall, they began to see the point I was trying to make.
And when I said that the area under non-pesticides management (NPM) is
likely to go up to 12 million hectares this year, and reach a
staggering 25 million hectares in a couple of years from now, the
resistance they were trying to offer broke down.
Dr P Ananda Kumar, director at the Plant Biotechnology Centre, Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, was the first to break the
ice. He said that if what I had narrated was correct he was willing to
forgo GM crop research and work along with these farmers. Saying that
“if a patient is healthy, there is no need for any medication”, Dr T M
Manjunath, formerly director of research with the seed multinational
Monsanto, which is on the forefront of introducing GM crops, also
agreed. Several other scientists also came forward to promote such
healthy farming systems.
What becomes abundantly clear is that those who talk of the immense
potential of GM crops are not even aware that the same objectives are
being achieved without harming the environment and playing havoc with
human, animal and plant health. If all what the GM crops assure by way
of diseases and pest control (as of now) can be insured by low-external
input sustainable agricultural practices (LEISA) that is being
practiced by several million farmers not only in AP but throughout the
country, why should scientists not accept it as an economically viable
and environmentally sustainable option?
Technology does not merely come as a branded product. If Monsanto’s
Bt-cotton is a technology, so are the time-tested traditional
technologies that farmers have perfected over the years. Why cannot
scientists promote safe, reliable, sustainable and healthy technologies?
Just because these traditional technologies do not come with project
funding and foreign travel does not mean that these have to be ignored.
Already the technologies pioneered by the green revolution have
poisoned the land, the underground water and contaminated the
environment to such unsustainable levels that they are difficult to
resurrect. How much more does modern science intends to pollute the
environment and the human body?
It is in this context that the ongoing effort to seek stake-holders’
approval for a single-window clearance for GM crops, in the form of a
National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA), assumes
significance. The entire exercise is being conducted by the
Biotechnology Consortium, which is an association of the biotechnology
industry. The invitees for these stake-holders dialogue are mainly from
the industry and from amongst the plant biotechnologists. For the sake
of justifying diverse opinion, a few NGOs and farmers are invited.
There is no need to conduct such stake-holder dialogues when the
outcome of the entire exercise is known. Already the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex body for approving and
regulating GM crops, is over-laden with pro-biotechnology scientists
that the entire exercise has turned into a farce. The GEAC is in fact a
rubber stamp for the biotechnology industry. The proposed NBRA is
essentially “of the biotechnology industry, by the biotechnology
industry and for the biotechnology industry.”
Isn’t it strange that while there is so much excitement and interest
among the scientific community in India to provide a single-window
clearance to one of the riskiest technologies that mankind has ever
evolved, the US – the Mecca for GM crops – has set up three regulatory
bodies?
Even then, there are questions being asked about the credibility of the
US regulatory process. Why does India on the other hand want to hasten
the process of introduction of GM crops and foods at a time when the
majority world is questioning its safety?
The fundamental question still remains. Why don’t Indian scientists
promote sustainable technologies and ecologically viable farming
systems instead? The answer is simple. Over the years, they have
disconnected themselves from the farming community.
They are unaware of a silent revolution that is sweeping the country.
If only the science and technology minister, Kapil Sibal, were to
promote the Andhra Pradesh model of NPM cultivation instead of blindly
pushing for GM crops, India could easily turn into a global model for
sustainable agriculture and healthy living.
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Jun202008/editpage2008061974358.asp
