In 2009, when the world was bogged down by economic recession, and some ripples were also felt in India, an estimated $ 20 trillion was pumped in to boost the global economy. India too provided a bailout package, in three instalments, totalling to approximately Rs 3.5 lakh crore.
In February 2010, when Finance Minister was to present the annual Budget, the media had launched an orchestrated campaign saying that the economic bailout package should not be withdrawn. You could see almost every TV channel (and the pink newspapers) bombarding day and night how damaging it would be for the national economy if the bailout package was withdrawn.
I wasn't amused.
In my interventions, I did make it loud and clear (to the discomfort of the economists on the TV panels) that the bailout package was not required in the first instance, and should be withdrawn immediately. Subsequently, I heard the Prime Minister say that only 1.5 lakh jobs were created in 2009 (against the projected 12 million). I guess this statement was used by the industry and business to defend the need for the continuation of the bailout package.
In my understanding, the bailout package was actually a dole to the industry and business to strengthen its bottom line. If you think that the layoffs in the industry was because of the economic recession, you are highly mistaken. Recession was very conveniently used by the industry to go in for labour-shedding, nothing more than that. Ask those journalists who have lost their job recently, and they will tell you they were laid-off not for reasons of economic meltdown.
Nevertheless, the economic meldown provided an excellent opportunity for the rich to amass more wealth. Otherwise there is no way that the world's wealthiest club can grow more wealthy at times of an economic meltdown. The bailout packages came out handy for the rich to accumulate more wealth, and that too in the name of rebuilding the global economy.
According to Forbes magazine, the richest-of-rich club has 49 billionaires from India, up from 24 last year. Isn't it strange that at a time when the sails were fluttering, the number of billionaires from India should actually double? Moreover, the industry could not create more jobs (1.5 lakh in a year is not even a drop in the ocean) but could ensure that its wealth swells. How can that be possible at a time when the chips were down? Common sense tells us that nothing miraclulous happened in 2009 that could bring more fortune to the fortunate.
What made the wealth of the richest actually multiply were the bailout packages. It is as simple as that. In other words, the world follows an amazing economic prescription. Socialising the costs, privatising the profits. You and me pay for the bailout packages, and the rich pocketed it neatly.
This happens everytime when the world faces an economic crisis (and you can see this turning the tables for the concerned companies in its stock rankings). In 2007-08, when the world was faced with an unprecedented food crisis, the stocks of the food giants swelled to an unprecedented level. The poor went hungry (with the world adding 100 million more to the hungry list) wheras the food companies profitted. More recently, when India was faced with an unprecedented rise in sugar prices, the stocks of nearly 25 sugar companies went up.
Mainline economic thinking has made it much easier (and simple) for the corporates and big business to make more money. You don't have to indulge in any financial swindle, the economists have done it for you, and that too without the world even questioning what in simple terms means committing the biggest crime against humanity.
All izz Not well on the farm
It is primarily for this reason, the loud cries coming from the farms across the country have not pierced the thick walls of Indian Parliament. It is generally believed that farmer suicides are merely a collatoral damage that the nation must bear in its pathway to growth. In other words, dying farmer does not figure anywhere in the national priorities.
The insensitivity of the nation towards its annadata is not only deplorable, but shameful. Why only blame the politicians, in one way or the other we are all party to this crime. Even the farmer leaders have refused to treat this as an emergency. They only make a reference to it ostensibly to get a higher price for their produce.
Our silence is in many ways responsible for the growing indifference towards the dying farmers.
No wonder, in the past three days, ten farmers have ended their life in the Vidharba region of Maharashtra. The death toll on the farm is multiplying with every passing day, but who cares. As I have said earlier, the farm tragedy has been kept alive in the national media by an agile group -- the Vidharba Jan Andolan Samiti -- otherwise even that horrendous news would not have stirred the conscious of at least some of us. We don't even know about the death toll in other regions of the country simply because no one is keeping a track.
All izz NOT well on the farm.
Women's Bill: Is the female of the species genetically better
Everything we do, we do in the name of poor, hungry and the marginalised. Internationally and nationally, this is the game that we have played all along. Whether it is the contentious negotiations under the World Trade Organisation, the Kyoto Protocol, the failed Copenhagen Accord and so on, you will always find that the impression given is that it is for the benefit of the poverty stricken.
So when I see the media coverage of the so-called historic passage of the Women's Bill in Rajya Sabha, marking a watershed in India's politics, I am amused. One newspaper, and it sums it all, has a huge banner headline with a half page picture of the poor women, saying: "Herstory"
Certainly, a clever playing around with words.
Somehow the nation is being made to believe, and it would be politically incorrect not to fall in line, that the Women's Reservation Bill is the first step in what could be a long journey to uplift the poor of the lot. Laudable objective, indeed. And as they say, if wishes were horses, beggers would get an easy ride.
I don't know what is your thinking but the fact remains that all these years women have been party (and have been done it solo also) to the games men have played. They have been party to some of the gory crimes, financial embezzlements, sex and sleaze, and you name it. I don't know of any women who has shown the courage to stand up and acknowledge that her husband is corrupt or her father has been indulging in corrupt practices. Or even point a finger to her siblings. They all bask in the sun, and in fact many of them love to make an obscene display of it.
I know of many women who proudly announce in social gatherings how much 'underhand' money her son-in-law makes every month.
I therefore don't think there is any genetic purity in the female genome that makes it holier than thou. Nor do I know of any special gene in the genetic structure of the female that makes it any different (or superior) from the men of the species. They are equally bad.
Over the past few years, women have certainly excelled in several spheres. It is not unusual to be greeted by a female captain for example when you settle down in the aircraft, ready for the take off. It is encouraging to see women in the armed forces, and travelling to the outer space nowadays. They are in the forefront in areas which were prediminantly men's domain. In other words, they are literally on the top.
We have celebrated the emergence of the women power. But equally distressing is one of the historic developments we have seen in the recent past. Women have shed their clothes, using their sexuality as the stepping stone to growth and success. All moral inhibitions have been cast aside (there are honourable exceptions, of course). Women have now increasingly become a commodity, and they have allowed this to happen not for the sake of fellow impoverished women but for their own selfish needs. If this is a sign of empowerment, God save the fairer of the sex.
I have nothing against women reservation. I don't think it matters whether there are 300-crorepatis or crorepatnis in Parliament. They have only one purpose in mind. How to ensure that their profits swell. Direct intervention in policy planning makes it much easier. Therefore to treat the Women Reservation Bill as a giant leap for womankind is something that I am not ready to accept. To link the passage of the Bill with the underlying hope it has for the impoverished lot, is too far-fetched and deliberate.
In all fairness, it is another career opportunity for the upwardly mobile and the socialites. It is another opportunity for the wives, sisters and daughters (or daughters-in-law) of the elite. They don't have to depend on the largesse their male partners have collected as people's respresentatives (again, there are honourable exceptions). Women can now do it themselves. And that too, in the name of the impoverished majority.
The rules of the game have not changed. Only the actors have.
So when I see the media coverage of the so-called historic passage of the Women's Bill in Rajya Sabha, marking a watershed in India's politics, I am amused. One newspaper, and it sums it all, has a huge banner headline with a half page picture of the poor women, saying: "Herstory"
Certainly, a clever playing around with words.
Somehow the nation is being made to believe, and it would be politically incorrect not to fall in line, that the Women's Reservation Bill is the first step in what could be a long journey to uplift the poor of the lot. Laudable objective, indeed. And as they say, if wishes were horses, beggers would get an easy ride.
I don't know what is your thinking but the fact remains that all these years women have been party (and have been done it solo also) to the games men have played. They have been party to some of the gory crimes, financial embezzlements, sex and sleaze, and you name it. I don't know of any women who has shown the courage to stand up and acknowledge that her husband is corrupt or her father has been indulging in corrupt practices. Or even point a finger to her siblings. They all bask in the sun, and in fact many of them love to make an obscene display of it.
I know of many women who proudly announce in social gatherings how much 'underhand' money her son-in-law makes every month.
I therefore don't think there is any genetic purity in the female genome that makes it holier than thou. Nor do I know of any special gene in the genetic structure of the female that makes it any different (or superior) from the men of the species. They are equally bad.
Over the past few years, women have certainly excelled in several spheres. It is not unusual to be greeted by a female captain for example when you settle down in the aircraft, ready for the take off. It is encouraging to see women in the armed forces, and travelling to the outer space nowadays. They are in the forefront in areas which were prediminantly men's domain. In other words, they are literally on the top.
We have celebrated the emergence of the women power. But equally distressing is one of the historic developments we have seen in the recent past. Women have shed their clothes, using their sexuality as the stepping stone to growth and success. All moral inhibitions have been cast aside (there are honourable exceptions, of course). Women have now increasingly become a commodity, and they have allowed this to happen not for the sake of fellow impoverished women but for their own selfish needs. If this is a sign of empowerment, God save the fairer of the sex.
I have nothing against women reservation. I don't think it matters whether there are 300-crorepatis or crorepatnis in Parliament. They have only one purpose in mind. How to ensure that their profits swell. Direct intervention in policy planning makes it much easier. Therefore to treat the Women Reservation Bill as a giant leap for womankind is something that I am not ready to accept. To link the passage of the Bill with the underlying hope it has for the impoverished lot, is too far-fetched and deliberate.
In all fairness, it is another career opportunity for the upwardly mobile and the socialites. It is another opportunity for the wives, sisters and daughters (or daughters-in-law) of the elite. They don't have to depend on the largesse their male partners have collected as people's respresentatives (again, there are honourable exceptions). Women can now do it themselves. And that too, in the name of the impoverished majority.
The rules of the game have not changed. Only the actors have.
Microfinance also kills
My colleague from Hyderabad, Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, has sent me this case study from a report prepared by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) on farmer suicides. It makes for shocking reading, especially to know how the modern Shahukars, no different from the dreaded and despised moneylenders of yesteryears, scoop down to extract their pound of flesh.
I am aghast to read that in this particular case, the MFIs had descended to collect the EMI while the dead body of the farmer lay in the courtyard. This is not an exceptional case. You get to hear similar stories everywhere.
You can read the concerned section on microfinance in the report below. Please overlook the grammatical errors. Probably this has been translated from Telgu:
10.30 PM on November 5th, 2009 was a nightmare to Rajamma and her two sons. Bojanna, a 35-year old farmer, was a resident of Losra village and mandal in Adilabad district was committed suicide by consuming poison.
Bojanna survived with wife and two sons, Elder son Gangaprasad is studying intermediate second year in a Private college in same village and his second son Prashanth is studying 7th class in a Govt.school.
He owned 5 acres which has no irrigation source. Apart from this, Bojanna leased in 7 acres from villager at the cost of Rs.1500 per acre per year. He cultivated Cotton in 11 acres, and Paddy in one acres .After first picking he was completely upset as he could able to reap only 7Q from 11 acres. Previous year he had had harvested only 3Q from 11 acres, which is much worse than present year.
He possesses two milch animals, which is the other source of income, and a pair of draught animals, which were used to plough their own land. Rajamma, the widow of Bojanna, also earn Rs.40-50 per a day by beedis making/rolling.
He had borrowed money from microfinance institutes viz.,Spandana, Basix and Swayamkrushi, and also private money lenders. Now his family has to pay Rs.3.5 lakh to microfinance institutes and money lenders at an interest rate of 24 percent per annum.
These microfinance institutes are very particular in collection. It is inhuman part of one of the microfinance institute that they have collected EMI when Bojanna’s dead body laying in front of his home on day he had committed suicide.
The borrowed amount was invested on Agri-inputs purchase viz., Cotton seed (18 packets @ rs. 750 per packet). Pesticides (4 sprays @ Rs.11000 per spray), Synthetic fertilizers (Rs.10000) and on weeding (Rs.20000). Thus, the total cost of cultivation was Rs.87, 500.
All the inputs purchased on credit from local dealer and as an understanding the harvest has to sell to the “all in one dealer”. From 7Q of cotton he could able repay only Rs.18900. “There is no scope for further harvest” said Rajamma.
Raja Reddy was a member in Rythu Mitra Group. He had no extension contact and did not receive subsidy on any agricultural inputs. All the crop inputs were brought from a private shop on credit at interest rate. He did not receive any training and had no awareness on organic farming. He was a social drinker.
According to his in-law, he committed suicide, because he felt guilty for not repaying the debts. High investment on the crops, house construction, continuous crop failure due to climatic vagaries for the past 3 years were the reasons for his death.
I am aghast to read that in this particular case, the MFIs had descended to collect the EMI while the dead body of the farmer lay in the courtyard. This is not an exceptional case. You get to hear similar stories everywhere.
You can read the concerned section on microfinance in the report below. Please overlook the grammatical errors. Probably this has been translated from Telgu:
10.30 PM on November 5th, 2009 was a nightmare to Rajamma and her two sons. Bojanna, a 35-year old farmer, was a resident of Losra village and mandal in Adilabad district was committed suicide by consuming poison.
Bojanna survived with wife and two sons, Elder son Gangaprasad is studying intermediate second year in a Private college in same village and his second son Prashanth is studying 7th class in a Govt.school.
He owned 5 acres which has no irrigation source. Apart from this, Bojanna leased in 7 acres from villager at the cost of Rs.1500 per acre per year. He cultivated Cotton in 11 acres, and Paddy in one acres .After first picking he was completely upset as he could able to reap only 7Q from 11 acres. Previous year he had had harvested only 3Q from 11 acres, which is much worse than present year.
He possesses two milch animals, which is the other source of income, and a pair of draught animals, which were used to plough their own land. Rajamma, the widow of Bojanna, also earn Rs.40-50 per a day by beedis making/rolling.
He had borrowed money from microfinance institutes viz.,Spandana, Basix and Swayamkrushi, and also private money lenders. Now his family has to pay Rs.3.5 lakh to microfinance institutes and money lenders at an interest rate of 24 percent per annum.
These microfinance institutes are very particular in collection. It is inhuman part of one of the microfinance institute that they have collected EMI when Bojanna’s dead body laying in front of his home on day he had committed suicide.
The borrowed amount was invested on Agri-inputs purchase viz., Cotton seed (18 packets @ rs. 750 per packet). Pesticides (4 sprays @ Rs.11000 per spray), Synthetic fertilizers (Rs.10000) and on weeding (Rs.20000). Thus, the total cost of cultivation was Rs.87, 500.
All the inputs purchased on credit from local dealer and as an understanding the harvest has to sell to the “all in one dealer”. From 7Q of cotton he could able repay only Rs.18900. “There is no scope for further harvest” said Rajamma.
Raja Reddy was a member in Rythu Mitra Group. He had no extension contact and did not receive subsidy on any agricultural inputs. All the crop inputs were brought from a private shop on credit at interest rate. He did not receive any training and had no awareness on organic farming. He was a social drinker.
According to his in-law, he committed suicide, because he felt guilty for not repaying the debts. High investment on the crops, house construction, continuous crop failure due to climatic vagaries for the past 3 years were the reasons for his death.
Microfinance -- The bubble bursts. Time to book the culprits.
I was never in doubt. Microfinance is a loot, and it must stop.
Even the Economic Times in its front page report "Goldrush over for microfinance" (and carried over inside to a full page report Conflict of Interest), Mar 8, 2010, has exposed the scam. Read this blurb:
"A woman who takes a Rs 10,000 loan from a microfinance institution has to pay Rs 225 every week. If she is unable to make this payment or has another emergency in the house, she will take a loan. The existing lender will not give you a fresh loan till the old one is at least 35 weeks old, so she will borrow from another MFI.
That's another Rs 225 every week. Weighed down, she will take a third loan in a matter of months. Now she has to pay Rs 675 every week ! And so, a fourth loan....I feel sorry when I see these women borrowers. They are forever wondering where their next instalment will come from. Some are working as far labour to repay loans. If they are unable to fully repay, they sell cattle, land or jewellery."
Even the Economic Times in its front page report "Goldrush over for microfinance" (and carried over inside to a full page report Conflict of Interest), Mar 8, 2010, has exposed the scam. Read this blurb:
"A woman who takes a Rs 10,000 loan from a microfinance institution has to pay Rs 225 every week. If she is unable to make this payment or has another emergency in the house, she will take a loan. The existing lender will not give you a fresh loan till the old one is at least 35 weeks old, so she will borrow from another MFI.
That's another Rs 225 every week. Weighed down, she will take a third loan in a matter of months. Now she has to pay Rs 675 every week ! And so, a fourth loan....I feel sorry when I see these women borrowers. They are forever wondering where their next instalment will come from. Some are working as far labour to repay loans. If they are unable to fully repay, they sell cattle, land or jewellery."
-- Says Susheela
Resident of Ibrahimpur village, off the Hyderabad-Karimnagar highway in Andhra Pradesh
What Susheela says is the truth, a stark reality. The MFIs are ofcourse in a denial mode, and for obvious reasons. After all, what is stake is a loan book of around Rs 11,700 crore. Who would like to accept that this money has been raised, as Susheela says above, by unfair means. Denials notwithstanding, multiple borrowings, more often to repay the earlier loan, are rising alarmingly.
It is high time the racket is burst. This can only happen if you pick up your pen and write to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Copy your letter to the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. You can get their contact details from their respective websites.
Meanwhile, here is the link to the ET report on microfinance: http://epaper.timesofindia.com/APD26302/PrintArt.asp?SkinFolder=ETD&artType=Article
Does 'zero-tillage' help in carbon sequestration?
Some 25 years back or may be still more, I remember the first time I reported about 'zero tillage' (at that time I worked with the Indian Express). The news report I wrote was based on a study conducted by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, on 'zero-tillage' in maize. The PAU study ofcourse was all ga-ga over the virtues of no-tillage.
I wasn't convinced then, nor am I now. Although the World Bank supported Conservation Agriculture talks profusely about the merits of 'no-tillage', and the subject has assumed importance in the ongoing debate on climate change, I would rather ignore the suggestion than to add onto the existing agrarian crisis. But then, knowing that Indian scientists only replicate what American universities experiment with, I am sure they will try to push 'zero-tillage' to the unsuspecting farmers in the days to come.
However, I always wonder how can scientists talk of 'zero-tillage' in Indian agriculture when nature had bestowed us with the best tiller we know -- the lowly earthworm. Each earthworm in its lifespan upturns some 6 tonnes of soil, and therefore is called nature's tiller. If this wasn't useful, I am sure earthworms would have disappeared from the tropical soils much before chemical fertilisers decimated its numbers.
The Soil Association (in UK) had recently come out with a report, entitled: 'Soil Carbon and Organic Farming', which made the following two points:
Ploughing: A concern that the common use of deep cultivation in organic farming could be a weakness are answered by a number of trials in Europe that show that the depth of cultivation has no effect on the overall soil carbon levels of organic farming. Ploughing is used to incorporate organic matter into the soil; with sufficient inputs, increases in ploughing depth can even increase topsoil depth.
'Min-till’ and ‘no-till’: Reduced soil cultivation is the main non-organic farming solution commonly put forward for raising soil carbon levels, but its benefits have greatly been exaggerated. According to government scientific advice, the soil carbon benefits are minimal in the UK. Reduced tillage is effective in maintaining soil carbon storage in semi-arid regions where carbon is being lost by erosion and by the use of fallow periods, but otherwise there is no clear scientific evidence that it increases carbon levels over the whole soil profile, and certainly not to the extent of organic farming. Moreover, the carbon is then in a relatively unstable form, and any soil carbon gains may be offset by higher soil N20 emissions.
The report says very conclusively that there is no scientific evidence of enhanced carbon levels from 'zero-tillage' or 'no-tillage.' And yet, ICAR scientists (and also from ICRISAT and other international agricultural research centres) are swarming into the villages to draw farmers into practicing 'zero-tillage', and like what they did to establish the gains of Green Revolution technologies, they are hyping the results to show how effective 'no-tillage' is as a Conservation Agriculture technology.
What they are ofcourse not telling is how does (and how much) the promotion of 'no-tillage' helps in the sale of herbicides and some related farm equipments.
Meanwhile, Doug Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in the Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington DC, have come out a two-page fact sheet on Agricultural Practices and Carbon Sequestration (published Oct 1, 2009). They have clearly established that a number of biological and soil-based integrated systems have a greater potential to sequester carbon. I am reproducing below some relevant sections from the fact sheet:
One of agriculture’s major opportunities to help mitigate the effects of climate-warming gases lies in management of soil to increase organic content, thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere. Many scientists are conducting studiesto determine which agricultural practices will in fact sequester carbon. Recent studies, summarized below, demonstrate that a number of biological, soil-based practices employed in integrated systems have great potential to sequester carbon. In contrast, recent studies suggest that no-till, a form of conservation tillage, has environmental benefits such asreducing soil erosion, but may not sequester more carbon than conventional tillage (plowing).
Integrated soil-based practices The most promising systems for carbon sequestration in soil combine crop rotation and low or no inputs of pesticides,herbicides, and industrial fertilizers. Long-term studies done by the Rodale Institute and others suggest that such systems build (not simply conserve) significant quantities of soil organic carbon through a variety of mechanisms such as enhanced abundance of mycorrhizal fungi. Several studies, including some done over long periods of time, have compared carbon accumulation in organic (plowed) and conventional (plowed) systems and demonstrate that organic systems sequester more carbon than conventional chemical-intensive systems.
In a head-to-head comparison between conventional no-till and organic plowed systems, organic plowed systems sequestered more carbon even though the sampling was restricted to shallow soil, where no-till tends to show carbon accumulation.
Although more studies are needed, there are good reasons to believe that organic systems would do atleast as well as conventional systems deeper in the soil. Current organic systems typically employ plowing to control weeds, and conventional plowed systems generally sequester more carbon at greater soil depths than no-till. Systems that use crop rotations and green and animal manure have shown higher biodiversity by foregoing chemical pesticides, supplying more diverse habitats, and reducing nitrogen pollution. Systems that integrate livestock and crops, employ perennial pastures, and adopt many of the practices used in organic production (e.g., long crop rotations, leguminous crops and cover crops, manure produced by livestock as fertilizer) also have shown potential for improved greenhouse gas balance, reduced pollution, and higher profitability.
Further research on these promising approaches will help optimize their benefits and determine their applicability across geographic regions. In summary, available data suggest that organic and near-organic farming systems achieve greater carbon sequestration and other benefits compared with conventional systems. Further work, supported by adequate research funding, is needed to realize the promise of these biologically sophisticated production systems.
Summary of the science The current scientific literature does not support favoring no-till over plowing for carbon sequestration. The emerging consensus from numerous studies and reviews is that under a variety of environmental conditions no-till sequesters nomore carbon than plowing. The apparent advantage for no-till in previous studies of carbon sequestration was an artifact of sampling carbon only near the soil surface.
I wasn't convinced then, nor am I now. Although the World Bank supported Conservation Agriculture talks profusely about the merits of 'no-tillage', and the subject has assumed importance in the ongoing debate on climate change, I would rather ignore the suggestion than to add onto the existing agrarian crisis. But then, knowing that Indian scientists only replicate what American universities experiment with, I am sure they will try to push 'zero-tillage' to the unsuspecting farmers in the days to come.
However, I always wonder how can scientists talk of 'zero-tillage' in Indian agriculture when nature had bestowed us with the best tiller we know -- the lowly earthworm. Each earthworm in its lifespan upturns some 6 tonnes of soil, and therefore is called nature's tiller. If this wasn't useful, I am sure earthworms would have disappeared from the tropical soils much before chemical fertilisers decimated its numbers.
The Soil Association (in UK) had recently come out with a report, entitled: 'Soil Carbon and Organic Farming', which made the following two points:
Ploughing: A concern that the common use of deep cultivation in organic farming could be a weakness are answered by a number of trials in Europe that show that the depth of cultivation has no effect on the overall soil carbon levels of organic farming. Ploughing is used to incorporate organic matter into the soil; with sufficient inputs, increases in ploughing depth can even increase topsoil depth.
'Min-till’ and ‘no-till’: Reduced soil cultivation is the main non-organic farming solution commonly put forward for raising soil carbon levels, but its benefits have greatly been exaggerated. According to government scientific advice, the soil carbon benefits are minimal in the UK. Reduced tillage is effective in maintaining soil carbon storage in semi-arid regions where carbon is being lost by erosion and by the use of fallow periods, but otherwise there is no clear scientific evidence that it increases carbon levels over the whole soil profile, and certainly not to the extent of organic farming. Moreover, the carbon is then in a relatively unstable form, and any soil carbon gains may be offset by higher soil N20 emissions.
The report says very conclusively that there is no scientific evidence of enhanced carbon levels from 'zero-tillage' or 'no-tillage.' And yet, ICAR scientists (and also from ICRISAT and other international agricultural research centres) are swarming into the villages to draw farmers into practicing 'zero-tillage', and like what they did to establish the gains of Green Revolution technologies, they are hyping the results to show how effective 'no-tillage' is as a Conservation Agriculture technology.
What they are ofcourse not telling is how does (and how much) the promotion of 'no-tillage' helps in the sale of herbicides and some related farm equipments.
Meanwhile, Doug Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in the Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington DC, have come out a two-page fact sheet on Agricultural Practices and Carbon Sequestration (published Oct 1, 2009). They have clearly established that a number of biological and soil-based integrated systems have a greater potential to sequester carbon. I am reproducing below some relevant sections from the fact sheet:
One of agriculture’s major opportunities to help mitigate the effects of climate-warming gases lies in management of soil to increase organic content, thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere. Many scientists are conducting studiesto determine which agricultural practices will in fact sequester carbon. Recent studies, summarized below, demonstrate that a number of biological, soil-based practices employed in integrated systems have great potential to sequester carbon. In contrast, recent studies suggest that no-till, a form of conservation tillage, has environmental benefits such asreducing soil erosion, but may not sequester more carbon than conventional tillage (plowing).
Integrated soil-based practices The most promising systems for carbon sequestration in soil combine crop rotation and low or no inputs of pesticides,herbicides, and industrial fertilizers. Long-term studies done by the Rodale Institute and others suggest that such systems build (not simply conserve) significant quantities of soil organic carbon through a variety of mechanisms such as enhanced abundance of mycorrhizal fungi. Several studies, including some done over long periods of time, have compared carbon accumulation in organic (plowed) and conventional (plowed) systems and demonstrate that organic systems sequester more carbon than conventional chemical-intensive systems.
In a head-to-head comparison between conventional no-till and organic plowed systems, organic plowed systems sequestered more carbon even though the sampling was restricted to shallow soil, where no-till tends to show carbon accumulation.
Although more studies are needed, there are good reasons to believe that organic systems would do atleast as well as conventional systems deeper in the soil. Current organic systems typically employ plowing to control weeds, and conventional plowed systems generally sequester more carbon at greater soil depths than no-till. Systems that use crop rotations and green and animal manure have shown higher biodiversity by foregoing chemical pesticides, supplying more diverse habitats, and reducing nitrogen pollution. Systems that integrate livestock and crops, employ perennial pastures, and adopt many of the practices used in organic production (e.g., long crop rotations, leguminous crops and cover crops, manure produced by livestock as fertilizer) also have shown potential for improved greenhouse gas balance, reduced pollution, and higher profitability.
Further research on these promising approaches will help optimize their benefits and determine their applicability across geographic regions. In summary, available data suggest that organic and near-organic farming systems achieve greater carbon sequestration and other benefits compared with conventional systems. Further work, supported by adequate research funding, is needed to realize the promise of these biologically sophisticated production systems.
Summary of the science The current scientific literature does not support favoring no-till over plowing for carbon sequestration. The emerging consensus from numerous studies and reviews is that under a variety of environmental conditions no-till sequesters nomore carbon than plowing. The apparent advantage for no-till in previous studies of carbon sequestration was an artifact of sampling carbon only near the soil surface.
By accepting Bt cotton's susceptibility to pests, Monsanto befools India.
This was surely an interesting week. There was hardly a day when we didn't see remarkable efforts -- across the spectrum -- to take the people for a simple ride. This makes me wonder why have we become so dumb/stupid that we can't even see through the real design.
As a nation, it isn't difficult to befool Indians. We are often ditched by the godmen, by the financial companies, by politicians, by the academicians, by the economists, by agricultural scientists, by the media, and now by the corporate world. I think there is some problem with our genetic makeup. Probably we have a gene for stupidity and it is more often than not in a dominant position.
The week began with the Delhi police finally nabbing a tainted godman who allegedly ran a sex racket. Nothing surprising you will say, it has been happening in the past. Yet millions follow such godmen. To befool the people, all you need to do is to convey through your cronies the simple message that you are capabale of conducting miracles. The business of godmen thrives on miracles.
No sooner, the godman went into the inner pages of the daily newspapers, we had the Prime Minister appearing on the front page. Nothing unusual again. But this time he came to defend his government on the unprecedented price rise. In simple words, he was trying to find an excuse for his own failure in curbing the prices. Admitting the government's failure in controlling food prices, and promising to do something urgently (which he has been saying for over a year now), he actually listed three reasons -- global recession, drought in 2009 and the rise in international commodity prices -- and sought to give an impression that checking them was beyond the control of the government.
Prime Minister is completely wrong. Yet he knows that he can take the country for a ride. And he has done it.
The week also saw the Indian Express getting into an active mode to promote the hazardous GM technology. The newspaper, which claims to usher in journalism of courage, has surely shown some courage in turning its pages into a pamphlet for the GM industry. Ironically, this happens in a week when Parliament began discussing the recent dirty phenomenon of 'paid news'. I don't know whether there is a connection here, but the Indian Express probably thinks its readers are all fools.
And finally, the weekend brought in the biggest blockbuster. We have the crop biotech giant -- Monsanto -- telling us that its own genetically modified cotton, the single-gene Bollgard, has become resistant to the dreaded cotton pest Pink Bollworm. News reports somehow give an impression that Monsanto has been at pains to accept its failure. Most of the media reports quotes activists saying this had to happen sooner than later.
My phone has not stopped ringing since morning. People are calling to congratulate me. I have got tired of telling them to see through the design. Monsanto is not that foolish. Why should they be accepting something that has not been scientifically validated? No where in the world have they allowed research to be conducted on pest resistance from Bt cotton, why should they openly acknowledge that in India, and that too without any tests?
Knowing that we are a nation of fools, they have actually worked out a remarkable marketing strategy. By acknowledging that Bt cotton has outlived its utility, they have sent the right signal to those who needed it. Monsanto has advised farmers to go for its second generation Bt cotton. Farmers would now be spurning Bt cotton, and going in for their latest GM cotton variety, which carries two genes, and is therefore more potent against Pink Bollworm. This variety is popularly called Bollgard-II.
Any size of media campaigns wouldn't have yielded them the desired results. Instead of spending millions on advertisements, Monsanto has done it through smart media management. You will now see farmers making a beeline for Bollgard-II. Monsanto will now see its cash registers ringing.
Don't you think we live in a fool's paradise?
As a nation, it isn't difficult to befool Indians. We are often ditched by the godmen, by the financial companies, by politicians, by the academicians, by the economists, by agricultural scientists, by the media, and now by the corporate world. I think there is some problem with our genetic makeup. Probably we have a gene for stupidity and it is more often than not in a dominant position.
The week began with the Delhi police finally nabbing a tainted godman who allegedly ran a sex racket. Nothing surprising you will say, it has been happening in the past. Yet millions follow such godmen. To befool the people, all you need to do is to convey through your cronies the simple message that you are capabale of conducting miracles. The business of godmen thrives on miracles.
No sooner, the godman went into the inner pages of the daily newspapers, we had the Prime Minister appearing on the front page. Nothing unusual again. But this time he came to defend his government on the unprecedented price rise. In simple words, he was trying to find an excuse for his own failure in curbing the prices. Admitting the government's failure in controlling food prices, and promising to do something urgently (which he has been saying for over a year now), he actually listed three reasons -- global recession, drought in 2009 and the rise in international commodity prices -- and sought to give an impression that checking them was beyond the control of the government.
Prime Minister is completely wrong. Yet he knows that he can take the country for a ride. And he has done it.
The week also saw the Indian Express getting into an active mode to promote the hazardous GM technology. The newspaper, which claims to usher in journalism of courage, has surely shown some courage in turning its pages into a pamphlet for the GM industry. Ironically, this happens in a week when Parliament began discussing the recent dirty phenomenon of 'paid news'. I don't know whether there is a connection here, but the Indian Express probably thinks its readers are all fools.
And finally, the weekend brought in the biggest blockbuster. We have the crop biotech giant -- Monsanto -- telling us that its own genetically modified cotton, the single-gene Bollgard, has become resistant to the dreaded cotton pest Pink Bollworm. News reports somehow give an impression that Monsanto has been at pains to accept its failure. Most of the media reports quotes activists saying this had to happen sooner than later.
My phone has not stopped ringing since morning. People are calling to congratulate me. I have got tired of telling them to see through the design. Monsanto is not that foolish. Why should they be accepting something that has not been scientifically validated? No where in the world have they allowed research to be conducted on pest resistance from Bt cotton, why should they openly acknowledge that in India, and that too without any tests?
Knowing that we are a nation of fools, they have actually worked out a remarkable marketing strategy. By acknowledging that Bt cotton has outlived its utility, they have sent the right signal to those who needed it. Monsanto has advised farmers to go for its second generation Bt cotton. Farmers would now be spurning Bt cotton, and going in for their latest GM cotton variety, which carries two genes, and is therefore more potent against Pink Bollworm. This variety is popularly called Bollgard-II.
Any size of media campaigns wouldn't have yielded them the desired results. Instead of spending millions on advertisements, Monsanto has done it through smart media management. You will now see farmers making a beeline for Bollgard-II. Monsanto will now see its cash registers ringing.
Don't you think we live in a fool's paradise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)