Here is a farmer for whom every labourer wants to work. Here is a farmer who has not only provided dignity to labour, literally and metamorphically, but also set a trend that may not be that easy to follow. It takes a lot of courage, both morally and financially, to emulate what this farmer from Daroli village in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra (part of the suicide belt of Vidharbha) has done.
Meet Subhash Sharma, an organic farmer. What makes him a stalwart among his fellow colleagues is the exemplary manner in which he treats his workers. It is not only a lesson for fellow farmers but also for numerous other organisations, private and government institutions, and corporate house who not only ill-treat labourers but have invariably deprived them of their legitimate due.
Well, when was the last time you heard farm labourers being given an annual bonus and leave travel allowance? Now don't be startled, Subhash Sharma provides an annual bonus to his team of farm workers -- 16 men and 35 women -- who labour on his farm. They get something like Rs 4.5 lakh every year as bonus, which means roughly Rs 9,000 per person.
Like the leave travel facility that some autonomous institutions and corporate houses provide to their permanent employees, Subhash Sharma also ensures that his workers travel to one part of the country or other once in a year. Each worker is also entitled to 50 holidays in a year, something that every daily wage worker would feel envious of. This news comes at a time when there is hardly a day when we don't hear of workers being inhumanly treated, and being underpaid.
I think Subhash Sharma's greatest contribution is that he recognises that every worker has a right to life and therefore deserve life's bounties to which we all crave (and fight) for. At the same time, Sharma has risen above the need to accumulate wealth at every cost, and is willing to share his profits (from organic and natural farming practices) with fellow workers. Even India's top billionaires -- Mukesh Ambani, Ratan Tata and the Real Estate giants DLF and the likes -- have never treated the casual labour employed in their projects with respect.
It is not the money which makes the difference, it is the attitude. Somehow we all believe (let us accept it) in getting physical labour dirt cheap. We crib endlessly whenever we find the labourers asking for a little higher daily wage.
Subhash Sharma is not a big landlord. He owns 16 acres of farm land. And like most of the farmers in the country, he too was in the thick of the vicious cycle of external inputs and perpetual indebtedness. "Between 1988 and 1994, it was the worst period for me," he recalls. It was then that he resolved to emerge out of the chakravyuah and throw away the yolk of mounting indebtedness. "I decided to abandon the NPK model of farming, and shift the organic cultivation, and the turnaround has led me to a new beginning."
"I now walk with freedom and with my head held high," he had once told me.
Subhash Sharma says that the only way to pull out farmers from the vicious cycle of indebtedness is to push them out of the Green Revolution model of farming. There is a fundamental flaw in the Green Revolution farming system. It can never provide money in the hands of farmers. It is during the workshops that he is conducting in several parts of the country, recently concluding a number of workshops for farmers in some nine districts of Punjab, that he teaches them by practical training on how to shift to natural farming practices and thereby emerge out of indebtedness.
From 16 acres of land, if Subhash Sharma can demonstrate an economically viable model, with inclusive social equity and justice, I think the message is very powerful and strong. Here lies the answer to agricultural growth and also to country's food security. Subhash Sharma does not let his workers be dependent upon the corrupt NREGA programmes (promising 100-days assured employment in a year), nor does his farm workers wait endlessly for the grain rations coming from the bogus Public Distribution System.
Subhash Sharma has even built up a corpus, a Social Security Fund, of approximately Rs 15 lakh for meeting any eventuality that the workers might encounter. Some death in their family or the marriage of the girl child does bring additional burden, and some relief comes from the Social Security Fund. He also shares the cost of education of their children and other health expenses.
Transforming Agricultural Research for future needs
The first Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD), organised by the Global Forum on Agricultural Research, aimed at drawing up an action plan and strategy for improving agricultural research in order to make maximum impact on development, especially of the poor, concluded at Montpellier in France on Mar 31.
This conference was the brain child of G-8 countries. The research mandate has now been adopted by the G-20 countries, especially -- Brazil, India and China -- which have taken an aggressive lead in promoting an industrial farm research agenda. As SciDev.Net reports: "Millions of people across the developing world are alive today because of advances that have conquered deadly pathogens, kept pests at bay, boosted yields, and squeezed more food out of less land and water.
"That’s the good news. Yet despite tremendous innovations and progress in agricultural research over the past half century, more than one billion people remain undernourished in a modern world because the benefits have been spread unevenly, often failing to reach the billion poor people who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.
So while the world has rightly learned to look to science for answers, the solutions we have in hand today are taking far too long to help poor farmers. And those most in need of help have little opportunity to direct research agendas."
Laudable words indeed.
But I fail to understand how the international agricultural research community hopes to make agriculture sustainable and economically viable with the same destructive American model of farming, which has outlived its utility? How long will the scientific community use hunger and poverty to exacerbate the crisis in farming? If the model that GFAR supports is so good, I want to know why are the farming communities all over the world quitting agriculture? Why has agriculture become environmentally devastating? Why does global agriculture lead to more global warming?
Why is global agriculture leading to destruction of habitats, loss of biodiversity and soil erosion? Why has the groundwater become highly contaminated from leaching of chemical fertilisers? Why is it forcing farmers to commit suicide?
It doesn't end here. Much of the world's health problems are also because of the kind of food that is being produced and eaten.
It is high time the world took a fresh look at transforming agricultural research for development. Let us not feel ashamed in accepting where we have gone wrong, and let us make a concerted effort to restore the pride in farming.
Dependence syndrome
By Devinder Sharma
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61614/dependence-syndrome.html
If the American model of research is so good, then why should our farmers be in distress and agriculture virtually ruined?
Some years back, I was invited to a meeting of the civil society leaders to come out with ways in which the British government could help the developing countries in promoting sustainable agriculture. This meeting was called by the then UK Secretary of State for International Development Hilary Benn, and had some 15 people sitting around the table.
After a lot of ideas were put on the table by the British NGOs on how the British DFID could provide consultancies and projects on sustainable agriculture in India (likewise in other developing countries), Hilary Benn asked for my suggestions.
I said: “British agriculture in my opinion is among the most environmentally devastated farming systems anywhere in the world. I don't know how your universities and private institutions are therefore qualified to teach sustainable farming to Indian farmers and NGOs.” I argued that if the British universities, who have a degree course in sustainable development, were so good, at least they could have succeeded in resurrecting the island’s agriculture.
Benn was visibly taken aback, and asked me to explain then how can the British DFIF be of help. “British government instead should invite farmers from India who have demonstrated excellence in sustainable farming systems, and try to learn from them,” I replied. Needless to say, I never heard again on the subject.
Damage done
Before we start blowing the trumpet on Kapil Sibal’s initiative to allow the foreign universities to open up campuses within the country, I want to draw your attention to the damage done by the imported agricultural education and research system. As we know, the first agricultural university under the imported ‘land grant’ system of education from America was set up at Pantnagar, now in Uttarakhand. Since then more than 50 agricultural universities have come up.
Nothing better illustrates the change in mindset than what has been achieved 50 years later through agricultural research and education. The agricultural research and education system was basically tailored to what America does, not what we do in India. We are told that our agriculture is sub-standard, backward, and inefficient.
This is what we are taught in our agricultural universities, all programmed after the US farm curriculum. If you really want to improve Indian agriculture you have to follow the American model of agriculture. We have learnt it the hard way and no wonder today we are faced with one of the biggest and worst crisis in agriculture.
There would be many who would think that the American agricultural research and education system has done a lot for India. After all, the Green Revolution happened and it has turned the country self-sufficient. While the jury is still out on how successful Green Revolution was, the fact remains that the prevailing farm crisis is also the outcome of the same research and education system.
Whether we accept or not, all that was taught as part of the education system that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) brought into India has actually resulted in an unprecedented blood-bath on the farm. We cannot say that agricultural research and education being conducted in India at present is not in any way responsible for the terrible agrarian crisis that the country is passing through. It is, and let us accept that.
Why is it that in a country, which has the second largest public sector infrastructure in agriculture research in the world, farmers should be dying or wanting to quit agriculture? If the American model of agriculture research and education is so good then why should farmers be in distress and agriculture virtually ruined?
Whether it is agriculture, medical sciences, technology, or management, we are taught that everything we have got is sub-standard, backward and inefficient. We are told there is no escape but to follow the western model of development, including in management.
Our Indian Institute for Management (IIMs) and the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are no better. They use the public money to prepare students for the private sector. I often think that if IIM graduates have to join the corporate world only then why can't the corporate world finance these institutions? Why should tax payers’ money be used to fund these institutions?
Unwanted technologies
There is a need for a historic correction here. The agricultural universities as well as the 100-odd national centres of research need to be redesigned to make them more meaningful and appropriate for the domestic farmers, to improve upon the existing sustainable technologies rather than importing risky and unwanted technologies from abroad.
Instead of spending bulk of the research funding on risky GM crops, why can't the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) launch a country wide programme on adaptive research and development on the 4,000 traditional technologies that it has documented?
Why can’t agricultural research curriculum be so designed that it helps raise farm incomes, lead to long-term sustainability, produce safe food without any pesticides and fertilisers, and does not add onto global warming? Why can’t our farm research ensure that no farmer ever commits suicide? We can do that, provided we get out of our obsession with everything alien.
Source: Deccan Herald, April 2, 2010
This conference was the brain child of G-8 countries. The research mandate has now been adopted by the G-20 countries, especially -- Brazil, India and China -- which have taken an aggressive lead in promoting an industrial farm research agenda. As SciDev.Net reports: "Millions of people across the developing world are alive today because of advances that have conquered deadly pathogens, kept pests at bay, boosted yields, and squeezed more food out of less land and water.
"That’s the good news. Yet despite tremendous innovations and progress in agricultural research over the past half century, more than one billion people remain undernourished in a modern world because the benefits have been spread unevenly, often failing to reach the billion poor people who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.
So while the world has rightly learned to look to science for answers, the solutions we have in hand today are taking far too long to help poor farmers. And those most in need of help have little opportunity to direct research agendas."
Laudable words indeed.
But I fail to understand how the international agricultural research community hopes to make agriculture sustainable and economically viable with the same destructive American model of farming, which has outlived its utility? How long will the scientific community use hunger and poverty to exacerbate the crisis in farming? If the model that GFAR supports is so good, I want to know why are the farming communities all over the world quitting agriculture? Why has agriculture become environmentally devastating? Why does global agriculture lead to more global warming?
Why is global agriculture leading to destruction of habitats, loss of biodiversity and soil erosion? Why has the groundwater become highly contaminated from leaching of chemical fertilisers? Why is it forcing farmers to commit suicide?
It doesn't end here. Much of the world's health problems are also because of the kind of food that is being produced and eaten.
It is high time the world took a fresh look at transforming agricultural research for development. Let us not feel ashamed in accepting where we have gone wrong, and let us make a concerted effort to restore the pride in farming.
Dependence syndrome
By Devinder Sharma
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61614/dependence-syndrome.html
If the American model of research is so good, then why should our farmers be in distress and agriculture virtually ruined?
Some years back, I was invited to a meeting of the civil society leaders to come out with ways in which the British government could help the developing countries in promoting sustainable agriculture. This meeting was called by the then UK Secretary of State for International Development Hilary Benn, and had some 15 people sitting around the table.
After a lot of ideas were put on the table by the British NGOs on how the British DFID could provide consultancies and projects on sustainable agriculture in India (likewise in other developing countries), Hilary Benn asked for my suggestions.
I said: “British agriculture in my opinion is among the most environmentally devastated farming systems anywhere in the world. I don't know how your universities and private institutions are therefore qualified to teach sustainable farming to Indian farmers and NGOs.” I argued that if the British universities, who have a degree course in sustainable development, were so good, at least they could have succeeded in resurrecting the island’s agriculture.
Benn was visibly taken aback, and asked me to explain then how can the British DFIF be of help. “British government instead should invite farmers from India who have demonstrated excellence in sustainable farming systems, and try to learn from them,” I replied. Needless to say, I never heard again on the subject.
Damage done
Before we start blowing the trumpet on Kapil Sibal’s initiative to allow the foreign universities to open up campuses within the country, I want to draw your attention to the damage done by the imported agricultural education and research system. As we know, the first agricultural university under the imported ‘land grant’ system of education from America was set up at Pantnagar, now in Uttarakhand. Since then more than 50 agricultural universities have come up.
Nothing better illustrates the change in mindset than what has been achieved 50 years later through agricultural research and education. The agricultural research and education system was basically tailored to what America does, not what we do in India. We are told that our agriculture is sub-standard, backward, and inefficient.
This is what we are taught in our agricultural universities, all programmed after the US farm curriculum. If you really want to improve Indian agriculture you have to follow the American model of agriculture. We have learnt it the hard way and no wonder today we are faced with one of the biggest and worst crisis in agriculture.
There would be many who would think that the American agricultural research and education system has done a lot for India. After all, the Green Revolution happened and it has turned the country self-sufficient. While the jury is still out on how successful Green Revolution was, the fact remains that the prevailing farm crisis is also the outcome of the same research and education system.
Whether we accept or not, all that was taught as part of the education system that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) brought into India has actually resulted in an unprecedented blood-bath on the farm. We cannot say that agricultural research and education being conducted in India at present is not in any way responsible for the terrible agrarian crisis that the country is passing through. It is, and let us accept that.
Why is it that in a country, which has the second largest public sector infrastructure in agriculture research in the world, farmers should be dying or wanting to quit agriculture? If the American model of agriculture research and education is so good then why should farmers be in distress and agriculture virtually ruined?
Whether it is agriculture, medical sciences, technology, or management, we are taught that everything we have got is sub-standard, backward and inefficient. We are told there is no escape but to follow the western model of development, including in management.
Our Indian Institute for Management (IIMs) and the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are no better. They use the public money to prepare students for the private sector. I often think that if IIM graduates have to join the corporate world only then why can't the corporate world finance these institutions? Why should tax payers’ money be used to fund these institutions?
Unwanted technologies
There is a need for a historic correction here. The agricultural universities as well as the 100-odd national centres of research need to be redesigned to make them more meaningful and appropriate for the domestic farmers, to improve upon the existing sustainable technologies rather than importing risky and unwanted technologies from abroad.
Instead of spending bulk of the research funding on risky GM crops, why can't the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) launch a country wide programme on adaptive research and development on the 4,000 traditional technologies that it has documented?
Why can’t agricultural research curriculum be so designed that it helps raise farm incomes, lead to long-term sustainability, produce safe food without any pesticides and fertilisers, and does not add onto global warming? Why can’t our farm research ensure that no farmer ever commits suicide? We can do that, provided we get out of our obsession with everything alien.
Source: Deccan Herald, April 2, 2010
Urine can replace chemical fertiliser. It is happening in Delhi outskirts
When I was a student at Palampur in Himachal Pradesh, and that was more than 30 years ago, I vividly recall the day I was walking with my agronomy professor. We passed a student who was urinating -- like a typical Indian, standing by the roadside in the comfort of a bush -- and the professor exclaimed: "He is providing nitrogen for the plant."
We laughed, and walked by. I must accept that it didn't strike me that in reality urine does provide the much needed nitrogen.
More recently, I was attending a conference at the swanky Indian Institute of Management (IIM) campus in Bangalore. I went to the loo, and was surprised to read a small message above the toilet seat, saying something like: 'This toilet does not flush. Please do not pour water after you have used it'. I thought this must be some latest sophisticated technology that only IIM could afford (with all its government subsidies). I did think of checking it out with IIM fellows later but the moment I was back in the conference hall it was all but forgotten.
Like most of us, I do talk but rarely believe in following the traditional wisdom. We are so indoctrined by the craze for new technological gadgets that somehow we have been made to believe that only new technological tools (coming mostly from the west) will solve all our problems. So just sit back, and wait.
We all laugh whenever there is a reference to the urine therapy that former Prime Minister Morarji Desai used to subscribe to. It doesn't suit our lifestyle, nor our mindset which have been programmed to accept only tasty processed (and unhealthy) products. So for a moment I was taken back when I read in Business Standard the other day that urine is replacing urea fertiliser in the outskirts of Delhi.
My thoughts immediately returned to what my professor had said years back.
Writing in Business Standard (Mar 29, 2010), Kalpana Jain says: "On the outskirts of Delhi, a little-known non-government organisation, Fountain for Development Research and Action, is laying the ground for the first urine bank. It has diverted urine from two schools, where it has installed odour-free urinals, into a tank and transferred the run-off to a village nearby for use as fertiliser."
I think there can be nothing more exciting than this news. Especially for a country like India, which many believe is an open urinal, imagine if we could collect all the urine that continues to flow endlessly. With 1.1 billion people, India could literally clean-up its surroundings, and provide a clean odourless environment. Imagine walking into a building and searching for a washroom. Normally you don't have to look for the signs pointing you to the washroom, the stink coming from one corner tells you where the toilet is.
To rephrase what Kalpana Jain says it takes the stink out of urine, literally and metaphorically.
Anyway, the urine therapy can be a boon to agriculture. Chemical fertilisers have already played havoc with the soil health, polluted the groundwater, lakes and rivers and also drained the exchequer as well as emptied the farmers pockets. There is a desperate need to replace urea -- the common nitrogen fertiliser -- and I can see the potential in human urine. I would look forward to the day when Chambal fertilisers, National Fertiliser Ltd (NFL) and our fertiliser cooperatives -- IFFCO and KRIBHCO -- start investing on urine collection and evolve a supply chain linking it to the farms.
Interesting to hear that Germany is already making money from selling urine. “Communities in Germany are exporting urine to neighbouring countries that are using it on their farms, says Chariar, explaining how it could be diverted for use as a nutrient by a simple plumbing." Dr V M Chariar is an assistant professor at the IIT Delhi who has developed a simple technology, called Zerodor, that fits into the waste coupler in the pan and diverts the urine through a drain where it is collected and harvested. The idea is not to allow it to mix with water at any stage.
IIT Delhi uses the Zerodor technology. In other words, what I saw at IIM Bangalore was probably Zerodor technology.
India can surely pip Germany in the race to make economic gains from collecting and selling urine. More than exporting urine to neighbouring countries (I am sure South Asia will never have any shortage!), I see its huge potential in restoring soil fertility within the country. If you think urine will stink, think again. Dr Chariar tells us that urine smells only when mixed with water.
According to the report, Delhi government too uses the technology in 200 of its public urinals. In the forthcoming Commonwealth Games, the Delhi government is planning to install 1000 such urinals. I only hope that the Delhi government does not drain the urine collected during the games into the Yamuna river, but provides it to fertilise the farms in the outskirts of the National Capital Region (NCR).
We can't wait anymore. India should immediately go in for replacing the toilet seats throughout the country (including, at the household level) with zerodor technology. Every time you go to the loo, for hardly 250 ml of urine that you spill, you flush out almost 12 litres of water. This criminal wastage of water must stop, and nothing better to bring in a technology that does not require water in urinals. No one will complain.
You can read Kalpana Jain's full report, entitled "Urine-processing technologies yield rich cash flow potential" at: http://epaper.business-standard.com/bsepaper/svww_zoomart.php?
We laughed, and walked by. I must accept that it didn't strike me that in reality urine does provide the much needed nitrogen.
More recently, I was attending a conference at the swanky Indian Institute of Management (IIM) campus in Bangalore. I went to the loo, and was surprised to read a small message above the toilet seat, saying something like: 'This toilet does not flush. Please do not pour water after you have used it'. I thought this must be some latest sophisticated technology that only IIM could afford (with all its government subsidies). I did think of checking it out with IIM fellows later but the moment I was back in the conference hall it was all but forgotten.
Not a pleasant sight. But turning urine into an economic activity will probably put a stop to this.
Like most of us, I do talk but rarely believe in following the traditional wisdom. We are so indoctrined by the craze for new technological gadgets that somehow we have been made to believe that only new technological tools (coming mostly from the west) will solve all our problems. So just sit back, and wait.
We all laugh whenever there is a reference to the urine therapy that former Prime Minister Morarji Desai used to subscribe to. It doesn't suit our lifestyle, nor our mindset which have been programmed to accept only tasty processed (and unhealthy) products. So for a moment I was taken back when I read in Business Standard the other day that urine is replacing urea fertiliser in the outskirts of Delhi.
My thoughts immediately returned to what my professor had said years back.
Writing in Business Standard (Mar 29, 2010), Kalpana Jain says: "On the outskirts of Delhi, a little-known non-government organisation, Fountain for Development Research and Action, is laying the ground for the first urine bank. It has diverted urine from two schools, where it has installed odour-free urinals, into a tank and transferred the run-off to a village nearby for use as fertiliser."
I think there can be nothing more exciting than this news. Especially for a country like India, which many believe is an open urinal, imagine if we could collect all the urine that continues to flow endlessly. With 1.1 billion people, India could literally clean-up its surroundings, and provide a clean odourless environment. Imagine walking into a building and searching for a washroom. Normally you don't have to look for the signs pointing you to the washroom, the stink coming from one corner tells you where the toilet is.
To rephrase what Kalpana Jain says it takes the stink out of urine, literally and metaphorically.
Anyway, the urine therapy can be a boon to agriculture. Chemical fertilisers have already played havoc with the soil health, polluted the groundwater, lakes and rivers and also drained the exchequer as well as emptied the farmers pockets. There is a desperate need to replace urea -- the common nitrogen fertiliser -- and I can see the potential in human urine. I would look forward to the day when Chambal fertilisers, National Fertiliser Ltd (NFL) and our fertiliser cooperatives -- IFFCO and KRIBHCO -- start investing on urine collection and evolve a supply chain linking it to the farms.
Interesting to hear that Germany is already making money from selling urine. “Communities in Germany are exporting urine to neighbouring countries that are using it on their farms, says Chariar, explaining how it could be diverted for use as a nutrient by a simple plumbing." Dr V M Chariar is an assistant professor at the IIT Delhi who has developed a simple technology, called Zerodor, that fits into the waste coupler in the pan and diverts the urine through a drain where it is collected and harvested. The idea is not to allow it to mix with water at any stage.
IIT Delhi uses the Zerodor technology. In other words, what I saw at IIM Bangalore was probably Zerodor technology.
India can surely pip Germany in the race to make economic gains from collecting and selling urine. More than exporting urine to neighbouring countries (I am sure South Asia will never have any shortage!), I see its huge potential in restoring soil fertility within the country. If you think urine will stink, think again. Dr Chariar tells us that urine smells only when mixed with water.
According to the report, Delhi government too uses the technology in 200 of its public urinals. In the forthcoming Commonwealth Games, the Delhi government is planning to install 1000 such urinals. I only hope that the Delhi government does not drain the urine collected during the games into the Yamuna river, but provides it to fertilise the farms in the outskirts of the National Capital Region (NCR).
We can't wait anymore. India should immediately go in for replacing the toilet seats throughout the country (including, at the household level) with zerodor technology. Every time you go to the loo, for hardly 250 ml of urine that you spill, you flush out almost 12 litres of water. This criminal wastage of water must stop, and nothing better to bring in a technology that does not require water in urinals. No one will complain.
You can read Kalpana Jain's full report, entitled "Urine-processing technologies yield rich cash flow potential" at: http://epaper.business-standard.com/bsepaper/svww_zoomart.php?
How the food prices are manipulated
You have been witness to a stupendous rise in food prices. Some say that the price rise has broken a 10-year record. You have also heard the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Food Minister and the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission repeatedly telling the nation that prices will come down in 2 to 3 months time. You have probably even lost count of how many times they said so.
You have also been following the daily reports about price rise in the newspapers. Popular TV channels have been holding special programmes on the food spiral. More often than not you have come across party spokespersons fighting it out in the TV studios. But none of the TV channels and the print media took you to where the real action is.
I am talking about a visit to the wholesale market.
I was therefore delighted to read a newsreport by two young and enterprising reporters Vikas Kumar and Abhishek Kumar of The Sunday Indian magazine who actually took the trouble of taking a walk in the Azadpur mandi. This is what they say: "A walk in Azadpur Mandi in Delhi, one of the biggest wholesale markets of fruits and vegetables, is not the most enchanting experience but it opens one’s eyes. Here one comes face to face with reality, the murky world of arhatias, commission agents and traders who are ready to take hapless farmers for a ride. No market theory can explain this phenomenon."
So when Montek Singh Ahluwalia says that price rise has benefitted the farmer, you know who is he trying to cover up. If only the government had cracked down to break the nexus at the country's big wholesale markets, prices would have come tumbling down.
The reporters learnt firsthand what I have been saying for long. The price rise had nothing to do with the supply demand constraint. It was simply the outcome of price manipulation. This is what The Sunday Indian digs out: "There are approximately 5,000 licensed commission agents in Delhi which include 1000 big commission agents. Having established monopoly in the market, they have created an elaborate nexus. They have employed vegetable retailers at monthly salaries and supply vegetables in the residential areas."
“They are supposed to deal with wholesale trade only but the reality is that some of them also control the retail trade. I cannot take action against them as they are very dangerous. One more question that needs to be investigated properly is that when prices of food products are rising steeply, how revenues of most mandis are falling,” says another top official of a mandi on the condition of anonymity. The number of fake commission agents is huge," the news report quoted an official on assurance of anonymity.
In addition to the wholesale-retail nexus, I have also been calling for a strict action against the Big Retail. They came to India on the assurance that they will buy directly from the farmers and by squeezing out the middlemen, will sell cheaper to the consumers. Nothing like this happened. In reality, the Big Retail behaved like the small hawkers and exploited the situation to the hilt. They made Big Money.
"Even Mother Dairy and Safal outlets are busy making money by selling vegetables and fruits at even higher prices. Mother Dairy, a wholly owned company of the National Dairy Development Board, had been established to support farmers by purchasing directly from farms and supplying to consumers without the added expense of middlemen. However, we found that prices at various Safal outlets in the city were higher than those at local retailers’. The obvious question arises that if Mother Dairy is not benefiting either farmers or consumers, then why is the government doling out subsidies to the entity?"
But then, the problem is that the government is hand-in-glove with the retail trade. Even the small hawkers -- the rehriwallas -- have formed local unions, and if their leaders have to be believed these unions also fund the political parties.
You can read the complete report entitled "The true story of rising prices" published in The Sunday Indian (April 4, 2010) at:
http://thesundayindian.com/04042010/storyd.asp?sid=8737&pageno=1
This is merely a tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more, I suggest you take a walk or a series of walks through the Azadpur and Okhla mandis in Delhi. Be a citizen journalist and investigate for yourself. If your report is not picked up by TV channels, you can send it to Ground Reality.
And now a simple riddle. Have you ever thought why the prices of eggs, whether you buy in Delhi or Mumbai or Bangalore or in Ludhiana, are almost the same? How come the poultry hens cater to the demand of the city -- and I am sure the city varies in numbers -- in a manner that the prices should remain the same? Shouldn't they vary depending upon what the economists call as the demand and supply factor? And also because of the transportation cost, shouldn't the price of eggs differ from place to place?
You have also been following the daily reports about price rise in the newspapers. Popular TV channels have been holding special programmes on the food spiral. More often than not you have come across party spokespersons fighting it out in the TV studios. But none of the TV channels and the print media took you to where the real action is.
I am talking about a visit to the wholesale market.
I was therefore delighted to read a newsreport by two young and enterprising reporters Vikas Kumar and Abhishek Kumar of The Sunday Indian magazine who actually took the trouble of taking a walk in the Azadpur mandi. This is what they say: "A walk in Azadpur Mandi in Delhi, one of the biggest wholesale markets of fruits and vegetables, is not the most enchanting experience but it opens one’s eyes. Here one comes face to face with reality, the murky world of arhatias, commission agents and traders who are ready to take hapless farmers for a ride. No market theory can explain this phenomenon."
So when Montek Singh Ahluwalia says that price rise has benefitted the farmer, you know who is he trying to cover up. If only the government had cracked down to break the nexus at the country's big wholesale markets, prices would have come tumbling down.
The reporters learnt firsthand what I have been saying for long. The price rise had nothing to do with the supply demand constraint. It was simply the outcome of price manipulation. This is what The Sunday Indian digs out: "There are approximately 5,000 licensed commission agents in Delhi which include 1000 big commission agents. Having established monopoly in the market, they have created an elaborate nexus. They have employed vegetable retailers at monthly salaries and supply vegetables in the residential areas."
“They are supposed to deal with wholesale trade only but the reality is that some of them also control the retail trade. I cannot take action against them as they are very dangerous. One more question that needs to be investigated properly is that when prices of food products are rising steeply, how revenues of most mandis are falling,” says another top official of a mandi on the condition of anonymity. The number of fake commission agents is huge," the news report quoted an official on assurance of anonymity.
In addition to the wholesale-retail nexus, I have also been calling for a strict action against the Big Retail. They came to India on the assurance that they will buy directly from the farmers and by squeezing out the middlemen, will sell cheaper to the consumers. Nothing like this happened. In reality, the Big Retail behaved like the small hawkers and exploited the situation to the hilt. They made Big Money.
"Even Mother Dairy and Safal outlets are busy making money by selling vegetables and fruits at even higher prices. Mother Dairy, a wholly owned company of the National Dairy Development Board, had been established to support farmers by purchasing directly from farms and supplying to consumers without the added expense of middlemen. However, we found that prices at various Safal outlets in the city were higher than those at local retailers’. The obvious question arises that if Mother Dairy is not benefiting either farmers or consumers, then why is the government doling out subsidies to the entity?"
But then, the problem is that the government is hand-in-glove with the retail trade. Even the small hawkers -- the rehriwallas -- have formed local unions, and if their leaders have to be believed these unions also fund the political parties.
You can read the complete report entitled "The true story of rising prices" published in The Sunday Indian (April 4, 2010) at:
http://thesundayindian.com/04042010/storyd.asp?sid=8737&pageno=1
This is merely a tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more, I suggest you take a walk or a series of walks through the Azadpur and Okhla mandis in Delhi. Be a citizen journalist and investigate for yourself. If your report is not picked up by TV channels, you can send it to Ground Reality.
And now a simple riddle. Have you ever thought why the prices of eggs, whether you buy in Delhi or Mumbai or Bangalore or in Ludhiana, are almost the same? How come the poultry hens cater to the demand of the city -- and I am sure the city varies in numbers -- in a manner that the prices should remain the same? Shouldn't they vary depending upon what the economists call as the demand and supply factor? And also because of the transportation cost, shouldn't the price of eggs differ from place to place?
Food Security Act or Food Entitlement Act?
The debate on hunger in the light of the proposed National Food Security Bill is now getting broadbased and therefore meaningful. It is heartening to learn that the focus is shifting from streamlining the Public Distribution System (PDS), from providing food stamps or direct cash transfers as part of food entitlements; to a broader definition of food security that includes physical, economic and social access to food for all for all times to come.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Hunger is also the outcome of our policies (read good intentions), and our inability to accept that the delivery system is not delivering. To improve the delivery system, the government is once again thinking of borrowing ideas from abroad. Replacing the existing subsidy mechanism with coupens/cash transfers directly to the poor household is one such move.
Delhi government is reportedly ready to experiment direct cash payments to poor households to buy kerosene.
Dr M S Sawminathan has listed the existing 22 programmes/schemes to fight hunger, food and nutritional insecurity. The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Human Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture has this impressive list:
-- Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS).
-- Kishori Shakti Yojna
-- Nutrition Programme for Adoloscent Girls.
-- Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for Empowerment of Adolescent Girls
-- Mid-day Meal programme for schools
-- Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
-- National Rural Health Mission
-- National Urban Health Mission
-- Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna
-- National Food Security Mission
-- National Horticultural Mission
-- Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission
-- Total Sanitation Campaign
-- Swarna Jayanthi Gram Rozgar Yojna
-- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme
-- Targeted Public Distribution System
-- Antyodaya Anna Yojna
-- Annapoorna
Despite such impressive programmes already running, and the Budget allocation for which is enhanced almost every year, the poor still go hungry. The number of hungry and impoverished has increased with every passing year. UNICEF tells us that more than 5000 children die every day in India from malnourishment.
Therefore, to add another couple of schemes to the existing lot is certainly not going to make it any better for the hungry. Nor a mere tinkering of the approach will help. Replacing the ration cards for the PDS allocations with food stamps is one such misplaced initiative. I am sure if we persist with such borrowed ideas, hunger will continue to multiply. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, you still end up reading newspapers headlines like India's safety net collapse in Bolangir (read in Hindustan Times today, a full page report http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-s-safety-nets-collapse-in-Balangir/H1-Article3-524453.aspx).
I am a strong supporter of the right-based approach to fight hunger. But to expect another piece of legislation that enshrines Right to Food as the basic human right is not going to make any difference to those who live in hunger and penury, and to the millions who are added to this dreaded list year after year. Right to Food cannot be ensured by simply ensuring on paper half the food entitlements (which has even failed to reach the needy) that a human body needs for normal human activity and growth.
Knowing that the existing programmes and projects have failed to make any appreciable dent, it is high time the opportunity provided by the proposed National Food Security Act be utilised in a realistic manner. It is a great opportunity, and we will fail the nation if we fail to bring about a radical overhaul of the existing approach to fight hunger. The entire debate has to therefore shift from the hands of a few bureaucrats/experts who have monopolised any decision-making when it comes to hunger. It has to be taken to the nation, through a series of regional deliberations.
Poverty line
First and foremost, the time has come to draw a realistic poverty line. The Tendulkar Committee has suggested 37 per cent of the population to be living in poverty. Arjun Sengupta Committee had said that 77 per cent (or 836 million people) of the population is able to spend not more than Rs 20/day. Justice D P Wadhwa Committee has now recommended that anyone earning less than Rs 100 a day should be considered below the poverty line.
Knowing that India has one of the most stringent poverty line in the world, I think the fault begins by accepting the faulty projections. During Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's tenure, Planning Commission had even lowered the poverty estimates from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. Poverty estimates were restored back when the new Planning Commission took over. I am sure if we had persisted with the same poverty line of 19 per cent (in the beginning of 1990s), India would have banished hunger in official records by now.
It doesn't therefore help in continuing with faulty estimates. I therefore suggest that India should have two lines demarcating the percentage of absolute hungry and malnourished from those who are not so hungry. The Suresh Tendulkar Committee suggestion of 37 per cent should be taken as the new Hunger line, which needs low-cost food grains as an emergency entitlement. In addition, the Arjun Sengupta committee's cut-off at 77 per cent should be the new Poverty line.
The approach for tackling absolute hunger and poverty would therefore be different.
Zero Hunger
Like in Brazil, the time has come when India needs to formulate a Zero Hunger programme. This should aim at a differential aproach. I see no reason why in the 600,000 villages of the country, which produce food for the country, people should go hungry. These villages have to be made hunger-free by adopting a community-based localised food grain bank scheme. I agree with Ela Bhatt when she says that the village needs should be met from within a 100-km radius.
In the urban centres and the food deficit areas, a universal public distribution system is required. The existing PDS system also requires to be overhauled, and this can be done. Also, there is a dire need to involve social and religious organisations in food distribution. They have done a remarkable job in cities like Bangalore, and there are lessons to be imbibed. Nothing can succeed if we do not ensure safe drinking water and sanitation to be part of the hunger mitigation programmes.
Food for all
It is often argued that the government cannot foot the bill for feeding each and every Indian. This is not true. Estimates have shown that the country would require 60 million tonnes of foodgrains (@35 kg per family) if it follows a Universal Public Distribution System. In other words, Rs 1.10 lakh crore is what is required to feed the nation for a year.
In Budget 2010, Pranab Mukherjee has announced a "revenue foregone" of Rs 5 lakh crore, which means the sales, excise and other tax concessions plus income tax exemption for the industry and business. The annual Budget exercise is of roughly Rs 11 lakh crores. Which means, the government is subsidising almost 50 per cent by way of direct sops to the industry, in addition to the what is provided in the Budget itself. The 'revenue foregone' is outside the Budget allocations.
I suggest that Rs 3 lakh crore from the 'revenue foregone' be immediately withdrawn. This should provide resources for feeding the hungry, and also for ensuring assured supply of safe drinking water plus sanitation. In addition to wheat and rice, the food allocation should also include nutritious coarse cereals and pulses.
Policy changes
But all this is not possible, unless some other policy changes that do not take away the emphasis on long-term sustainable farming, and stops land acquisitions and privatisation of natural resources. It has to be supplemented by policies that ensures food for all for all times to come. This is what constitutes inclusive growth. A hungry population is an economic burden. It is also a great economic loss resulting from the inability of the manpower to undertake economic activities. The proposed National Food Security Bill provides us an excellent opportunity to recast the economic map of India in such a way that makes hunger history.
Are we ready?
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Hunger is also the outcome of our policies (read good intentions), and our inability to accept that the delivery system is not delivering. To improve the delivery system, the government is once again thinking of borrowing ideas from abroad. Replacing the existing subsidy mechanism with coupens/cash transfers directly to the poor household is one such move.
Delhi government is reportedly ready to experiment direct cash payments to poor households to buy kerosene.
Dr M S Sawminathan has listed the existing 22 programmes/schemes to fight hunger, food and nutritional insecurity. The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Human Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture has this impressive list:
-- Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS).
-- Kishori Shakti Yojna
-- Nutrition Programme for Adoloscent Girls.
-- Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for Empowerment of Adolescent Girls
-- Mid-day Meal programme for schools
-- Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
-- National Rural Health Mission
-- National Urban Health Mission
-- Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna
-- National Food Security Mission
-- National Horticultural Mission
-- Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission
-- Total Sanitation Campaign
-- Swarna Jayanthi Gram Rozgar Yojna
-- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme
-- Targeted Public Distribution System
-- Antyodaya Anna Yojna
-- Annapoorna
Despite such impressive programmes already running, and the Budget allocation for which is enhanced almost every year, the poor still go hungry. The number of hungry and impoverished has increased with every passing year. UNICEF tells us that more than 5000 children die every day in India from malnourishment.
Therefore, to add another couple of schemes to the existing lot is certainly not going to make it any better for the hungry. Nor a mere tinkering of the approach will help. Replacing the ration cards for the PDS allocations with food stamps is one such misplaced initiative. I am sure if we persist with such borrowed ideas, hunger will continue to multiply. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, you still end up reading newspapers headlines like India's safety net collapse in Bolangir (read in Hindustan Times today, a full page report http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-s-safety-nets-collapse-in-Balangir/H1-Article3-524453.aspx).
I am a strong supporter of the right-based approach to fight hunger. But to expect another piece of legislation that enshrines Right to Food as the basic human right is not going to make any difference to those who live in hunger and penury, and to the millions who are added to this dreaded list year after year. Right to Food cannot be ensured by simply ensuring on paper half the food entitlements (which has even failed to reach the needy) that a human body needs for normal human activity and growth.
Knowing that the existing programmes and projects have failed to make any appreciable dent, it is high time the opportunity provided by the proposed National Food Security Act be utilised in a realistic manner. It is a great opportunity, and we will fail the nation if we fail to bring about a radical overhaul of the existing approach to fight hunger. The entire debate has to therefore shift from the hands of a few bureaucrats/experts who have monopolised any decision-making when it comes to hunger. It has to be taken to the nation, through a series of regional deliberations.
Poverty line
First and foremost, the time has come to draw a realistic poverty line. The Tendulkar Committee has suggested 37 per cent of the population to be living in poverty. Arjun Sengupta Committee had said that 77 per cent (or 836 million people) of the population is able to spend not more than Rs 20/day. Justice D P Wadhwa Committee has now recommended that anyone earning less than Rs 100 a day should be considered below the poverty line.
Knowing that India has one of the most stringent poverty line in the world, I think the fault begins by accepting the faulty projections. During Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's tenure, Planning Commission had even lowered the poverty estimates from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. Poverty estimates were restored back when the new Planning Commission took over. I am sure if we had persisted with the same poverty line of 19 per cent (in the beginning of 1990s), India would have banished hunger in official records by now.
It doesn't therefore help in continuing with faulty estimates. I therefore suggest that India should have two lines demarcating the percentage of absolute hungry and malnourished from those who are not so hungry. The Suresh Tendulkar Committee suggestion of 37 per cent should be taken as the new Hunger line, which needs low-cost food grains as an emergency entitlement. In addition, the Arjun Sengupta committee's cut-off at 77 per cent should be the new Poverty line.
The approach for tackling absolute hunger and poverty would therefore be different.
Zero Hunger
Like in Brazil, the time has come when India needs to formulate a Zero Hunger programme. This should aim at a differential aproach. I see no reason why in the 600,000 villages of the country, which produce food for the country, people should go hungry. These villages have to be made hunger-free by adopting a community-based localised food grain bank scheme. I agree with Ela Bhatt when she says that the village needs should be met from within a 100-km radius.
In the urban centres and the food deficit areas, a universal public distribution system is required. The existing PDS system also requires to be overhauled, and this can be done. Also, there is a dire need to involve social and religious organisations in food distribution. They have done a remarkable job in cities like Bangalore, and there are lessons to be imbibed. Nothing can succeed if we do not ensure safe drinking water and sanitation to be part of the hunger mitigation programmes.
Food for all
It is often argued that the government cannot foot the bill for feeding each and every Indian. This is not true. Estimates have shown that the country would require 60 million tonnes of foodgrains (@35 kg per family) if it follows a Universal Public Distribution System. In other words, Rs 1.10 lakh crore is what is required to feed the nation for a year.
In Budget 2010, Pranab Mukherjee has announced a "revenue foregone" of Rs 5 lakh crore, which means the sales, excise and other tax concessions plus income tax exemption for the industry and business. The annual Budget exercise is of roughly Rs 11 lakh crores. Which means, the government is subsidising almost 50 per cent by way of direct sops to the industry, in addition to the what is provided in the Budget itself. The 'revenue foregone' is outside the Budget allocations.
I suggest that Rs 3 lakh crore from the 'revenue foregone' be immediately withdrawn. This should provide resources for feeding the hungry, and also for ensuring assured supply of safe drinking water plus sanitation. In addition to wheat and rice, the food allocation should also include nutritious coarse cereals and pulses.
Policy changes
But all this is not possible, unless some other policy changes that do not take away the emphasis on long-term sustainable farming, and stops land acquisitions and privatisation of natural resources. It has to be supplemented by policies that ensures food for all for all times to come. This is what constitutes inclusive growth. A hungry population is an economic burden. It is also a great economic loss resulting from the inability of the manpower to undertake economic activities. The proposed National Food Security Bill provides us an excellent opportunity to recast the economic map of India in such a way that makes hunger history.
Are we ready?
Monsanto seeks legal right to claim royalty over Bt cotton seed
In lot many ways, Monsanto's application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court reminds me of the infamous broad patent on cotton granted to the US-based Agracetus in 1991, and revoked in October 1994. Patent 214436 filed in Nov 1999 by Monsanto, and granted in Feb 2008 by the Indian Patent Office, is a process patent for "methods for transforming plants to express Bacillus thuringiensis delta endotoxins." The patent is valid for 20 years from the date of filing, which means from Nov 1999 to Oct 2019.
Agracetus had claimed patent coverage for all transgenic plants regardless of the techniques and genes used for the transformation, and had filed for multiple patents in several of the major cotton producing countries -- India, China and Brazil. I remember some of us had raised this issue in India, and it was only after the direct intervention of the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao that the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) had challenged the patent.
According to The Times of India (Jan 25, 1995) a secret government paper had explained that the very objective of this patent was to deny the opportunity to biotechnologists in India to develop pest-resistant cotton plants by recombinant DNA techniques. And this was considered to be prejudicial to the public. I must also acknowledge that the then deputy director general of ICAR (who later became the director general) Dr Mangla Rai was actively associated with the challenge to the patent.
Interestingly, Agracetus was later acquired by Monsanto, which then went on to claim monopoly control over all transgenic soyabeans and cotton varieties. Monsanto had earlier opposed the Agracetus patent, but after acquiring Agracetus in 1996, it fought tooth and nail to preserve it. Eventually, after a 13-year legal battle initiated by ETC and Greenpeace, the European Patent Office turned it down.
Monsanto's legal case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court is essentially to stop the State government from fixing the seed price for its Bollgard-II transgenic cotton variety. The company argues that the State Government has no role to regulate the royalty that the company can get. The issue of price fixation had cropped up recently when the National Association of Seed Companies had made a plea for raising the seed price of Bollgard-II in view of the growing sales.
Incidentally, the technology fee (read royalty) as part of the seed price that farmers pay for Bt cotton (Bollgard-1) is the highest in India. In the US, royalty is around Rs 108 per acre whereas in China it is about Rs 38. In India, it was initially Rs 1200 per acre and has now come down to Rs 300 per acre.
But before we go into the price issue, I think it will be also useful to understand how wide is the patent claim. It is not only confined to cotton, but covers all Bt crops using the same technological process. Anyway, we will examine this later, but first let us hear what my colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu from Hyderabad has to say:
Monsanto filed a case in AP High Court three days back to stop the State Government from taking any action to reduce trait value. It argued that State government has no role as it falls under the purview of the Central government and that cotton is back into Essential Commodities Act, so the new transgenic cotton regulation of act is not valid. Its argument is that the license agreement with seed companies is a private agreement and State government has no role to regulate the royalty. Among the papers submitted to the court, Monsanto also presented a paper, which shows that it acquired a process patent on transforming plants to express Bacillus thuringenesis delta endotoxins from Nov. 1999. The patent was granted in 2008. It may be noted that the Indian Patent Act 1970 was amended in 1999 to allow for process patents.
Though it has a process patent, the company is using it to control the entire Bt cotton market (which means making it work like a product patent).
As you may be aware, AP govt initiated actions again to reduce the trait fee (mind you not the cotton seed price) of the Bt cotton. This was to help some of the seed companies which want to have more share in the seed price. Monsanto is charging Rs 150 for 450 g plus sales tax on Bollgard-1. The seed companies are paying Rs 150 for 450 g to the cotton seed producers, and keeping the remaining (from the seed price of Rs. 650 for 450 g) with them. Recently the National Association of Seed Companies made a request to AP government to allow them to increase seed price as the farmers are highly benefited with their Bollgard seeds (apparantly this is driven by vibha, pioneer etc who are allies of Monsanto) where as AP farmers unions (mostly driven by Nuziveedu seeds, pravardhan seeds etc) asked the State government to reduce trait fee.
Dr Ramanjaneyulu asks the more pertinent question: Whose 'food security' GM technology is going to ensure?
Meanwhile, do read the earlier blog post How Monsanto takes control over seed. The link is: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-monsanto-takes-global-control-over.html
Agracetus had claimed patent coverage for all transgenic plants regardless of the techniques and genes used for the transformation, and had filed for multiple patents in several of the major cotton producing countries -- India, China and Brazil. I remember some of us had raised this issue in India, and it was only after the direct intervention of the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao that the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) had challenged the patent.
According to The Times of India (Jan 25, 1995) a secret government paper had explained that the very objective of this patent was to deny the opportunity to biotechnologists in India to develop pest-resistant cotton plants by recombinant DNA techniques. And this was considered to be prejudicial to the public. I must also acknowledge that the then deputy director general of ICAR (who later became the director general) Dr Mangla Rai was actively associated with the challenge to the patent.
Interestingly, Agracetus was later acquired by Monsanto, which then went on to claim monopoly control over all transgenic soyabeans and cotton varieties. Monsanto had earlier opposed the Agracetus patent, but after acquiring Agracetus in 1996, it fought tooth and nail to preserve it. Eventually, after a 13-year legal battle initiated by ETC and Greenpeace, the European Patent Office turned it down.
Monsanto's legal case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court is essentially to stop the State government from fixing the seed price for its Bollgard-II transgenic cotton variety. The company argues that the State Government has no role to regulate the royalty that the company can get. The issue of price fixation had cropped up recently when the National Association of Seed Companies had made a plea for raising the seed price of Bollgard-II in view of the growing sales.
Incidentally, the technology fee (read royalty) as part of the seed price that farmers pay for Bt cotton (Bollgard-1) is the highest in India. In the US, royalty is around Rs 108 per acre whereas in China it is about Rs 38. In India, it was initially Rs 1200 per acre and has now come down to Rs 300 per acre.
But before we go into the price issue, I think it will be also useful to understand how wide is the patent claim. It is not only confined to cotton, but covers all Bt crops using the same technological process. Anyway, we will examine this later, but first let us hear what my colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu from Hyderabad has to say:
Monsanto filed a case in AP High Court three days back to stop the State Government from taking any action to reduce trait value. It argued that State government has no role as it falls under the purview of the Central government and that cotton is back into Essential Commodities Act, so the new transgenic cotton regulation of act is not valid. Its argument is that the license agreement with seed companies is a private agreement and State government has no role to regulate the royalty. Among the papers submitted to the court, Monsanto also presented a paper, which shows that it acquired a process patent on transforming plants to express Bacillus thuringenesis delta endotoxins from Nov. 1999. The patent was granted in 2008. It may be noted that the Indian Patent Act 1970 was amended in 1999 to allow for process patents.
Though it has a process patent, the company is using it to control the entire Bt cotton market (which means making it work like a product patent).
As you may be aware, AP govt initiated actions again to reduce the trait fee (mind you not the cotton seed price) of the Bt cotton. This was to help some of the seed companies which want to have more share in the seed price. Monsanto is charging Rs 150 for 450 g plus sales tax on Bollgard-1. The seed companies are paying Rs 150 for 450 g to the cotton seed producers, and keeping the remaining (from the seed price of Rs. 650 for 450 g) with them. Recently the National Association of Seed Companies made a request to AP government to allow them to increase seed price as the farmers are highly benefited with their Bollgard seeds (apparantly this is driven by vibha, pioneer etc who are allies of Monsanto) where as AP farmers unions (mostly driven by Nuziveedu seeds, pravardhan seeds etc) asked the State government to reduce trait fee.
Dr Ramanjaneyulu asks the more pertinent question: Whose 'food security' GM technology is going to ensure?
Meanwhile, do read the earlier blog post How Monsanto takes control over seed. The link is: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-monsanto-takes-global-control-over.html
आयातित शिक्षा पर सवाल
Dainik Jagran published my analysis on imported education in its yesterday's edition (Mar 26, 2010). I am pasting the article below.
Often during translation, the meaning of some particular words or acronyms are conveyed differently. In para 4 below, I had talked about the 'land grant' system of education in America. It does not mean that the US was providing land for education as this article depicts. Please keep that in mind while you read this article.
आयातित शिक्षा पर सवाल
देविंदर शर्मा
कुछ साल पहले मुझे लंदन में एक बैठक में आमंत्रित किया गया था, जिसमें विमर्श का मुद्दा था कि इंग्लैंड विकासशील देशों में टिकाऊ कृषि को प्रोत्साहन कैसे दे सकता है। यह बैठक इंग्लैंड के तत्कालीन गृह सचिव हिलेरी बेन द्वारा बुलाई गई थी, जिसमें करीब 15 लोगों ने भाग लिया था। इंग्लैंड के कई संगठनों ने अन्य विकासशील देशों के साथ-साथ भारत में टिकाऊ कृषि में सहयोग देने संबंधी अनेक प्रस्ताव और परियोजनाएं पेश कीं। इसके बाद हिलेरी बेन ने मुझसे सुझाव मांगे। मैंने कहा, 'मेरी राय में ब्रिटिश कृषि पूरी दुनिया में पर्यावरण को सबसे अधिक नुकसान पहुंचाने वाली कृषि व्यवस्था में से एक है। मुझे नहीं लगता कि आपके विश्वविद्यालय और निजी संस्थान इतने काबिल हैं कि वे भारतीय कृषकों और संगठनों को टिकाऊ खेती के बारे में कुछ सिखा सकें।'
यह सुनकर हिलेरी बेन चौंक गए और मुझसे पूछा कि इंग्लैंड की कृषि व्यवस्था में सुधार कैसे संभव है। मैंने जवाब दिया, 'इंग्लैंड की सरकार को भारतीय किसानों को वहां बुलाना चाहिए, जिन्होंने टिकाऊ खेती व्यवस्था में शानदार प्रदर्शन किया है। और उनसे ही सीखने की कोशिश करनी चाहिए।' कहने की आवश्यकता नहीं है कि बैठक वहीं समाप्त हो गई। इससे पहले हम कपिल सिब्बल के तुरही बजाकर विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयों को भारत में अपने कैंपस खोलने की अनुमति देने के मुद्दे पर आएं, मैं आपका ध्यान उस नुकसान की ओर खींचना चाहूंगा, जो आयातित कृषि शिक्षा और अनुसंधान के कारण भारत को उठाना पड़ा है। पहला कृषि विश्वविद्यालय उत्तराखंड के पंतनगर में खोला गया था। इसके बाद से 50 से अधिक कृषि विश्वविद्यालय गठित किए जा चुके हैं।
कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा के क्षेत्र में 50 साल की उपलब्धियों से बेहतर कोई अन्य पहलू नजरिए में परिवर्तन को स्पष्ट नहीं कर सकता। कृषि अनुसंधान व शिक्षा व्यवस्था का ढांचा अमेरिका की आवश्यकताओं के अनुरूप तैयार किया गया था न कि भारतीय कृषि की समस्याओं को दूर करने के लिहाज से। हमें बताया गया कि हमारी कृषि निम्न स्तरीय, पिछड़ी और नाकारा है। यह हमारे कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में पढ़ाया जाता है। इन विश्वविद्यालयों में अमेरिकी कृषि पर आधारित पाठ्यक्रम होता है। बताया जाता है कि अगर आप भारतीय कृषि को सुधारना चाहते हैं तो अमेरिकी कृषि माडल को अपनाना होगा। जबकि हमने अनुभव से सीखा है कि इसी रास्ते पर चलने से हम आज कृषि के सबसे बड़े और गहरे संकट में फंस गए हैं।
ऐसे बहुत से लोग हैं जो यह सोचते हैं कि अमेरिकी कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा व्यवस्था से भारत को बड़ा लाभ हुआ है। मैं इससे इनकार नहीं करता। आखिरकार, हरित क्रांति हुई और इससे देश खाद्यान्न के क्षेत्र में आत्मनिर्भर हुआ। विद्वान इस पर माथापच्ची कर रहे हैं कि हरित क्रांति कितनी सफल रही, किंतु इस तथ्य पर वे विचार नहीं कर रहे हैं कि इसी प्रौद्योगिकी की वजह से वर्तमान कृषि संकट पैदा हुआ है। चाहे हम स्वीकार करें या न करें, सच्चाई यही है कि यूएस एजेंसी फार इंटरनेशनल डेवलपमेंट के तहत अमेरिका में जिस तरह शिक्षण संस्थान के लिए सरकारी जमीन अनुदान में दी जाती है, ऐसा करने पर भारत में खेतों में अभूतपूर्व खूनखराबा हुआ है। हम नहीं कह सकते कि भारत में जिस तरह की कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा व्यवस्था जारी है, उस पर भयावह कृषि संकट की जिम्मेदारी नहीं है।
एक देश में, जहां कृषि अनुसंधान के क्षेत्र में दुनिया का सबसे विशाल सार्वजनिक ढांचा है, किसान आत्महत्या क्यों कर रहे हैं और कृषि को त्यागने पर विवश हैं? अगर कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा में अमेरिकी माडल इतना ही अच्छा है तो किसान आज विपत्ति में क्यों हैं और कृषि बर्बादी के कगार पर क्यों पहुंच गई है। एक राष्ट्र के रूप में हमें इसकी पड़ताल करनी चाहिए और पीछे मुड़कर देखना चाहिए। इसमें कुछ बुनियादी गड़बड़ी है। कृषि, चिकित्सा विज्ञान, इंजीनियरिंग या प्रबंधन क्षेत्र कोई भी हो, हमें सिखाया जाता है कि हम जो भी करते हैं वह निम्न स्तरीय, पिछड़ा और बेकार है। ऐसे में हमारे पास विकास का पश्चिमी माडल अपनाने के अलावा कोई चारा नहीं बचता, यहां तक कि प्रबंधन के क्षेत्र में भी। हमारे इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट फार मैनेजमेंट और आईआईटी भी यही कर रहे हैं। ये संस्थान जनता के पैसे से निजी क्षेत्र के लिए छात्रों को शिक्षित करते हैं। मैं अकसर सोचता हूं कि अगर आईआईएम के छात्र को निजी क्षेत्र में ही जाना है तो उद्योग जगत इन संस्थानों को वित्तीय सहायता क्यों नहीं प्रदान करता? इन संस्थानों के वित्तीय पोषण के लिए करदाताओं का पैसा क्यों खर्च होना चाहिए?
भारत में ऐतिहासिक शुचिता की बेहद जरूरत है। आईआईएम और आईआईटी जैसे संस्थानों से पैसा बचाकर कृषि व स्वास्थ्य के क्षेत्र में श्रेष्ठ केंद्र स्थापित करने में खर्च किया जा सकता है। आयातित जोखिमभरी और गैरजरूरी प्रौद्योगिकी के बजाए कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों की पुनर्र्सरचना की आवश्यकता है, ताकि ये किसानों के लिए अधिक सार्थक व उपयोगी बन सकें और विद्यमान टिकाऊ प्रौद्योगिकी में सुधार लाया जा सके।
भारत में बड़ी संख्या में ऐसे लोग हैं जो पूरी तरह अमेरिकापरस्त हैं। वे रहते तो भारत में हैं किंतु सपने अमेरिकी देखते हैं। वे भारत में उच्च शिक्षा व्यवस्था में खामियां तलाशते हैं और दोयम दर्जे के अमेरिकी, यूरोपीय और आस्ट्रेलियाई कालेज व विश्वविद्यालयों के देश की शिक्षा व्यवस्था पर छा जाने में कुछ गलत नहीं मानते। कोई भी शिक्षा व्यवस्था में सड़न को दूर नहीं करना चाहता। यह सड़न दोयम दर्जे के विदेशी विश्वविद्यालय आयात करने से दूर नहीं होगी। आप एक बुराई को दूसरी बुराई से खत्म नहीं कर सकते। देश के सामने पहली चुनौती विद्यमान उच्च शिक्षा व्यवस्था का कायाकल्प करना है। इसकी शुरुआत शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रम के साथ-साथ शिक्षकों के आकलन की प्रक्रिया में मूलभूत बदलाव लाकर की जा सकती है। साथ ही, पाठ्यक्रम को इस रूप में पुनर्निधारित किया जाना चाहिए कि यह भारत की आवश्यकताओं की पूर्ति कर सके।
हम इसे पसंद करें या न करें, आईआईएम जैसे प्रतिष्ठित संस्थानों में भी शिक्षकों का स्तर भयावह रूप से गिरा हुआ है। कुछ अपवादों को छोड़ दें, तो अधिकांश उपयुक्त मानदंडों पर खरे नहीं उतरते। उपकुलपतियों का हालत तो और भी दयनीय है। पिछले 15 वर्षो से मैं ऐसे उपकुलपति की तलाश में हूं, जो विश्वास पैदा कर सके। उच्च शिक्षण संस्थानों में इस कदर कमजोर अध्यक्षों के रहते चमत्कार की आशा करना बेमानी है। कपिल सिब्बल उच्च शिक्षा से जुड़े महत्वपूर्ण चुनौतियों से कन्नी काट रहे हैं। वह कारपोरेट खेल में शामिल हो गए हैं जो बी ग्रेड के विदेशी विश्वविद्यालय तक ऐसे छात्रों की पहुंच बनाना चाहता है, जिनके पास पैसा है। हम पहले ही देख रहे हैं कि जो छात्र प्रतिष्ठित भारतीय संस्थानों में प्रवेश नहीं ले पाते हैं वे विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयों का रुख करते हैं।
[देविंदर शर्मा: लेखक कृषि मामलों के विशेषज्ञ हैं]
Often during translation, the meaning of some particular words or acronyms are conveyed differently. In para 4 below, I had talked about the 'land grant' system of education in America. It does not mean that the US was providing land for education as this article depicts. Please keep that in mind while you read this article.
आयातित शिक्षा पर सवाल
देविंदर शर्मा
कुछ साल पहले मुझे लंदन में एक बैठक में आमंत्रित किया गया था, जिसमें विमर्श का मुद्दा था कि इंग्लैंड विकासशील देशों में टिकाऊ कृषि को प्रोत्साहन कैसे दे सकता है। यह बैठक इंग्लैंड के तत्कालीन गृह सचिव हिलेरी बेन द्वारा बुलाई गई थी, जिसमें करीब 15 लोगों ने भाग लिया था। इंग्लैंड के कई संगठनों ने अन्य विकासशील देशों के साथ-साथ भारत में टिकाऊ कृषि में सहयोग देने संबंधी अनेक प्रस्ताव और परियोजनाएं पेश कीं। इसके बाद हिलेरी बेन ने मुझसे सुझाव मांगे। मैंने कहा, 'मेरी राय में ब्रिटिश कृषि पूरी दुनिया में पर्यावरण को सबसे अधिक नुकसान पहुंचाने वाली कृषि व्यवस्था में से एक है। मुझे नहीं लगता कि आपके विश्वविद्यालय और निजी संस्थान इतने काबिल हैं कि वे भारतीय कृषकों और संगठनों को टिकाऊ खेती के बारे में कुछ सिखा सकें।'
यह सुनकर हिलेरी बेन चौंक गए और मुझसे पूछा कि इंग्लैंड की कृषि व्यवस्था में सुधार कैसे संभव है। मैंने जवाब दिया, 'इंग्लैंड की सरकार को भारतीय किसानों को वहां बुलाना चाहिए, जिन्होंने टिकाऊ खेती व्यवस्था में शानदार प्रदर्शन किया है। और उनसे ही सीखने की कोशिश करनी चाहिए।' कहने की आवश्यकता नहीं है कि बैठक वहीं समाप्त हो गई। इससे पहले हम कपिल सिब्बल के तुरही बजाकर विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयों को भारत में अपने कैंपस खोलने की अनुमति देने के मुद्दे पर आएं, मैं आपका ध्यान उस नुकसान की ओर खींचना चाहूंगा, जो आयातित कृषि शिक्षा और अनुसंधान के कारण भारत को उठाना पड़ा है। पहला कृषि विश्वविद्यालय उत्तराखंड के पंतनगर में खोला गया था। इसके बाद से 50 से अधिक कृषि विश्वविद्यालय गठित किए जा चुके हैं।
कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा के क्षेत्र में 50 साल की उपलब्धियों से बेहतर कोई अन्य पहलू नजरिए में परिवर्तन को स्पष्ट नहीं कर सकता। कृषि अनुसंधान व शिक्षा व्यवस्था का ढांचा अमेरिका की आवश्यकताओं के अनुरूप तैयार किया गया था न कि भारतीय कृषि की समस्याओं को दूर करने के लिहाज से। हमें बताया गया कि हमारी कृषि निम्न स्तरीय, पिछड़ी और नाकारा है। यह हमारे कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में पढ़ाया जाता है। इन विश्वविद्यालयों में अमेरिकी कृषि पर आधारित पाठ्यक्रम होता है। बताया जाता है कि अगर आप भारतीय कृषि को सुधारना चाहते हैं तो अमेरिकी कृषि माडल को अपनाना होगा। जबकि हमने अनुभव से सीखा है कि इसी रास्ते पर चलने से हम आज कृषि के सबसे बड़े और गहरे संकट में फंस गए हैं।
ऐसे बहुत से लोग हैं जो यह सोचते हैं कि अमेरिकी कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा व्यवस्था से भारत को बड़ा लाभ हुआ है। मैं इससे इनकार नहीं करता। आखिरकार, हरित क्रांति हुई और इससे देश खाद्यान्न के क्षेत्र में आत्मनिर्भर हुआ। विद्वान इस पर माथापच्ची कर रहे हैं कि हरित क्रांति कितनी सफल रही, किंतु इस तथ्य पर वे विचार नहीं कर रहे हैं कि इसी प्रौद्योगिकी की वजह से वर्तमान कृषि संकट पैदा हुआ है। चाहे हम स्वीकार करें या न करें, सच्चाई यही है कि यूएस एजेंसी फार इंटरनेशनल डेवलपमेंट के तहत अमेरिका में जिस तरह शिक्षण संस्थान के लिए सरकारी जमीन अनुदान में दी जाती है, ऐसा करने पर भारत में खेतों में अभूतपूर्व खूनखराबा हुआ है। हम नहीं कह सकते कि भारत में जिस तरह की कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा व्यवस्था जारी है, उस पर भयावह कृषि संकट की जिम्मेदारी नहीं है।
एक देश में, जहां कृषि अनुसंधान के क्षेत्र में दुनिया का सबसे विशाल सार्वजनिक ढांचा है, किसान आत्महत्या क्यों कर रहे हैं और कृषि को त्यागने पर विवश हैं? अगर कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा में अमेरिकी माडल इतना ही अच्छा है तो किसान आज विपत्ति में क्यों हैं और कृषि बर्बादी के कगार पर क्यों पहुंच गई है। एक राष्ट्र के रूप में हमें इसकी पड़ताल करनी चाहिए और पीछे मुड़कर देखना चाहिए। इसमें कुछ बुनियादी गड़बड़ी है। कृषि, चिकित्सा विज्ञान, इंजीनियरिंग या प्रबंधन क्षेत्र कोई भी हो, हमें सिखाया जाता है कि हम जो भी करते हैं वह निम्न स्तरीय, पिछड़ा और बेकार है। ऐसे में हमारे पास विकास का पश्चिमी माडल अपनाने के अलावा कोई चारा नहीं बचता, यहां तक कि प्रबंधन के क्षेत्र में भी। हमारे इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट फार मैनेजमेंट और आईआईटी भी यही कर रहे हैं। ये संस्थान जनता के पैसे से निजी क्षेत्र के लिए छात्रों को शिक्षित करते हैं। मैं अकसर सोचता हूं कि अगर आईआईएम के छात्र को निजी क्षेत्र में ही जाना है तो उद्योग जगत इन संस्थानों को वित्तीय सहायता क्यों नहीं प्रदान करता? इन संस्थानों के वित्तीय पोषण के लिए करदाताओं का पैसा क्यों खर्च होना चाहिए?
भारत में ऐतिहासिक शुचिता की बेहद जरूरत है। आईआईएम और आईआईटी जैसे संस्थानों से पैसा बचाकर कृषि व स्वास्थ्य के क्षेत्र में श्रेष्ठ केंद्र स्थापित करने में खर्च किया जा सकता है। आयातित जोखिमभरी और गैरजरूरी प्रौद्योगिकी के बजाए कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों की पुनर्र्सरचना की आवश्यकता है, ताकि ये किसानों के लिए अधिक सार्थक व उपयोगी बन सकें और विद्यमान टिकाऊ प्रौद्योगिकी में सुधार लाया जा सके।
भारत में बड़ी संख्या में ऐसे लोग हैं जो पूरी तरह अमेरिकापरस्त हैं। वे रहते तो भारत में हैं किंतु सपने अमेरिकी देखते हैं। वे भारत में उच्च शिक्षा व्यवस्था में खामियां तलाशते हैं और दोयम दर्जे के अमेरिकी, यूरोपीय और आस्ट्रेलियाई कालेज व विश्वविद्यालयों के देश की शिक्षा व्यवस्था पर छा जाने में कुछ गलत नहीं मानते। कोई भी शिक्षा व्यवस्था में सड़न को दूर नहीं करना चाहता। यह सड़न दोयम दर्जे के विदेशी विश्वविद्यालय आयात करने से दूर नहीं होगी। आप एक बुराई को दूसरी बुराई से खत्म नहीं कर सकते। देश के सामने पहली चुनौती विद्यमान उच्च शिक्षा व्यवस्था का कायाकल्प करना है। इसकी शुरुआत शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रम के साथ-साथ शिक्षकों के आकलन की प्रक्रिया में मूलभूत बदलाव लाकर की जा सकती है। साथ ही, पाठ्यक्रम को इस रूप में पुनर्निधारित किया जाना चाहिए कि यह भारत की आवश्यकताओं की पूर्ति कर सके।
हम इसे पसंद करें या न करें, आईआईएम जैसे प्रतिष्ठित संस्थानों में भी शिक्षकों का स्तर भयावह रूप से गिरा हुआ है। कुछ अपवादों को छोड़ दें, तो अधिकांश उपयुक्त मानदंडों पर खरे नहीं उतरते। उपकुलपतियों का हालत तो और भी दयनीय है। पिछले 15 वर्षो से मैं ऐसे उपकुलपति की तलाश में हूं, जो विश्वास पैदा कर सके। उच्च शिक्षण संस्थानों में इस कदर कमजोर अध्यक्षों के रहते चमत्कार की आशा करना बेमानी है। कपिल सिब्बल उच्च शिक्षा से जुड़े महत्वपूर्ण चुनौतियों से कन्नी काट रहे हैं। वह कारपोरेट खेल में शामिल हो गए हैं जो बी ग्रेड के विदेशी विश्वविद्यालय तक ऐसे छात्रों की पहुंच बनाना चाहता है, जिनके पास पैसा है। हम पहले ही देख रहे हैं कि जो छात्र प्रतिष्ठित भारतीय संस्थानों में प्रवेश नहीं ले पाते हैं वे विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयों का रुख करते हैं।
[देविंदर शर्मा: लेखक कृषि मामलों के विशेषज्ञ हैं]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)