|
How do you perceive the fiasco of BT cotton down south and now GM rice here in UP?
All this is happening under a well-planned strategy of multi-national companies (MNCs), which are working on seed-to-seed policy - creating a situation that East India Company brought in some 250 years ago by starting cultivation of neel. What happened in Vidarbha and Warangal? Experiment of Bt cotton, some corn and soyabean crops - all failed. A similar case took place with GM rice in UP. Had local varieties been used instead of these high yeilding seeds, the production cost would have come down besides it would not have had any side effects. For example - Eastern UP has a large variety of rice, Bundelkhand has a variety of pulses which can be propogated. But the technocrats, who are deciding the policies for the farmers are not looking at this issue.
But the high yielding varieties have been introduced only to ensure food security!
The issue of food security is of national sovereignity. But the question is that grain should be available at the household level or the warehouse level. There is grain in the warehouses, but people are still dying of hunger! More than 70 per cent farmers in India have less than one hectare of land, but they have enough produce to provide food to their families. Think of it, why did post-Pokhran sanctions fail to have any impact on India? It was because of its food security which is now diminishing gradually. The technology is making these small agricultural fields non-viable. Cost of cultivation has increased. There is no management of farming at local level - like borrowing on mutual terms, bartering or sharing. Farmers’ dependency on market is rising now with every passing day.
But the government is also promoting agriculture-based loans and farmers’ credit cards to meet these requirements.
A vicious circle is being created. As compared to all other types of loans available, agricultural loan is available on highest interest rates. The worst part is that the agriculture loan is a seasonal loan. For whatever crop a farmer avails a loan, he has to pay back after the harvest. Although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has, on many occasions, advocated the bringing down of the interest rates on agriculture loans, the stand of the financial institutions is clear on the issue - they do not find it viable to lend money on lower interest rates.
Do you think the National Commission for Farmers constituted at the central government level can sort out this issue?
The irony is that the commission itself is promoting this practice. In its lengthy report, the Commission has suggested the setting up of an exclusive institution to provide loans to farmers. Again such an institution will only add to the dependency of farmers on machines and seeds produced by MNCs. This is happening mostly because the Farmers’ Commission does not have farmers’ representation in any way. We can reach a solution only if we see things from the farmers’ point of view.
In such a grim situation, are civil societies and activists working on issues of farmers, doing anything about it?
On October 30, members of civil societies and intellectuals (Devendra Sharma/Suman Sahai/Khartiya Kisan Union/National Coalition of Farmers’ Movement/Chhatisgarh Mukti Morcha/Madhya Pradesh Khet Mazdoor Sangthan and many more) had gathered at the India Habitat Center in New Delhi to rake up this issue. These institutions and people have refused to accept the draft policy for farmers under consideration of the government of India. The draft does not appear pro-farmers but is pro-MNCs. Struggle and movement has already started. Now lobbying in Parliament is also on the anvil. If the draft report gets converted into a policy, then the time is not far when technology can be seen moving fast toawrds the agricultural fields while the farmer will be spotted limping out of the fields, walking slowly towards the cities in search of work. |