The harvest that never was
Times food Processing Journal recounts Devinder Sharma's
views on the failure of 'improved' technology and its
consequences
One of the main reasons behind the
growing agrarian crisis is the failure of
the improved technology. Instead of
bringing a cheer to the farmer by propping up
the declining farm productivity or improving
efficiency, recurring failure of the new
technologies is not only making agriculture
unviable but is also increasingly forcing
farmers into indebtedness and distress.
Whether it is hybrids or the high-yielding
varieties of crops, whether it is cross-breeding
of cattle with high-milk-producing progeny
breeds, whether it is chemical fertiliser and
pesticides, and more recently the introduction
of the genetically modified seeds, the fact
remains that those who provide the
technology (read the companies) are not held
responsible if the technology they sell to
farmers fails to deliver. Nor are they held
accountable if the technology turns into
a polluter.
For the urban centres, the marketing
approach is different. If you buy a car, a
refrigerator or a hi-fi music system, the
manufacturer not only provides a guarantee,
but also often orders withdrawal of a
particular batch of faulty product line. During
the guarantee period, the defective part of the
product is replaced free of cost and if the
complaint persists, the malfunctioning item is
replaced. In other words, it is the duty of the
technology provider (or manufacturer) to
ensure that the technology being sold
measures up to the claims made.
Speaking in the Parliament, the
Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accepted
that genetically modified Bt cotton had failed
in Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Rajasthan. The
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
(GEAC) therefore had not renewed
permission for cultivation of the three
Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton varieties. But
despite the AP government demanding a
compensation of Rs 1,496 per acre to affected
farmers, which totals Rs 3.84 crore, the seed
company found it appropriate to appeal before
the State-level Memorandum of
Understanding Committee and the High
Court. Bt cotton was cultivated in an area
exceeding 13 lakh acres in the 2004-05
cropping season. This means that the seed
companies had sold an equal number of Bt
seed packets (each packet is enough for one
acre) priced at a minimum of Rs 1,600,
including a hefty 'technology fee'. With
Rs 1,200 per seed packet as technology fee,
these seed companies had very conveniently
collected over Rs 150 crore in the name of
improved technology. In the urban centres,
such a large failure of any technology would
have forced the company to withdraw its
product from the market - not in the rural
areas for obvious reasons.
....C
O N T D
TO
READ FURTHER... SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR
COPY TODAY!!!
