A Biotechnology Story: Notes from India

Author(s): Shiv Visvanathan and Chandrika Parmar

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 27 (Jul. 6-12, 2002), pp. 2714-2724
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4412325 .
Accessed: 30/01/2011 16:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org
 A Biotechnology
Biotechnology was created within a politics of anxiety and desire in India. The paper
attemptsto understandthe social construction of biotechnology. It locates biotechnology within
the wider debates on developmentand describes an orchestra of positions
each of which capturesone part of the debate.
T ~he history of the debates on science
andtechnology in independentIndia
divide themselves into three phases.
The initial movement was a period of lib-
eration, of inauguration, where India, like
its prime minister Nehru, felt it had a tryst
with future and the future we all realised
"belonged to those who made friends with
science". Science was seen as a funda-
mental feature of our Constitution. It was
a happy period that lasted into the 1970s.
Towards the end, the myth was ragged but
the core held. There was a general feeling
that science was good but where India
failed was in science policy and organi-
sation. The three great fabrications of Big
Science - Space, Atomic Energy and the
Green Revolution - stood as beacons of
the Indian will to science.
Theemergency broughtits own period of
doubt because it was a dictatorship legiti-
mised symbolically by science. Not only
was the violence of demolitions and sterili-
sation, justified in the name of science, the
emergency was seen as a scientific project.
It brought in its aftermath a virtual explo-
sion of debates on science and technology.
The social contract between science,
development and national security was
being threatenedby grass roots groups and
dissenting academics who reinvented phi-
losophy of science and argued that the
current scientific project was a threat to
human rights and to the democratic
imagination. It was the heyday of human
rights and ecological groups who sharp-
ened their epistemological claws on the
thingcalled science. There was a realisation
that dams and forest projects had become
ironic. Dams, once seen as temples of
modem India had displaced over 60 mil-
lion people.
The emergence of liberalisation, the
co-option of dissent, the everyday
2714
Story
Notes from India
SHIV VISVANATHAN,CHANDRIKAPARMAR
mushroomingof NGOs, had along with
the failureof socialismcreateda period
of ambivalencewheredifferentsciences
carrieddifferentkindsof moralvalency.
This is highlightedbestby separatestatus
of thethreeparadigmatic sciences- atomic
energy, information technology and
biotechnology.
Indiahadbrokenawayfromits Hamlet-
like indecisivenessto becomean official
'atom staat'. It was a decision that the
public and the middle class in general
welcomed.For the first time, we had the
diasporaplaying an active political role
arguingthatatomicenergyprovidedone
with masculinity,respect and power in
moderngeopolitics.India,they claimed,
had arrivedas a superpower.
One has to look at the symbolicpolitics
of eachof thesedomains.Withtheadvent
of liberalisation,the publicsectorwas in
disreputeandseeneitheras a bureaucratic
behemothora moneyguzzlerto be subject
to disinvestment.Therewas little left of
the pridein importsubstitutionindustri-
alisationthatsaw firmslike HMT,BHEL
and BEL as cuttingedges of technology.
Earlier the public sector was official,
Publicsectorscience
scientific,respectable.
hadcreatedtheinnovativedomainsof space
research and atomic energy through a
combinationof political and economic
valencies. But today space and atomic
researchnolongercarrytheindexicalmarks
of socialismorpublicsector.Theyembody
the diacriticalmarksof nationalsecurity.
Thereis a shiftfromeconomicto political
legitimacy.Inneitherstagewastheremuch
democraticdebateaboutnuclearenergy.
These worlds were not open to public
scrutiny.There was little debate within
civil society and even the nuclearcritics
were basicallyimitativewith none of the
power or resilienceof the peace move-
mentsinEurope.Dissentingscientists,even
of thestatureof A KN Reddy,werecrudely
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
suppressedandevenjournalslike Current
Science lost theiropennesson this issue.
If atomic energy smacked of defence,
securityandnationstate,information tech-
nology bubbledlike somethingout of a
Schumpetarianworld.
There was a sense of civil society in-
volvement,a feeling thattherewould be
a cybercafein every village even if there
was no potablewater.The miracleof in-
formationtechnologywas thatitjustgrew
- like Topsy. The state was not the key
policy-makerand all its official heroes-
SamPitroda,NarayanMurthy,AzizPremji
- emergedfrom outsideof the scientific
establishment. Infactvenerablenameslike
M G K MenonandYashpalnow appeared
like dinosaursin thisfast-changingworld.
Therewas a grassrootslike qualityabout
it. In fact the spreadof NIIT createda
paralleleducation,economy,an achieve-
ment-orientedanswerto the Macaulayite
universitieswith their liberal model of
scienceandthehumanities.Itwasa middle
classdreamanda diasporicdelight.It was
theenactmentof a fantasyof disneylands
and silicon valleys in India. It was a
consumerstyle with none of the official
asceticismor the unofficialwaste of the
publicsectororganisations. Therewaslittle
talkof povertyin the old radicalstyle. IT
sanctionedconsumption.It was an urban
imaginationand politicians joined the
bandwagonby insisting that their cities
wouldbe cybercities,a move whichgave
politicianslike ChandrababuNaidu tre-
mendousmileageand even global media
coverage. IT like a happy flow moved
acrossthe realmsstate, civil society and
the corporateworld.One could be Indian
and global in it and the middleclass felt
thatBill Gateswas an honoraryIndian.IT
wasnotonlya scientificandtechnological
success,it capturedthesocialimagination.
It createdresonancein every domainand
one realisedthatbeingnetizenwas being
 Biotechnology Map ments or of IT. Biotechnology is an imagi-
nation that has not yet been domesticated
The Scientists by the social discourse. In fact, the debates
Bureaucracy-I The states as
The DBT pressuregroups as spectacles, as performancesmightstimu-
(PKGhosh,etc) Ag universities Laboratories Chandrababu late the democraticimaginationin an utterly
(Regulatory PAU IISC Naidu(AP) different way. Many scientists and bureau-
Framework) GAU CCMB Krishna
Coimbatore CSIR/NCL crats are pushing for the idea that biotech-
(Karnataka)
Station Gujarat nology is more like IT and in fact are
coating it with the happy varnish of IT.
Bureaucracy-Il
(ResearchInstitute The agriculturalscientist Emphasising bio-informatics as one of
(SocialSciences) as hero those hybrid tactics that might bring peace
Technological MS Swaminathan International to this unhappy domain.
Conscience as a (MSSRF) / NGOas We look at science policy butalso explore
ForensicConscience pressuregroups
RIS \/ (Green Peace)
the folklore, the gossip, the rumour and
ICRIER even the science policy as constructed in
the media. We begin by locating biotech-
NGO(I) NGO(II) nology within the wider debates on devel-
(Gene Campaign) RFST opment and then describe an orchestra of
SumanSahai (VandanaShiva positions each of which captures one part
Tata EnergyResearch Navdanya)
Institute(TERI)
of the debate. We wish to emphasise that
Mapof
Biotechnology biotechnology has become a site for the
Debate (RoundI) wider debates of the democratic imagina-
tion in India. It is this pretext for a wider
OvertSpokespersons
International
Donors as Stakeholders text that might ironically be biotech-
(Media)
DFID Downto Earth nology's great contribution while it at-
OXFAM TheHindu,Frontline
ACTIONAID
tempts to solve the problems of hunger,
Science Journals
Peasant Juries/ CurrentScience diversity and transparency and survival.
LokSunwai As one maps biotechnology, it appears
to have that element of soap-opera without
the drama of resolution. Because it at-
Movements(For) tracted the attention of grass roots groups
Shetkari Monsanto and politically-oriented intellectuals, it
Sangathan Syngenta got inscribed into the wider debate on
(SharadJoshi The Diasporic
GailOmvedt) Celebration development and globalisation. This wider
debate has about it a dramaturgical style
C S Prakash which is a combinationof universitydebate,
(AgBio) street theatre, religious discourse and a
GurudevKhush
Manjunath policy document. The biotechnology de-
Indian bates do not have the eloquent clarity of
Movements(Against) Companies the earlier Marxist debates in India where
/ KRRS Biocon.
a
/ BKU (KM Shaw) spade was a spade or at best a shovel.
/ (Nanjundaswamy) Reliance The biotech discourse is a patch quilt of
BKU MAHYCO
/ neighbourlyandcompeting factions. Here,
the logic of scientific committees, populist
movements, science policy analysts, peas-
differentfromcitizenin theold Nehruvian II ant struggles, NGOs, the media combine
world of CSIR science and technology to create a post-modem pot-pourie.
(S and T) withtheir sedate ideasof transfer This on
paper biotechnology attempts to The biotech debates like any morality
of technologyand theirlineardiscourses understandthe social construction of bio- play create a fascinating array of arche-
on innovationchains. technology. It tries to explore how biotech- types. Archetypes can be universal and yet
AtomicenergyandITcontrasted associal nology was perceived and consumed as a deeply individualistic combining personal
imaginations.One was stock, security, social imagination. We wish to argue that nuance, sociological roje and stereotype.
nationstate, politics,the otherwas flow, biotechnology was created within a poli- The map sketches the basic positions.
corporate,civil society,open-ended.One tics of anxiety and desire in India. Indian
embodiedthespectaclecalledthenational civil society created around a biotechnol- Ill
security state, the other represented the ogy heuristics of fear and hope. turning it
celebrationcalled the marketwith all its into a great morality play, a socio-drama One of the most fascinating figures in
doubts.Lurkingbetweenthe two was the of positions, a circus of spectacles, epis- this scientific circus is M S Swaminathan.
unhappyconsciousnessthatHegel would temologies, debates totally different from Swaminathan is not only an outstanding
have loved - biotechnology. the domestication of the nuclear depart- scientist, he is a sociological phenomenon.

Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002 2715

His careerembodiesthe-completegamut
of independent sciencefrom1947to 2001.
He is seenas fatherof thegreenrevolution
and in termsof policy impactthe most
influentialscientistof the era. Even the
BhabhasandMenonsand Sarabhaispale
into insignificancenext to the sheer du-
rabilityof the figure.Hailedas the green
revolution hero,Swaminathan wasattacked
inthe 1970sand1980sforeverythingfrom
the suicidesat IARI, for plagiarismand
suspectresults,fortheecologicaldestruc-
tion of the green revolution,for being a
tool of capitalist agriculture. The
Swaminathan caravanhas eluded all and
extendedbeyondall. The attacksof New
Scientistandcritics like VandanaShiva,
ClaudeAlvarezsoundadolescenttantrums
as thisNestor/Bhismaof scienceproceeds
with an Odyssean energy. In fact, the
scientistrepresentsa giganticintellectual
sponge, an ever-absorptiveenvironment
thatabsorbscritique,domesticatesdual-
isms of lab and land, and the tensions
betweeninnovationandjustice.Todayhe
is a scientificstatesmanwho has revived
an ancientIndianrole thatof middleman
withfinesseandskill.InfactSwaminathan
todayis his own NGO,state,civil society,
village, UN agency, foundation.He rep-
resentsall, he is all of them and yet that
remains in concrete little place called
M S SwaminathanResearchFoundation
(MSSRF) in Chennai. He is paradigm,
exemplar,dissenter,criticandalternative.
He is the fatherof the green revolution.
He is the statesmanof sustainability.His
careerorto give a moreecolatesensitivity,
hislifecycleshowsthathebeganasa young
brahminscientistatCoimbatorewhowent
onto acquirea doctorateatCambridgeand
a post-doctorate atWisconsin.Hejoins the
CentralRiceResearchInstitutein Cuttack
wherehecomesundertheinfluerlceof two
outstandingandunderestimated scientists
- RamiahandParthasarathy. He movesto
Delhi and the rest is history.Here with
Sivaraman,the agriculturalsecretaryand
C S Subramanium,he helps create the
green revolution that made India self-
sufficientin food. He moves to become
directorof InternationalRice Research
Instituteat Philippines and eventually
'retires'to Chennaito createthe MSSRF
where he plays the statesman of
sustainability.So intrinsicis the associa-
tionthatpeopleprobablythinkBrundtland
borrowedthe idea from him.
Controversy might have dogged
Swaminathan in his greenrevolutiondays
2716
but he has played his cards perfectly on
biotech. Here he is statesman, advocate,
dissenter and referee. One has to under-
stand the natureof his strategy for biotech.
Swaminathan always assimilates the new
into old narratives.Thus biotechnology is
new but is also a continuation of green
revolution. Tie green revolution has to be
part of the evergreen revolution. He takes
the diffusionist model of technology and
fashions a democratic theory out of it. He
transforms an innovation chain into a site
for democratic theory. Thirdly, he is con-
tinually inventing new concepts and cre-
ating sites for their functioning. And
finally he absorbs dissent by digesting It,
co-opting its concepts and domesticating it
into a project. Swaminathan domesticates
biotechnology by apparentlycreatinga new
civics for it. One can understand it best
by examining the principles of this civics.
MSSRF was created to "foster a new
symbiotic social contract between science
and society".l Every scientific move
simultaneously articulated an idea of jus-
tice. In fact justice and science combine
in the idea of sustainability. Biotechno-
logy becomes only one example of this
axiomatic concept. Swaminathan invents
a matrix of user-friendly concepts which
even radicals find enticing and the World
Bank engaging. He creates hyphens that
become highways between difficult dual-
isms. In fact, Swaminathan had created an
amniotic set of concepts, a nursery of ex-
perimental sites for the introduction of
biotechnology. Particularly illustrative of
all this is his idea of the biovillage, a term
created by Swaminathan and in China by
L Zhensheng.
Sustainability for Swaminathan is a
multi-dimensional concept. He transforms
Brundtlandianliteracyintosomething more
inclusive of ecology, numeracyand demo-
cracy.2 Without it, a search for justice
remains rhetorical. For Swaminathan
sustainability was a mutli-dimensional
concept "with three critically interacting
dimensions: ecology, economics and
equity". His Sustainable Livelihood
Security Indexproposedin 1991 integrated
all three dimensions of it. Encompassed
within the idea of sustainability and
ecotechnology was the concept of the
biovillage which constitutionallyintegrates
ideas of justice into an innovation chain.
The constitutional preamble to the
biovillage concept3 says it all "The
biovillage is basically a pro-poor, pro-
women and pro-nature approach to sus-
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
tainableagricultureand ruraldevelopment.
The underlying philosophy is that in order
to be sustainable, development should be
environmentallycompatible,economically
efficient and socially equitable." This pro-
poor, pro-jobs, pro-nature orientation is
conceptualised through:
(1) The integrationof the best in traditional
wisdom and technologies with the best in
modem biological technologies.
(2) The pursuit of a holistic system to use
and management of resources.
(3) Enabling the resource power to trans-
late their skills into productionand income
generating activities through access to
capital and support services.
Note how every majorconcept of recent
times has been absorbed, every dualism
bridged. Participation, sustainability,
local knowledge, technological blending,
every fashionable concept of the develop-
ment-democratic world has been absorbed
in this theory of science. Every scientist
is happy, all economists are content, and
any activist would be hopeful. It goes
beyond rhetoricsto hyphenate institutions.
It links private sector to the farmer by
allowing farmers to test, adopt and verify
hybridrice seeds producedby privatesector
companies like MAHYCO, Mumbai,Spic-
Pioneer, Chennai. MSSRF plays the clas-
sic role of middleman. The company
supplies seeds free of cost and the farmer
is compensated for any loss of yield. The
biovillage also becomes a conduit for the
government's income generatingprogram-
mes thus benefiting many landless women.
It links scientists to the poor to provide
solutions within their resource base. The
first three biovillages, Pillayarkuppam,
Kizhur and Sivaranthakam, were estab-
lished in 1991 in Pondicherry, about 150
km south of Chennai.
MSSRF not only createda set of nurturant
sites and concepts for biotechnology. It
also created a continuity of narratives.
Swaminathan realised that the gains of the
green revolution had reached a stagnation.
What is worse the salinity of green revo-
lution lands had whittled productivity.
Biotechnology was seen a catalyst for the
green revolution. The green revolution had
become social acceptable creating both the
myth of the dynamic Punjabi farmers and
the dedicated scientist. Biotechnology was
woven into the happy narratives of the
green revolution. It was subtly presented
as a split-level narrative. The green revo-
lution creation myth had a New Testament.
and an Old Testament. Norman Borlaug
the patriarch of the green revolution is
brought in to pour fire and brimstone on
those with little faith in biotechnology. But
Swaminathan's is a more nuanced narra-
tive. Statesmen-like, he can criticise those
who push fears of biotechnology underthe
carpet. He can talk.of the need to preserve
biodiversity. But, of course, he does it not
only in a civilisational sense but pragmati-
cally. For him, "biodiversity is the feed-
stock for biotechnology".
The idea of biovillage integrates bio-
technology to the world of information. At
the core of the biovillage is the information
centre. It is set up to tell the people that
a "university degree is not the only entry
point to knowledge, skill or wisdom". At
the village knowledge centre, farmers can
access the price and availability of seeds,
fertiliser or pesticides. The volunteers are
generally women who are trained for two
weeks at MSSRF where they learn to use
Microsoft Exchange and Microsoft Word.
The individual villages are connected to
the centralhubat Villanur where questions
of villagers are kept in databases. Families
can access information regarding entitle-
ments in variousgovernmentprogrammes.
Another outcome of the preoccupation
with information is the food insecurity
map of India.
Swaminathan is a true 'glocal' in the
biotechnological world. If the biovillage
locates biotechnology concretely as
local knowledge and local materials,
Swaminathan realises the wider ideolo-
gical battlethathas to be fought. Here again
the twinning of the old and new green
revolution messages is definitely 'hybrid'
in the Borlaug-Swaminathan Tango.
Borlaug definitely sounds an Old Tes-
tament prophet especially in his role of
president, Sasakawa Africa Association.
He is the scientific missionary handling
once again the theological challenge of
reverend Malthus, of population outstrip-
ping food supply despite the tripling of
world food supply during the last three
decades. Borlaug sees biotechnology as
the new window of hope for scientific
research and the poor. For Borlaug, bio-
technology is inevitable, for Swaminathan
it is natural and necessary. For the latter
it is the only answer to technical con-
straints of water and land. He states "It is
now 29 years since the term 'green revo-
lution' came to use". 'Green' denotes chlo-
rophyll, which enables plants to harvest
solar energy. The term 'green revolution'
denotes agriculturalprogress through im-
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
provementof productivityper units of about the potentialrisks of agricultural
land, waterand time. In the coming mil- biotechnology.Two Nobel Prizewinners,
lennium,we will haveno optionotherthan JamesWatsonandNormanBorlaugsigned
producing more food and agricultural the 'declarationof scientistsin supportof
commoditiesfromdiminishingpercapital agriculturalbiotechnology'.The declara-
land and water resources:Swaminathan tionheldthatbiotechnologywas"apower-
and Borlaugwere scheduledto be major ful andsafe meansfor the modificationof
performersin the first Indian Science organismsandcancontributesubstantially
Congress of the millennium. Its theme in enhancingthequalityof life by improv-
was 'Food, nutritionandenvironmental ing agriculture,healthcare and environ-
security'.The messagewas clear.It was ment".Other signatoriesincludingIngo
a frameworkfor the public acceptance Potrykusof Swiss Federal Institute of
of biotechnology. Technology,developerof thenew 'Golden
Rice' andGurudevKhusha winnerof the
IV WorldFood Prize.
At Tuskagee, Prakash presented
Biotechnplogyis a signifier. For the Swaminathana biographyof Carverdur-
numerousscientists in the diaspora,the ing their meeting. In various pieces in
NRIsas they arecalled, biotechnologyis Frontline,Prakashbuildsthe narrativeof
way of touchingroots,of beingIndian,of Indian biotechnologyaroundpossibility
giving backsomethingto India.One sees andlack."Indiawasoncea greatscientific
the NRI view of biotechespeciallyin the powerhouseand made enormousscien-
writings of C S Prakashand those of tific contributionsto the world."He cites
Manjunathand GurudevKhush. the modernnumbersystem, astronomy,
ChanapatnaPrakashis a professorof ayurvedicmedicineandwirelesscommu-
plantmoleculargeneticsat Tuskagee.For nication among past achievementsand
Prakash,biotechnologyis notonlythegift moansthatIndiais no longera storehouse
of the future,it is nostalgia.It forges an of scientificachievements.Theonly oasis
umbilicalconnectionnot only with India is a "smallgroupof Indiansoverseaswho
but with Swaminathan. One senses have made a formidablemarkon global
Swaminathanis notonly an actorbutalso science and technologyenterprises".For
an icon. He is not only a useful scientist, PrakashandPBASIOin general,biotech-
he hassymbolicvalue.Prakashreminisces nology is that schumpetarianbreakthat
in a long webarticleon his first meeting Indiadesperatelyneeds.
with Swaminathan. Prakashmakesan interestingsociologi-
"Ihada veryfortunateoccasionto spend cal point.He observed"basedon history,
a few hourswith ProfessorSwaminathan one couldhavelegitimatelypredictedthat
on August 29, 1997. He was visiting the United Kingdom would among the
WashingtonDC to attenda CGIARmeet- world'sleadersin developingbiotechno-
ingbutwasrelativelyfreeonthatday...This logytoday.InsteadtheUKis knownworld-
was my first with this great agricultural wide as the nation most responsiblefor
scientist althoughI had listened to his impedingtheintroduction of technology".
lecturea coupleof times...His wordsthen ForPrakashBritain,thehomeof scientific
made me decide to take up genetics and iconslikeJenner,Wilkins,Crick,Fleming
plant breeding as my future subject." has demonised the new technology as
Prakashat Tuskageebecomesone of the 'Frankenstein Food'.He asks"whowould
greatadvocatesof biotechnologythrough havepredictedit? Certainlynot Jenner...
PBASIO,a lobbyof NRIbiotechnologists Does anyone believe Darwinwould op-
[Madsen2001].4 pose researchin biotechnology".Prakash
Presentin almosteveryNRImindis the is surprisedthat the cradle of scientific
needto makeIndiaa superpower. Forthem discovery now "coddles green activist
historybecomesa listof lostopportunities groups,who use fearsratherthanscience
andthefuturea negationof history.Peeved toextendtheiranti-capitalist agenda".What
at the anti-scienceand environmentalist is worse complains Prakashis that the
critiquesof biotechnology,Prakashhelped epidemicof fearis spreadingwithdevas-
draft a declarationaboutbiotechnology. tatingconsequencesfor developingcoun-
On February7, AgBio World,a biotech- tries. The British insistenceon biotech-
nology informationcentreissueda decla- free foods gives a negativemessagewith
ration signed by over a 3,200 leading sadrepercussionsaroundthe globe.Thai-
scientistsrespondingto thepublicconcern land,the largestrice exporter,is reducing
2717
supportfor its biotech. Prakashclaims that
the vandalism and destruction of biotech
research sites is a part of the 'anti-capi-
talist' agenda.
If Prakashis violently missionary for the
biotech paradigm,Gurudev Khush winner
of 1996 World Food Prize is virtually
matter of fact. Khush is the exemplar.
Khush's work is legendary. The institute
of genetics at PunjabAgriculturalUniver-
sity, Ludhiana, is named after him. His
IR36 was "grown in 11 million hectares
becoming the most widely grown variety
of any crop the world has every known".
For him it is as if rice, science, life are all
gifts which he must keep in perpetual
exchange. Khush claims "this is the mis-
sion of my life...To continue to work to-
ward the improvement of rice, and to be
able to feed more and more people". A
recentinterview almost bold in its simplic-
ity shows why Khush, IRRI rice breeder
is such a powerful advertisement for bio-
technology.
Planet Rice editor-in-chief Tom
Hargrovewho worked closely with Khush
at IRRI from 1973 through 1991, inter-
viewed his old friend, via email.
Planet Rice (PR): Where are you from?
Wheredid you study?
Khush:I'm fromIndia. I.studiedat Punjab
AgriculturalUniversity, Ludhiana,India,
formy BSc in agriculture;thenfor my PhD
in genetics at the University of California
at Davis, United States.
Whatdoes rice mean to the world?
Rice means life itself to half the world's
population. Forty-nine per cent of the
calories consumed by the world popula-
tion come from three cereals: rice, 23 per
cent;wheat, 17 percent);'andmaize, 9 per
cent.Insomecountriessuchas Bangladesh,
Myanmar,and Vietnam, rice supplies 70
to 75 per cent of the calories.
Whatdoes rice mean to you, personally?
For me, rice is a nature's wonderfulgift.
I amgratefulI was providedan'opportunity
workon rice, develop my scientificcareer,
raisemy family, andestablishcontactsand
friendships with numerous wonderful
people in the world.
What are your future directions in rice
research?
My personal direction of rice researchis
to develop 'perfect' rice varieties with
increasedyield potential(20 percenthigher
yield), durableresistance to diseases and
insects, [and] superioror palatablegrain
quality with dense micronutrients,using
conventional and biotechnological ap-
proaches.
Wheredo you stand on the use of geneti-
cally modified, or GM crops?
I am in favour of using GM crops.
2718
The third central figure in what might
becalled thediasporictriptychis Manjunath
who heads the Monsanto Centre in
Bangalore. If Prakash is missionary and
Khush just is, Manjunath is also a low-
key, buttoned down scientist without
the crass salesmanship of Monsanto.
Manjunath'sposition is moreconventional.
He points out all the 75 scientists who
staff the Monsanto laboratory are Indi-
ans. "No doubt Monsanto is an American
company but we are all Indians here".
He sees the Monsanto laboratory as an
attempt to reverse the brain drain. "There
used to be a complaint that there has been
a brain drain in India. We have been able
to attract Indian scientists and they are
working in this country. It is a positive
aspect and in the long run it is going to
benefit our country". There is a kitsch
like quality to Manjunath's defence of
biotechnology. Here is how John Biewen
describes his comments. Manjunath
states "GM seeds will make for more
reliable and profitable crops, reducing
tragedies like thatof the cotton farmerwho
sold his kidney. Manjunath eyes actually
well up at this thought: that high-tech
seeds could help India not to become
dependent on developed countries. Given
its vast agricultural land, India has 'all
the potential to become a superpower in
agriculture'."
V The question one must ask is 'why
Biotechnology has to be located within
the wider drama of globalisation.
Nanjundaswamy of the Karnataka Rajya
Ryota Sangha (KRRS) representsthe deep
fears of a farmers' movement encounter-
ing biotechnology.
If Swaminathan represents professional
competence, rational-legal authority in a
Weberian sense, Nanjundaswamy repre-
sents the failed charismatic response to
biotechnology. Nanjundaswamyas a symp-
tom and symbol of biotech anxieties has
caught the attention of two fine cultural
critics who eventually see him as a Don
Quixote playing his own Sancha Panza.
The section owes much to the work of the
sociologist Stig Toft Madsen (2001) and
also the sketches of D R Nagaraj (1996),
one of our finest cultural critics.
As a narrative,the Nanjundaswamystory
can be presented as three separate events.
There is first the battle of Kentucky Fried
Chicken. There is then the international
caravan. Act III is the attack on the
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
Monsantofield stationsconductingtrials
on BT cotton.
D R Nagarajin his 'AnxiousHinduand
theAngryFarmer'notesthatglobalisation
is both threateningand puzzling. As a
result, one feels helpless and protest
becomesa more difficult act. One needs
a style of protestin a Mcluhaneseworld
wheretheissueis morethantheissue.One
picksan objectof protestwhichhas wider
resonancesandcarriesoutanactionwhich
disguisesone's ambivalenceto it. Nagaraj
remarksthatlike the sorcererone creates
a strawdummyof the enemy and sticks
needles into it. The symbol is hurt;with
the hope it will pierce the real as well.
Nagarajnotes that the KRSS assaulton
KFC had that qualityabout it.
January30, 1996wasthe48 anniversary
of Gandhi'smartyrdom.On thatday the
farmers'movementin Kerala"leda blitz-
kriegon the multinational KentuckyFried
Chicken in Bangalore"[Nagaraj 1996:
284]. The protestorsransackedthe whole
shop,politelyaskingtheforeigners,mostly
whites, to leave the place. The cashieris
toldto collecthis moneyandlockthebox.
All the while the media,includinginter-
national networksare busy at work. It
showsthatNanjundaswamy maynothave
masteredbiotechnologybut he at least
knowsthemedia.Sometimelaterthepolice
arrestthe protestorsandlodgethemin the
CentralJail at Bangalore.
chicken?'Nagarajstatesit is an everyday
object. Globalisation, he argues, is "a
mysticalexperiencederivedfrom every-
dayobjects.Junkfood,toiletitems,clothes,
music, condoms, credit cards" are all
familiarvehicles in the ritualsof global-
isation[Nagaraj1996:287].Globalisation
destroys the familiarityof everydayob-
jects and worse threatensthe traditional
technologicalformsthatmakethem.Tra-
ditionaltechnologyis no longerreplicable
in a globalcontext.Thiscoversfoodcrops,
local species of crops or animals.It is as
if the global genie has stolen the local
magic from these objectsand life forms.
Nagaraj explains "the difference these
movements...areso desperateto protest
are located in the details of everyday
life, which are vulnerable to the vio-
lence of the changingmoresof production
and consumptionimposed from above.
ThechickenthatKentuckyFriedChicken
seeks to imposeis morepowerfulthanall
the lesser breeds from local villages"
[Nagaraj 1997:287]. Nanjundaswamy's
KFC protest ha's an iconic quality today
but he realises he needs to present more.
events, spectacles and happenings to meet
the changing threats to agriculture. The
KFC ritual by itself is not enough. In fact
the Professor could capture it in a per-
petual statue or a puppet show in front of
the KFC office and search for more potent
ideas of protest. Stig Toft Madsen takes
over as narratorhere.
Madsen accompanied the Inter Conti-
nental Caravan "to protest against WTO,
The World Economic Forum at Davos,
genetic engineering, etc". The ICC was
conceived by Nanjundaswamy among
others and the KRSS. Madsen narrative is
in two parts - one an anthropological
description of ICC as an embodiment of
the carnivalesque and the factional splits
in the aftermath. Madsen captures the
protestoras tourist out on a global junket.
"The farmers were in Europe to protest
globalisation - in Geneva they had pro-
tested the WTO, Cargills and the Swiss
banks, and we were on the way to Vevey
to protest Nestle - without a map and with
only anelementary notion of the geography
of Europe" [Madsen 2001:3733]. Madsen
observes that"The ICC was appropriately
termed a caravan, a visible audible show
moving from place to place, splitting
off, merging and encountering locals as
hosts, as foes, and as spectators." For
Madsen, the protest was peaceful "as it
were, the caravan moved on - and hardly
a dog barked." In fact it was quaint in its
combinationsof"Sardarsmakingchappatis
on open fires, Swiss musicians playing
carnival music, and Mahendra Singh
'Tikait', the farmer's leader from Uttar
Pradesh(UP) smoking his 'hookah' with
his friends as if they were in Sisauli and
not in Geneva" [Madsen 2001:2734].
While outwardly the caravan and other
protestshadelements of the carnivalesque,
the public depositions had a manichean
quality of a battle between oppressed and
oppressors, "a battle in which countless
people...were uprooted from their lands
and villages, deprived of their hardearned
livelihoods, spatially marginalised...and
singlled out for punishment by the forces
of globalisation". It was a combination of
demonology and victimology that was
potent. The demon was WTO along with
MNC with states as pliant NGOs. "Were
they to succeed the poor farmers would be
left with nothing but the poisoned earth
in which to sow - under duress - the
genetically engineered seeds as demanded
Economic and Political Weekly July 6, 2002
by the WTO. The imposition of seeds, in
particular the Terminator seeds, would
leave the farmers in utter servility bereft
of the option of saving their own seeds
from season to season" [Madsen 2001:
3734]. But it is the amplified victimology
that made KRSS a success. It managed
to twin the epidemic of suicides and organ
sales by cotton farmers to the biotechnol-
ogy picture. It was powerful soap opera.
Here is an excerpt from John Biewen of
the National Public Radio of December 26,
2000. I am quoting John Biewen in detail.5
Engineering Crops in a
Needy World
In Europe and the US, the debate over
genetically modifiedcrops has focused on
questions aboutthe environmentandfood
safety. But in developing countries...the
questions are different and the stakes are
higher. For farm families just barely
surviving...the possibility that GM crops
could make things better...or worse...is a
question of life or death.
One fourthof the world's poorest people
live in India.MostpoorIndiansare farmers.
Whetherthose farmersshould startplant-
ing geneticallymodifiedseeds is thesubject
of an impassionedargumentamongIndian
politicians,scientistsandactivists.But the
people who will be most affected by the
outcome- farmersthemselves- arerarely
heard.
saw onlytwoterriblechoices:
VenkatReddy
to commit suicide...or sell a piece of his
body.
Reddy'svoice, theninterpreter: "Hedoesn't
have any land. He doesn't have any
property."
Reddy is 38 - a small man and very thin.
Through an interpreter...he explains he
used to grow cotton and chillies on four
acres of rented land in the south Indian
state of AndhraPradesh. But a year ago
he bought worthlessseedsfrom a dishon-
est salesman. His crop failed.
[His voice], interpreter:"Because of the
crops he lost a lot of money, due to which
he had to borrowfrom the moneylenders
which he could not repay. To clear the
loans, he said it's betterto actuallydonate
something rather than, you know, kill
himself and leave his family. So the bro-
kers came and he agreed to actually sell
his kidney ratherthan, you know, killing
himself with insecticide."
Hundredsof destituteIndianfarmershave
committedsuicide in recentyears. Reddy
was paid a thousanddollarsfor his kidney.
Thaterased his debts...butthe surgeryleft
him too weak to work. Now his wife sup-
ports him and their three children.
VenkatReddy's storydoesn'tseem to have
anything to do with genetically modified
or GM...seeds. He's never used them:
such crops have not been approved in
India. Reddy just got swindled. But he
illustratesjust how vulnerablethe world's
poorestfarmerscan be. Andwhy thedebate
overGMcropsis especially wrenchingand
important in the developing world. In
India...seven in ten of the nation's one
billionpeoplelive orworkon farm...mostly
tiny farmsthatgeneratea marginalliving.
So for hundredsof millions of Indians...
desperationis just one failed crop away.
It's a bright...sticky September day in
Bangalore...the capital of the state of
Karnataka.About two thousand farmers
rally nearthe centraltrainstationand start
a three-milemarchthroughthecity streets.
Most of the marchersare men: they wear
sandals and either trousers or the tradi-
tional loincloth...the dhoti.
But at the sight of foreignjournalistswith
microphones...rally organisers lead the
marchersin chantsagainsttheWorldTrade
Organisationand multinationalcorpora-
tions. One in particular.
Chanting Guy: "Monsanto!"
Crowd response: "Dhikkara!"
Monsanto...the American chemical and
biotech giant...developed an insect-resis-
tant cotton seed - the first GM crop
approvedforlarge-scalefieldtrialinIndia.
Thegovernmentannouncedthepermitjust
weeks before this rally.
Chanting Guy: "Monsanto!"
Crowd response: "Dhikkara!"
Leaders of the protest brought Venkat
Reddy to town to make a point. He's the
cottonfarmer who donated his kidney in
desperation. Protesters say if India em-
braces the new corporate...high-tech
seeds...that will cause more kidneysales
and suicides by locking morefarmers into
dependencyand debt. Theysay traditional
seed varietiesthatcan be tradedorplanted
forfree every year might become hard to
find...or could get contaminated by
engineeredcrops in neighbouringfields.
Thenthe big multinationalswouldcontrol
the marketfor seeds - the most basic
source of afarmer's livelihoodand his life.
Farmer: "Theirpurposeonly to cheat us,
loot us. This is a new colonial phenomena
of all these multinationals."
Crowdresponse:"Monsanto!" "Dhikkara!"
A technological misconception how-
ever created a political thread linking
suicides, kidney sales and Monsanto. This
becomes clearest as KRRS leads a spate
of protests against transgenic cotton.
Monsanto's Bolgard cotton, which pro-
vides resistance to the American Boll-
worm, was being tested out in Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh. Trial plants were
2719
burntby demonstratorsand AP govern-
mentstoppedtrialson farmers'fields. It
directedMonsantoand (MAHYCO)its
partnerto restrictresearchtrialsto stations
of theN G RangaAgriculturalUniversity
underthe direct supervisionof govern-
ment scientists.
The rhetoricalnarrativesof Monsanto
and KRRSbecome superbfoils to each
other. Cotton, bollworm, suicides and
organ transplantsare fused in the public
imagination. Itis aprotestthathasGandhian
andsocialistovertones.At one level it is
easy to understandMonsanto's conster-
nation. P K Ghosh, the adviser to the
union government'sdepartmentof bio-
technology who was responsible for
grantingpermissionfor the cotton trials
stated "therewas no reasonto deny per-
mission".Smartingfrom the media on-
slaught,he said "Activistsshouldat least
get their facts before going to town. If
we are accused of working in secrecy,
whataretheydoing.Creatingpanicwith-
out a case?"
The public contrastshould not be one
of raucousprotestandscientificmisunder-
standingon one side and corporatepro-
fessionalismon the other.Monsantois a
political weave of aggressivesalesman-
ship, technologicalsuccess and secrecy.
Onehas to understand all threethreadsof
the weave. Monsantohas shades of Big
Brotheras corporatesalesman.
As JohnVidal reportsin TheGuardian
(TheGuardian,June19,1999),"Monsanto
wanted to introduce Bollgard to India
this year in a blaze of publicity,jingles,
posters,adsandleafletsinmanylanguages.
It was prettyconfidentof success. It uses
an internationalPR company and has
heavilylobbiedthe policy-makers.It also
sponsorssports,competitionsandlinksits
name to religious celebrationssuch as
diwaliand300thAnniversary of theSikhs."
Monsanto'splans were grandiose."We
are aimingto consolidatethe whole food
chain",a Monsantodirectortoldthe press
last year.
Along with aggressive salesmanship,
thereis the promiseof scientificcornuco-
pia,a solutionto thefood crises.Onesees
it particularlyin the Goldenricetoutedas
a solutionto waterscarcityand low nu-
trientvalue. Yet along with the scientific
eleganceis a touchof secrecy.V R Gadwal
of MAHYCO resonatesthiswhenhe states
to Downto Earth"Letthe trialsspeakfor
themselves.Why should we inform the
public?"[Khuranaand Raghavan1999].
2720
However,it is not as if the KRRSstyle Indian Institute of Science (IISc) domes-
is notsuspect.Ithasbeenaccusedof being ticate biotech by showing its an old
autocratic.Manyfarmersfelttheprofessor tradition or seeing as part of an old battle
was gettingpoliticalmileageout of these between natureand culture. Padmanabhan
events. Down to Earth quotes a farmer located it in an evolutionary frame. "The
fromBellaryas saying."Nanjundaswamy battle between micro-organisms and
hasno rightto set themobon us. We have human beings is millenium old and the
been dealing with various seed and former are much smarter than all the
chemicalcompanies.WeknowMAHYCO scientists put together. Sooner or later re-
will and have no reasonto believe it is sistance will emerge but our work is to find
involved in anythingsinister". new ways of handling them". The IIS
ThebattlebetweenNanjundaswamy and scientist explained the traditional way of
Monsanto has all the elements of a making hybrid seeds is also genetically
Manichean play. 'Operate, Cremate engineered. "The molecular method
Monsanto' is Nanjundaswamy's new adopted now, which involves addition of
mediaplay whileMonsantodismisseshim one, two or more genes is a drop in the
as an 'opportunist','rabblerouser'and a ocean compared to the enormous genetic
"manwithno politicalsupportwho wants flux going on in nature." Padmanabhan
only fame and money but is worriedby added that there has to be a difference in
hispromisestoextendthecampaignacross biotechnology controversies in Europeand
India".Nanjundaswamyin tur accuses India. Europe's opposition to the technol-
Monsanto, KFC, Pepsico and Miss ogy was not scientific but economic,
World beauty contest of 'perverting Padmanabhan clarified that a well-fed
Indian culture'. Europe did not approve of US multi-
Stig Toft Madsenin his studyof KRRS nationals dumping transgenie products
correctsa possiblemisunderstanding that into its market.
the protests, rallies and suicide might The scientific strategy is a threefold
suggest.He remarksthatthe farmersral- one. There is the question of nature, that
lying to Tikait,and Nanjundaswamy are touch of history and the problem of eco-
not marginalsbut directcreationsof the nomics. D M Balasubramanium does a
greenrevolution.Witha tremendousirony Bronowskian approach to biotechnology.
Madsen notes: "The Caravanists(and In fact he begins by citing Bronowski story
KRRS)representedthe middlingandbig- of wheat as a collaboration between man
gish farmers"andsome of those families and nature.
representtheprosperityof thegreenrevo- The crossing of wild wheat with a goat
lution"[Madsen2001:3740].Madsenadds
grass around8000 BC produceda fertile
the fact, that green revolutionhas pro- hybridcalled emmer.Emmerspreadnatu-
duceda class of well-off farmersis a fact rally by being broadcastin the wind and
thatneitherKRRS,orVandanaShivawould furthercross between emmerand another
liketoadmitpreferring astheydotoportray naturalgoat grass createdthe breadwheat
the green revolutionas a curse on the with its plump of 42 chromosomes.
peasantry. This wheathadits graineartightlycovered
with husk. It could not crack open by
itself...This bread wheat needed an agent
VI to open its ear so that it can be sown and
spread.Bronowskiadds"Manhas a wheat
The questionone asks while these pro- he lives by, but the wheat also thinksthat
tests areragingis whatdo leadingIndian manhasbeen madeforwheatbecauseonly
scientiststhinkof the politics of anxiety so can it be propagated...Thelife of each
around biotechnology. Are the fears man and plant, dependedon the other. It
justified,real, imitative,different?How is a true fairly tale of genetics, as if the
do scientists constructthe narrativesof coming of civilisation has been blessed in
advance by the spirit of Mendel.
biotechnologyin India?Howis it different
from biotechnology as cornucopia of Balasubramaniumalso emphasises that
PBASIO? What do they emphasise - biotechnology should not be seen as one
prudence,progressor a mixtureof these? variantbut a cluster of styles. The question
Whatkindof metaphorsor tacticsdo they is not so much the issue of biotechnology
employ? per se but a choice of styles, techniques,
D M Balasubramanium of Centrefor approaches and the possible synergy be-
CellularandMolecularBiology (CCMB) tween them. Secondly, he says one must
Hyderabadand G Padmanabhanof the differentiatebetween gene technology,
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
'non-gene technology' or whole system classify, predictandhandlea threatcalled deathswhenthesecanbe prevented?" She
biotechnology. He emphasises that the Monsanto. thenasks,"Ifthereis anoutcryin thewest
whole enterprise of the green revolution, againstrecombinantbovine growthhor-
the white revolution, sericulture, floricul- VII monerBST,whichincreasesmilkproduc-
ture and veterinary science have come tion in cows, it is understandablefor a
through non-gene technology. In doing soThe discussionon 'the seeds of wrath' society thatis afloatin an ocean of milk.
Balasubramanium performs a brilliant as JohnVidalof TheGuardiandubsit has Howeveris it logical in India,a country
focused more on political protest and
narrative tactic. He shows agriculture is with severemilk shortageandmanychil-
wider than biotechnology scientificstances.One now almostinevi-
and yet drenwho do not get minimal nutrition?
tablymoves to the questionof ethics and
emphasises the crucial role of the latter. ShouldIndiawith its acutefoddershort-
biotechnology.SumanSahaiof The Gene
He discusses the achievements of Indian age and an average milk productionof
Campaigngives a strangeandat firstsight
biotechnology and creates a geneology for 2 litres per cow per day spurnon ethical
unnuancedtwist to it.
Indian scientists. What Balasubramanian groundsa technology thathasthepoten-
Suman Sahai (1999) in 'The Bogus
does is that he creates not another 'disci- tial to improvethisproductionlevel using
plinary' narrative a la Foucault but aDebateon Bioethics'arguesthat"ethical the same amountof fodder?"
domesticating one. He places biotech- concernsarea luxuryof developedcoun- She offersa secondexamplearoundthe
tries.Developingcountriesshouldnotjust
nology in terms of the familiar and let us geneticallyengineeredtomato.FlavrSavr,
follow the moraldilemmasof the north
insertourselves in it. As a packaged history is a geneticallyengineeredtomatowith a
butbalance the ethics of biotechnology
of domesticating biotechnology, his essay delayedpost-harvest softeningprocess.The
is superb. against the ethics of poverty".Sahai's framesfor consideringthe use of such a
PushpaBhargavwho established CCMB position initially appearsa bit like the tomato are culturallyand economically
debateson humanrights where authori-
gives a different twist to the debate. For specific.FlavrSavrin Netherlandsmight
tarianfigureslike Lee KwanYen or some
him the fear is not at the level of science appearmore unappetisingin a cultureof
Islamicfundamentalists
where India often misses out golden op- have arguedthat tasteless tomatoesproducedin an inten-
the notionof HumanRightsis an ethno-
portunities but in the framework of neo- sive cultivationsystem.InIndia,however,
centric westernidea which Asian coun-
colonialism. Neo-colonialism to Bhargav post-harvestlosses can be considerable
incarnates in two forms - direct and triescando without.Sahai'sfirstnarrative and traumatic.Sahai then asks almost
indirect. Bhargav emphasises that not strategyis somewhatsimilar.For Sahai rhetorically"Should60 per cent of fruit
"Theconcernwithbioethicsis essentially
developing biotechnology is itself a form growthin India'seconomically-weakhill
of dependency. "The best reason for a westernphenomenon.The objectionsto regionsbe allowedto rot beforereaching
biotechnologyin westernsocieties might
India developing biotech, he says, is that the market,or shouldwe try to introduce
be logical for theircontextandeconomic
if it doesn't, 'the country will be exploited fruitvarietiesin whichthe rottingprocess
situation.Thesecountrieshavea standard
by others in a way history has not known can be delayed?Shouldimportantethical
of food availabilityandchoicethatcannot
before'. It will be a dependency of ideas argumentsstop us from conductingbio-
where India will be dependent on otherbe improved".Theyarein factconfronted technologyresearchon this characteristic
countries for ideas, know-how and not withtheethicsof scarcitybutwiththe in apple varieties?"
products." ethics of surplus.Europehad to spenda Sahaiforallherethicaldivisionof labour
Bhargav structures the anxiety elo-large sum of money about 2 billion US is askingfora moresophisticatedapproach
quently. He asks, "How do you dominatedollarsin 1993to destroysurplusfruitand to ethics and a more sophisticatedap-
a country where 700 million people arevegetablesin an environmentally friendly proach to science. What she fights in
way. Sahai arguesthat to transferthese
directly dependent on farming? You infil- pragmatictermsis not the moralquestion
trate its agriculture. Who controls a debatesis notonly anactof plagiarismbut butthe moralhyperbolewhichconstrains
of irrelevance,uncreativein its use of
country's food security controls thatcoun- the way we ask questions.
rhetoricsandmetaphorsthatarenotIndian
try. Monsanto is doing this. It only wants Sahai's,whomC S Prakashcalls a 'rare
to make money. To do this it wants toin contextor substance.Forher,bioethics find',6is a hopefulbuttough-minded view
control the seed business. The days ofitself is a western phenomenon,which of biotechnology.In fact she quells fears
might be appropriateand appropriately
direct colonisation are over; the days of of biotechnologyby claimingit is a part
practisedin Europe.She argues for the
indirect colonisation are not". He adds of the Asian repertoireof techniqueslike
needof a discussionof the ethicalaspects
"Biotechnology in the lab or for medical fermentationtechnology.ThegreatAsian
of biotechnology"rootedin our philoso-
research is one thing. There it can be skill, fromin-lawsto outlawshas centred
phy andreligion,reflectingoursocialand
contained. When it is an open environ- around fermentation. However while
ment, it is very different". humanneeds, and resolving our dilem- recognisingthe Asian skill in food and
mas"in termsof our codes of appropri-
ForBhargavandother scientists like him beverages,Sahaidoes notbuildon it. One
ateness.Sahai notes that,"Thereis little
theremustbe an open awareness of biotech almost expects she would link cultural
reasonforpeoplein foodsurpluscountries
as possibility andas constraint.There must styles of ethics to culturalrepertoiresin
to becomeexcitedaboutthebiotechnology
be a clarity of scientific choice based on science. But she moves from society and
route to increase the yield of wheat or
research which is open and locally gen- cultureto state,claimingwhatone needs
potato".Butcanwe in Indiahavethesame
erated. Only a tradition of biotechnology is a nationalpolicy. The PTI reporton
in India can lead to informed choice. perception?"Isit moreunethicalto inter- Sahai's view of biotechnologyis reveal-
Pursuing biotech help us understand, fere in god's work thanto allow hunger ing. It moves fromthe politicsof anxiety,

Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002 2721

fear, and domestication to a tough minded
celebration of its possibilities. A PTI re-
portstates that according to Sahai biotech-
nology can do for India what oil got for
the Arabs. Sahai notes:
Biological resourcesare economically as
importanttoday as oil and India has the
potentialtodominateworldeconomy in the
next few decades, Dr Sahai told PTI here.
Describing biotechnology as the most
dominanttechnologyof presenttimes, she
said biotechnologywhich till recentlywas
confined to the laboratoryhad enteredthe
market.
Its handlers are not the universities and
scientificinstitutionsanymorebutincreas-
ingly the corporate sector", said Sahai,
convenerof thegene campaignfightingfor
intellectualpropertyrights (IPR) on bio-
logical materials.
Intoday'smarketlanguage,biotechnology
spells mega-bucksand according to pro-
jections of several reputed institutions,
biotechnology was slated to account for
almost 60 to 70 per cent of the global
economy for at least the next two to three
decades, she said ...
We have the potential to become world
leaders.Its because all the biodiversityof
the world is located in the tropical coun-
tries which happen to be developing na-
tions.
Countriesin the west have the technology
butno diversity,but in Indiawe have both
the technologyandthe resources,she said.
Biotechnologywouldplaya rolein mining,
feedstock chemicals, energy, pharma-
ceuticals, enzyme mediated processes
besides agriculture,she said. Agriculture,
however, was the best developed branch
of biotechnology and its most lucrative
prize, she said.
Sahai, who was professor of genetics in
a Germanuniversitytill recently, said the
countrymustformulateproactivelaws and
establish ownership over its biological
resources and put up deterrents against
bio-smuggling.
VIII
The seduction, the attractionof biotech-
nology so clearly apparentin Sahai's press
comments leaves Vandana Shiva of the
Research Foundation for Science and
Technology cold. Though cold is not a
word one would use for the most passion-
atesystematiccritic of biotechnology. Shiva
has produced a virtual explosion of books
on biotechnology and biodiversity; the
energy is awesome and even the repetitive-
ness strikes home. But present in her
writings is a feminist-traditionalist per-
spective which is sensitive to the fate of
2722
vulnerablegroupsandwhichsees biotech- seed as a means of production. Where
nology as a formof piracyand a process technology fails, legal regulation in the
of deskilling.In manyways, Shiva is not form of intellectual property rights enters
only an outstandingecologist;she is our and completes the control. The biotech-
most prominent moral philosopher. nologist is not just a cosmic outlaw but
Centralto it all is themetaphorof theseed. plain one. Biotechnology is a form of
One must confess while readingShiva, institutionalised piracy embodied in the
one often finds her data has a powerful idea of patenting. A patent does not
impactindependentof her interpretation. recognise the prior custody over farmer
Shiva argues that fundamental to over their seeds. There is no recognition
modembiotechnologyis a cosmological of prior art. Culturally it defines agricul-
split which is genderedand constructed ture as an activity performed in a labora-
intoa politicaleconomy.ForShiva,regen- tory rather than a farm. Shiva argues that
erationwas centralto sustainablesociet- "placing the contribution of corporate
ies. The continuitybetweenregeneration scientists over and above the intellectual
in humanand non-humannaturewas the contribution made by third world farmers
basis of all ancientworld views and was over ten thousand years in the areas of
brokenby patriarchy.Manwas separated conservation, breeding, domestication and
from the process of nature."Creativity development of plantandgenetic resources
becamethe monopolyof men who were is based on rank social discrimination"
engagedin production,whilewomenwere [Shiva 1999:132-33]. It is a derecognition
engagedinmerereproduction whichrather of an entire intellectual commons. The
than being treatedas renewableproduc- juridical framework of GATT and TRIPS
tion is treatedas non-production" [Shiva is a new enclosure movement which terms
1999:128]. A cosmic split creates a "a farmer who saves and replants the seed
genderedsplit and an invidiouspolitical of patented or protected plant into a
economy.Menareassociatedwithcreativ- violator of the law". Shiva's work is not
ity andproduction,womenwithpassivity only the correct the false histories present
andreproduction. Menareassociatedwith in cosmology and law but an attempt to
culture,womenwithnature.Thesedichoto- create the possibilities of local groups
mies are endemicto capitalistpatriarchy defying the biotechnological dispensation.
and are reproducedin the grammarof Shiva the critic of biotechnology is
biotechnology. devastatingly eloquent. Shiva the political
Biotechnology, according to Shiva, activist and debater is an equally formi-
moves beyond ancientpatriarchy.While dable presence. One can see this parti-
the formerused the symbolof the active cularly in her debates with Sahai, Gail
seed and the passive earth, "The new Omvedt and Nanjundaswamy.
biotechnologyreconstitutesthe seed as It is the work of Madsen which once
passiveandlocatesactivityandcreativity again creates a scenario of ambivalence
in the engineeringmind". and the carnivalesque around the biotech
Shiva arguesbiotechnologymoves be- protest. Madsen chronicles the splits the
yondthe violenceof thegreenrevolution. idea of the caravan creates.
The green revolutionwas based on the Nanjundaswamy and Vandana were
reductionistidea of an inertearthwhich according to Madsen a circuit of reciproci-
neededpackagesof artificialfertiliser.It ties. She was a global intellectual without
emphasisesa monoculturalview of pro- a mass base. Nanjundaswamy as leader of
ductionwhichignoredthediversityof uses KRSS was a political leader with a follow-
of acropandthevarietyof usesof biomass. ing needing Europeanconnection. Madsen
If the green revolutionwas basedon the notes "VandanaandNanjundaswamywere
inertnessof the earth,biotechnologygoes ideological clones of each other and no one
a step further[Shiva 1999:132].It con- ascribed their fallout to the disagreement
structsits discoursearoundtheseedwhich over the cause they were fighting". It was
it destroysin two ways. It robs the seed more "a classic clash between a people's
of its regenerativecapacitythroughtech- organisation and an NGO". The problem
nology andlaw. Hybridisation disenables began around the social composition of
theseedfromreproducing itselfandforces the caravan which was mainly middle
the farmerto returnto the breederfor farmers loyal to BKU and KRSS. A
furtherstock. delegation of farmers warned Vandana
It decemanticisesthe seed by breaking about this "They wanted me to know that
the link between seed as foodgrainand since most Indian farmers are buried in
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
debt and thousands have committed
suicide over the past years due to indebted-
ness, no farmer can afford to Rs 35,000
for travel to Europe". Vandana Shiva sent
message to her European friends describ-
ing the KRRS caravan as basically com-
posed of "bank officials, pesticide and
seed agents and commission agents".
Madsen remarks"Shiva portraysherself
as an important gatekeeper of access for
the KRSS to the European scene" and
also adds that her argument "that the
participants could not be farmers because
most Indian farmers are buried under
debt" [Madsen 2001:3739] 'holds little
water' and 'is misplaced' and 'wrong'
what neither KRRS or Shiva wished to
face was their base of protest stemmed
from farmers who had benefited from the
green revolution.
There was another issue according to
Madsen that might have furthered the rift.
"When KRRS activists 'cremated
Monsanto' by burning the Bt cotton field
of a farmer whose fields were apparently
used for a field test by Monsanto in
Maladagudda village in Karnataka on
November 28, 1998, they met with oppo-
sition, from the local representative of
BJP." Shiva seems to have leaned on the
side of the BJP further exacerbating the
electoral future of the KRSS.
One must also mention that there were
peasant movements and activists who
opposed the caravan. Sharad Joshi, the.
peasant leader, who was once a UN official
in fact led a counter caravan which visited
Bern and Paris. It did not get the media
attention that ICC did. ICC in fact alleged
that Joshi's caravan was supported by
Novartis, a major Swiss-based company
involved in biotechnology. But the real
issue is not the purist battle of finance
or social composition. Intellectuals like
Gail Omvedt, the American born socio-
logist working in Maharashtra remarks
that the danger of such protest such as
KRSS is that many Indian farmers may
lose the opportunities biotechnology pro-
vides and then be hurt economically.
Present in Omvedt's writing, says Madsen,
is a fear that KRRS may be as off the mark
as the Marxists movements of the earlier
decade.
Omvedt's position as a sensitive revi-
sion of earlierhard-linecritiques of devel-
opment deserves a hearing. It is articulated
both in terms of the debate on big dams
and about Monsanto. Omvedt does not
dabble in women's rights but emphasises
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002
the possibilities before the farmer. She
notes thatwhile NanjundaswamyandJoshi
differed on the caravan,the both performed
'kar seva' (constructive work) in the pro-
tests campaigning to rise the height of
dams. The usual argument that dams are
destructive and local rainwaterharvesting
is a sufficient alternative does not appeal
to them. Farmers,say Omvedt, wants water
for their fields. What Omvedt is concerned
with is social frameworks which offer
choice andopportunity.She seems to imply
that movements like NBA may actually
whittle down the realm of choice in the
name of ecology and human rights. She
extends this argument to the debate on
biotechnology with Vandana Shiva.
In 'TerminatingChoice' Omvedt (1998)
read the KRRS protest against Monsanto
sociologically. Omvedt unlike Shiva is not
concerned about how peasants look. "The
farmersmovement whether it is the Raitha
Sangha or Shetkari Sangathana in
Maharashtradoes indeed have some small
town and more educated activists and
farmers these days - especially the youth
- try to dress as sophisticated as anyone
else. So there is no objection to the Raitha
Sangha having some non-poor peasants in
its ranks."
What Omvedt objects to is the hypocrisy
and the lack of democracy. Omvedt de-
scribes Nanjundaswamy's movement as a
few hundred people and some thousands
of urban and international supporters and
asks whether they are going to deprive
thousands of Indian farmers access to the
new technology. Omvedt adds that
Monsanto's collaborator MAHYCO is
no tenderfoot but a company which has
been supplying quality seeds for a long
while. "Its founder recently won an FAO
award and there is no reason to believe
that the company is simply a puppet in
the hands of Monsanto." Omvedt ob-
jects to the description of the protest as
a campaign against a vicious MNC. To
construct this destroys or diminishes the
'swadeshi' imagination and the possibili-
ties before it.
The biotechnology protest is captive to
a false image of the farmer as a romantic,
backward looking character who is help-
less and needs to be protected from
multinationals and marketforces. Omvedt
arguesthatfarmers"arefamiliarwith hybrid
seeds. They buy them, try them, refuse to
use them if they do not perform.They look
for alternatives to fertilisers and pesticides
but are not in a position to simply throw
up everything and go back to natural
farming...They want to be part of the
modemworldas muchas everyoneelse".
Oiwedt notesthatMonsantomayor may
not tacklepests or providemoreproduc-
tive seeds. But she insists it is that "the
farmersare intelligentenough to assess
thisanddecidewhetheror nottheyshould
use the seeds." For Omvedt this is the
farmer'srightand they do not requirean
elite to guardthem againstthe imagined
dangersof technology.Whatthey needis
informationand what they insist uponis
their right to choose.
VandanaShiva in 'TerminatingFree-
dom' responds to Omvedt challenges
Omvedt's information aboutMonsantoand
her ideaof choice eventuallyendingwith
a biographicalnoteaboutdifferences.For
Shiva,Omvedt'sargumentsstemsfroman
ignoranceof terminator technologywhich
decreases choice. "Producerslose their
freedomto save seed andconsumerslose
their freedomto choose food." She sees
Monsanto'sgrowingcontrolof seedcom-
panies as a first step in food totalitaria-
nism.ShenotesthatMonsanto'stestswere
illegalandbypassedbiosafetyregulations.
Shealsoaddsthatfoodlabellingwhichhas
alwaysbeen treatedas a citizen's rightis
now readby Monsantoas an interference
with free trade.
Thereis a poignancyto the last partof
Shiva's article.Shenotes"therewasa time
whenGail was a partof suchmovements.
Once she had organiseda tour through
Maharashtra for women's groupsto visit
experimentsin Sita-Kheti- a vision of
women-centred,nature-centredagricul-
ture"."Somethingchangedalongthe way
and the proponentof Sita-Khetiis now
supporting Monsantokheti- a masculinist,
monopolist,anti-women,anti-farmer, anti-
naturesystem of agriculture.The Gail I
knew would not have written'Terminat-
ing Choice'.
WhileShivais gentleoratleastnostalgic
aboutOmvedt,she lambastsSumanSahai.
ChallengingSahai's notionof ethics as a
luxuryfor the thirdworld.She arguesthat
Sahai ratherthan being original,mimics
thepositionsof thebiotechnologyindustry
whichsees ethicsas irrelevantforthethird
worldbecausefor the hungry,ethics and
safetyareirrelevant.She comparesthis to
Larry Summer's recommendationthat
pollutingindustriesshould be shifted to
the thirdworld.MoreepistemicallyShiva
arguesthat the split between ethics and
technologyis a westerndualismthat we
2723
do not need to import. It replicates the
Cartesian divide but is hostile to Indian
civilisation where ethics is a distinctive
part of technology. Shiva concludes that
ethics is required precisely because bio-
technology is seen as neutral which it is
not. The Sahai-Shiva contrast is lethal.
One forecasts biotechnology as the 'Indian
Oil', the other sees it as the first step in
food totalitarianism.
IX
The biotechnology controversy has all
the makings of a great moral debate given
especially the contributions of Shiva,
Prakash,OmvedtandBhargav. Articulated
in a moregenerallevel, it acquires a definite
flavour in the debates around Bt cotton.
But interviews reveal the most of the
farmershave not understood the nature of
'risk'.Whenasked,even ministersclaimed,
that risk like security is a central problem.
Like security, they see risk as crisis driven
not an everyday issue of politics and
'management'. In fact given that the de-
cision on Bt cotton was made de facto
before the government decision made it de
jure, we have to face the fact that both in
Punjab and Gujarat farmers have voted
with their feet for Bt cotton. The informal
economy of Bt cotton is a vibrant one and
the centre did not dare burn down 10,000
acres of Bt cotton crop grown in Gujarat.
In fact, Nana Chudasama who heads the
Narmada Development Board claimed
Bt + Narmada would make Gujarat the
premier state in India. Farmers in Punjab
also see it as a panacea, a magic that will
help sustain green revolution consump-
tion, when green revolution production is
in trouble. Punjab's obsession for pesti-
cides needs to be confronted. In a slow way
biotechnology is representing not only the
domestication of anxiety and a semiotics
of desire. Many scientists and farmers see
in it the equivalent of technological foun-
tainof youth. Mere regulation will not help
because biotechnology is coming to rep-
resent 'consumption' 'desire', 'the city',
and technological fixes.
It is this level that worries a cultural
critic of the democratic imagination.
Biotechnology as a scientific venture in
the populist and technocratic imagination
is alive and well but biotechnology as a
part of the new democratic imagination
committed to the rule of law and regula-
tion, and governance sensitive to the ideas
of risk is fragile. One needs to build a
2724
concrete set of institutions around the Reference
practice of biotechnology and locate it
within the wider debates on innovation, Beck, Ulrich (1995): Ecological Politics in the
Age of Risk Polity Press, Cambridge.
propertyand the commons. Unfortunately Cvetkovich, George and RagnarE Lofstedt (eds)
it is here that one sees an institutional (1999): Social Trustand the Managementof
silence at the everyday level. The informal Risk, Earthscan,London.
Khurana,Indiraand N Raghavan(1999): 'Sound
politics and economics of biotechnology and Fury', Down to Earth, Vol 7, No 17,
especially in the Bt cotton case have January 31.
overwhelmed formal institutional struc- Leiss, William (2001): In the Chamberof Risks:
tures. Indian democracy to be sustain- UnderstandingRisk Controversies,McGill -
Queens University Press, London.
able still needs to understand risk [Beck Madsen, Stigtof (2001): 'The View from
1995; Leiss 2001; Cvetkovich and Lofstedt Vevey', Economicand Political Weekly,Vol
XXXVI, No 39, September 29-October 5,
QQQ
1999]. pp 3733-42.
Nagaraj,D R (1996): 'Anxious Hinduand Angry
Notes Farmer:Notes on the Cultureand Politics of
Two Responses to Globalisationin India' in
1 See, Frontline, June 4, 1993. Also, Frontline, LuizE Soares(ed), CulturalPluralism,Identity
Vol 17, Issue 17, August 14-September 10, and Globalisation,UNESCO, Rio de Janeiro,
2000. pp 271-93.
2 We have borrowedthis argumentfrom Garrett Omvedt, Gail (1998): 'TerminatingChoice', The
Hardin'sFiltersAgainstFolly, PenguinBooks, Hindu, December 14,
Sahai, Suman (1999): 'The Bogus Debate on
New York, 1985, see particularlypp 53-69.
3 See, http://www.undp.org Bioethics', Biotechnology and Development
4 Monitor, No 30, March.
See, http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/ Shiva, Vandana
(1999): 'The Seed and the
petition Earth: Biotechnology and the Colonisationof
5 http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-infor/ Regeneration' in Shiva (ed), Minding Our
articles/interviews/npr-engcrops.html Lives: Womenfrpm the South and the North
6 See, http://www.americanradioworks.org/ Reconnect Ecology and Health, Kali for
features/gross-india/slideshow.html Women, Delhi.
SAMEEKSHATRUST BOOKS
Selections of articles from Economic and Political Weekly
Ideals, Images and Real Lives
Women in Literatureand History
Editedby Alice Thorner and Maithreyi Krishnaraj
'Birds in a Cage':Changesin Bengali Social Life as Recordedin Autobiographies
by WomenSarabashiGhosh*: In Searchof the 'PureHeathen':MissionaryWomen
in Nineteenth Century India GeraldineH Forbes :. Sarojini Naidu: Romanticism
and Resistance MeenaAlexander:. Women, Emancipationand Equality:Pandita
Ramabai'sContributionto Women'sCauseMeeraKosambi.* Outside the Norms:
WomenAsceticsin HinduSociety CatherineClementin-Ojha .* NationalistIconography:
Image of Women in 19th CenturyBengali Literature TanikaSarkar*: Positivism
and Nationalism:Womanhoodand Crisisin NationalistFiction - Bankimchandra's
AnandmathJasodhara Bagchi *: Govardhanram's WomenSonalShukla-. HowEqual?
Womenin Premchand's Writings GeetanjaliPandey 4*RepresentingDevadasis:'Dasigal
Mosavalai'as a RadicalText S Anandhi *:The Viranganain North Indian History:
Myth and PopularCultureKathrynHansen*: Constructionand Reconstructionof
Womanin GandhiSujataPatel :*Feminine Identity and National Ethos in Indian
CalendarArt Patricia Uberoi.
pp viii + 354 Rs 350
Available from
ORIENT LONGMAN LIMITED
Calcutta Chennai Mumbai New Delhi Bangalore Bhubaneshwar
Ernakulam Guwahati Hyderabad Jaipur Lucknow Patna
Economicand PoliticalWeekly July 6, 2002