1

Hybrid, Hyphen, History, Hysteria: The Making of

the Bt Cotton Controversy

Chandrika Parmar and Shiv Visvanathan

Centre for Study of Developing Societies, 29, Rajpur Road, Delhi –110054. Email:svcsds@vsnl.com

IDS Seminar on Agriculture Biotechnology and the Developing World. 1-2 October, 2003

2

I

Imagine one is an alien with an anthropology degree. Ritually one lands up at

Delhi does the circuit, and then like a true diasporic visits Bangalore or Hyderabad, the

diasporic capitals of India and then reluctantly turns to Gujarat or Ludhiana or Warrangal.

How does one read the Bt controversy at these three different levels or sites?

If one were at Delhi, the words that would constantly echo are regulation.

Activists would nibble at names like Vandana Shiva, Suman Sahai or Devender Sharma.

They are good hard currency in activist circles. Whether one is in Delhi or Sussex there is

little difference. The narratives are virtually the same, the cast of characters one

interviews from Manju Sharma to P K Ghosh follow you to these international seminars,

content to be both analysts and case studies. The plethora of work on regulation is

stunning. In fact the obsession on regulation appears like a nostalgia for a new license

raj.

The new discourses on globalization always reveal a penchant for law. Law is the

best site to capture the new grammar of the global system. Bureaucrats, economists,

political scientists revel in the new rule games of the system. Regulation appears like a

readymade script for the new reality. One begins wondering whether regulation is already

a predetermined narrative, a grid thrown across event, telling you what to read, pointing

out to lack and silence. The scholarship is awesome. Ivy league PhDs, IDS working

papers and EPW special articles vie for attention. Reading it, one is not sure whether

regulatory domain is an actual architecture, a proposed architectonic or a plain wish list

allowing for a transfer of protocols across countries - “We already have it therefore you

need it syndrome”.

If the domain of scholarship suffers from the proliferation of predetermined

narratives, dictates, presumptions, the world of NGOs and activist groups, is a happy

hybrid of the local, glocal, global and also seems to have a readymade agenda. One sees

3

it best in the debate on peasant juries on biotechnology. These juries were public hearings

about biotechnology and transgenic crops conducted by NGOs, grassroots groups and

international groups of environmentalists. They projected a drama of idealism at its best,

with activists, exponents of diversity, Greenpeace, all rubbing shoulders in this new

Vavlovian space. Dramas were enacted and but ‘butler did it’ verdict was clear.

Biotechnology, in the form of GMOS, was declared irrelevant and dangerous for

India. The peasants have spoken and their wisdom invokes a return to traditional

knowledge and a ban of genetically modified crops.

The controversy over peasant juries acquired a set-piece impetus when authorities

at IDS and elsewhere, possibly dependent on DFID money, harass the researchers

involved with the jury project. This provokes the standard reactions and usual Pandora’s

box of dualisms – west/rest, developed – underdeveloped, consultants-NGOs, big versus

small - exploded as a predictable grid. The battle carries its own mystique with third

world NGOs defeating development ideology and official economists. As a witness to the

jury proceeding in Andhra, one felt that a study of the body language of the jury or even

of the language of translation might have been more fruitful.

May be activism needs a hearing aid or minimally a translator. One wonders,

whether rituals of condemnation allowed for silences, agency, doubts even plain

adventurousness among the allegedly peasant audience. The debate on regulation reads

like a predetermined discourse and, the activist’s discourse reads like an overdetermined

one. There even appears to be a transfer of hysteria, a continuation of the war against

GMOS by other means. Only the site is not Europe but various localities in India.

Our anthropologist entering the field encounters two powerful anticipatory

discourses with set-piece vocabularies. It is a heady logic, this multiple potion of Dhar,

Suman Sahai, Tom Wakeford et.al. and equally seductive. It has a magic of its own. One

has then a sense of emptiness one usually feels after watching a powerful film. Reality is

poor stuff next to it. The everydayness of actual controversy seems sketchy. Not that one

wants to privilege one over the other, but what one studies is more a fragmented jagged

ethnography. Fragments don’t hold together. Instead of powerful generalities one finds

confusion, even contradiction. But one wants to outline this lesser drama because it

captures not just urgency and crisis, but the multiple realities of indifference, ignorance,

4

tolerance, even a suspension of judgment. One misses the language of regulatory

maneuvers, gene flow, bollworm behavior, monitoring, Cartegena protocol. The folk or

regional imaginations seem to have a mind of their own.

II

One drives down to Gujarat, the virtual epicenter of the Bt Cotton controversy and

one is met by strange silence. One looks for local informants and inevitably meets the

local correspondent of Times of India. An enthusiastic environmentalist, even he is

puzzled by the event. Shyam Parekh observes. “The story originated somewhere from

Delhi. All the national newspapers carried it and gave it to the local newspapers. We

decided to follow it up and since it had a Gujarat angle, it was our business. What we

found was that there was not much information…on either the Bt Gene or whether such

an episode had even taken place”. The journalist in fact called it ‘a downloaded

controversy’ describing it as something that happens in Delhi or abroad and which you

first explore on the net. Parekh explored fresh angles, attempting to look at it from the

health point of view, investigating whether the Bt gene had some impact on streptomycin.

“In the government nobody knew much, the forest department, the entire ministry,

nobody had any information. In fact, they said if it is a cotton variety why should you

have a problem? If it produces more cotton then why we should discard it? They will say

it is good, if the insects die, if the pest dies then why should you have a problem?

“I mean, first of all people need some kind of agitation around this particular

aspect, then we can go into the issues. Basically people are not aware what effects GMOs

can have. Greenpeace came much later. Vandana Shiva - I don’t think we ever heard of

her in this particular issue. They make statements from Delhi. There is no NGO

movement locally on this front. That much I am sure. They might have issued statements

time and again but that’s it. I mean how do you keep an issue alive? If something is

5

happening, then you write about it. You know kind of follow-ups, kind of something. But

when there is absolutely nothing, everything is quiet, I can’t go to the field”.

“Even doctors don’t know. The other day I was talking to the doctor. I asked two

or three questions. I asked them what could be the effects of this product, they were not at

all aware. They didn’t expect much of it. O.k. aata hai jaata hai, aise to bahut crops hote

hain. In nature also there are all kinds of exchanges taking place and why bother about it.

You ask questions and then they will come up with “may be, possible yeses, and no’s”.

Minus internet it would have been very difficult for me also to have basic exposure to it”.

III

Ahmedabad evoked no sense of scandal. While national newspapers were

glowing Greenpeace, there was a sense of normalcy around Gujarat. As Times of India of

Monday October 29, 2001 reported “Greenpeace International has expressed serious

concern about hundreds of acres of illegally planted Bt Cotton in Gujarat”. TOI quoted

Greenpeace as claiming that the “entire episode was ludicrous revealing the inability of

the Indian regulatory system to control the release of genetically modified organisms into

the environment”. Greenpeace campaigner Michelle Chawla feared that “no proper

environmental assessment of the situation was being undertaken...It claimed that no

assessment, or even investigation of environmental damage was made by the team that

the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had sent”.

The authorities in Gujarat including the then agricultural minister Purushottam

Rupala operated within a different framework of responses. Rupala told us “ Look, this

Bt cotton issue is not a state issue. Because the state government has neither the authority

to give them permission nor do they have any other mechanism to identify whether we

have to do anything in this….It is a question of enquiry. The matter has come forward

due to someone’s complaint”.

6

Rupala continued, “The complaint was made by MAHYCO, so a central team

came and checked out. They found it was a genetically engineered seed that had been

sold by the company commercially… However at the state level, there in no act that

permits us to take action against those growing Bt cotton. In fact we said so to the Centre.

The committee in the Centre, which gives the approval and directions for this, wrote to us

to burn whatever Bt crop that has been sown by the farmers. But this is not possible

because that is thousands of acres of land. We cannot destroy so much of crop. The

farmers have sowed the cotton that has been sown here. The crop has been cultivated in

thousand of hectares, so what is the use of destroying so much crop?”

“My stand as an agriculture minister is that: till date no authority has said that Bt

is injurious to health, or bad for the soil or that it is destroying the environment. After that

we found out that the developed countries of the world are using it openly. The cotton

farmers of US – more than fifty percent of them are using Bt cotton. They talk of

globalization on one hand and on the other hand they don’t want our farmers to use the ‘

good quality seeds’. What happened by mistake is not the fault of the farmer but of the

company. Legal action should be taken against the company not the farmer. We should

not do anything against the farmers. This is my opinion and that of other leaders. We will

not allow anything to happen against the interest of the farmers. That is my decision”.

We asked him what would happen if the seeds reached the market and what if the

Centre told them to stop. He replied, “Centre has already told us that. How do we stop the

issue that has gone in front of the farmers? Who will pay the compensation for the losses

that will be incurred if we burn their crop? Let us consider this, this issue has come to

light but supposing tomorrow some other company does the same thing and brings

another kind of seed into the market what will we do then? For this we will go to the

farmers. Why can’t we make provisions against the companies?”

For Rupala, regulation had to fit within the reality principle of democracy. He was

matter of fact about the MAHYCO complaint. “MAHYCO complained because

MAHYCO had applied for permission. Their experiment was going on for the last three

years. It was about to be completed, but before that someone went to the market and that

must have resulted in losses to them”.

7

“The Ministry of environment has banned Bt cotton for the next one year. We will

also say this is banned. We will not allow anyone to sell it. We will not give anyone

permission. My stand is just that about what has happened we will not do anything about

that”.

“These seeds are not easy to destroy because it has already reached the market.

The marketing had already been done when we came to know about it. Now we can’t go

to each house and search if this is Bt or not. If we go to search, then people will ask give

us something else in place of Bt. This is not practical. We don’t want to fight with the

Centre, but it is impossible to implement it in the field and even otherwise the farmers

should have the freedom to choose between what they want to sow in their fields. We

should give them the right guidance but we cannot force them into anything”.

He asked us, “You have done research, so you tell us what is the harm in this?”

(isme nuksan kya hai?). “The precise issue is has anyone shown the harmful/ negative

impact of the Bt cotton?” Rupala insisted that, the evidence should be brought before the

government. ‘...Till now there is no evidence of the side effects’…. If the Centre sends us

the evidence we will see. I am also against playing with the health of the general public.

But it will not be right to do all that (burn cotton crop) before that has been established.

And what damage will have been done? Tell me this”. Rupala’s is not an isolated

response.

Bhupendra Chudasma, Chairman of the Narmada Sardar Sarovar (currently

agricultural minister) explained his vision of Gujarat and biotechnology’s place in it

(19/12/01) Chudasma said, “Gujarat has more potential in agriculture than any other state

of country. But because of less water, because of irregular rain, the farmer of the state is

not happy. In the last 50 years we have drawn water from the earth… without recharging

it. In Mehsana, in North Gujarat and Saurashtra, the level of the water has gone down. So

the farmers are in trouble because he is unable to use the new technology and facilities….

The farmer wants to use new technologies”.

“The solution with me now is Narmada. 18 lakh hectare of land are so is going to

be irrigated by the Narmada water….people will have sufficient water after this…. With

this water their will be multiple success of the of the state as for example after the Bhakra

Nangal, Punjab and Haryana were capable of providing 70 per cent of the food

8

production of India. Like this Gujarat will also be able to provide for the whole country.

Because of government help, our farmers are ready to adopt all new technical aids as well

as biotechnology and other systems too. Horticulture is the future of Gujarat. Big areas

of cotton here in Gujarat and day by day new research is also being adopted by our

progressive farmers. In country I think we are second largest cotton producing state

growing cotton like Sankar and Kalyan”.

“The problem of Bt cotton is not with the farmer. It is with the companies, with

those who have produced this research. The problem is they have not adopted rules and

regulations or taken the permission from the Government. Whether it is beneficial or

harmful is still open today to my mind. As per my knowledge, no expert opinion has been

taken so far. So, I can say on behalf of Gujarat farmer don’t take the decision to destroy

the cotton as grown by the state and in future any policy you apply take the opinion of the

state agriculture department. More I will suggest take the opinion from the countries and

also other states like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka... Somewhere I read in newspapers

that Centre is in the mood to destroy in the production but it is not correct, or advisable

because the farmer has spent money to grow this cotton. And how can you identify this

cotton in the market. So if this is a fault, this is not a fault of the farmers”.

Chudasma explained, “You see, environment is also necessary in our life. We

cannot ignore the environment as well as biotechnology but the hurry of the farmers is

also to be considered. To my mind Centre should form an expert committee in which

experts from environment department and biotechnology department and representative

of farmer’s organizations for example Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and others organized by

Sharad Joshi. One thing is sure that no system is 100 per cent proof. If biotechnology is

80 per cent in the interest of the farmers, then we have to suffer and let go 20 per cent of

the environment. If it destroys the environment 80 percent then we have to let go and do

something, some compr omise should be there. If we expect 100 percent proof system is

not possible”.

“There is this talk about burning it but it is not the work of department of farming

to burn. Our task is to grow. So our government has taken a decision we will not destroy

it … or minister of agriculture is himself a farmer. I am also a farmer…”. He noted

pragmatically, “Once the cotton is in the market, you cannot identify it. In the market

9

there are 30 trucks coming in every morning. How can you identify that these 5 trucks are

Bt cotton and these 25 are Shankar and Kalyan. You cannot do that”.

Chudasma predicted, “I am sure that after the (Narmada) waters come in two

years, the farmers will definitely go for biotechnology. Definitely. Our farmer is very

progressive. You see the benefit the Bhakra Nangal came within 10 years. Our farmers

will take the advantage in 3-4 years because our farmer is a farmer and a businessman.

The Punjabi farmer is only a farmer not a businessman”. More expansively he added,

“You see I compare our country with China. China is constructing a big dam namely

Three Gorges. They are going to produce 18200 mega watts of electricity. You see, the

more benefits are taken by China. We can see the dumping in the markets. The

production is much cheaper. All the industrial as well as agricultural production are very

cheap because they have cheaper electricity. Our farmers want to adopt biotechnology,

because it is safe from any disease, they will have to use less pesticides, fertilizers. It is

safe technology”.

Most interesting was the case of Atma Ram Patel, former Union agriculture

minister and now leader of farmer groups in Mehsana district (primarily a cotton growing

area). He had only one thing to say-“ the interest of the farmer should be protected, so if

cotton had been grown by farmers it would be protected” For him there was no difference

between Bt cotton or Kalyan or Shankar.

GUJCOT echoed this response. One major official said, “We are for the farmers.

We are sitting here for the farmers and we cannot do anything against the farmers. But

we are not saying much because we are also a government organization”.

A easy sense of normalcy even of expectation marks the conversation of those in

authority. Chudasma went to the extent of contending Narmada + Biotechnology will

make Gujarat the first state in the country.

The business as usual model contrasts sharply within the reports emerging out of

Karnataka. It is based on a grid of assumptions. Firstly if other countries like China and

USA are doing it, why not us. There is an anxiety not about Bt cotton but about being left

out of what looks the Bt millennium. What adds to the feeling is not a fear of the

bollworm but a local fear of the Chinese. Over the last few years the Chinese have been

dumping goods in the markets of Gujarat. The shrewd Gujarati businessman has no

10

answer to Chinese fans, cycles, clocks or pharmaceuticals. The Chinese have been even

able to undercut Kutch embroidery, the legendary craft of the area. There is a widely

articulated fear that the Chinese would soon dump cheap Bt cotton cloth on Gujarat. It is

not the risk science of Bt cotton that moves Gujarat, it is the threat of immediate

competition. In fact when we discussed the question of risk, two sets of answers emerge.

The first was Rupala’s answer that risk was a “security issue and therefore a

responsibility of the Centre”. The second was the standard answer that “it was as unsafe

crossing a road”. There was an implicit split between knowledge and politics. Risk as

knowledge was a problem of experts. The standard response was “let the government

establish a committee”. Risk was deep into the future but the agricultural crop involved

the politics of today.

Behind the normalcy there were undercurrents of anxiety but it was not the

anxiety of mass movements like the KRRS, it was the nibbling anxiety of competing

lobbies. It was the politics of the seed industry that came to the fore.

IV

The seed industry was the first group to mobilize in any significant way. The

language of presentation, the shift in emphasis is something one must be sensitive to. In

fact it is the seed industry that provides the first systematic “framing” stories within

Gujarat.

On 5th October 2001, 21 members of the Gujarat seed industry including Vikram

Seeds, Avani Seeds, Nav Gujarat Seeds, Ravi Seeds, Paras Agro Seeds submitted an

urgent letter to Manju Sharma of the Department of Biotechnology. This first letter is an

open ended one beginning with the standard invocation of cotton as the white gold of

India. The levels of the narrative change with every paragraph. Once the commercial

importance of cotton is noted, the problems created by the bollworm complex are

emphasized. The real war is cotton versus bollworm. But as the letter observes sadly, “no

11

major headway however is achieved in this regard”. But the companies realize politics

like economics is a composite of secondary wars triggered by science.

The second paragraph mentions that, “ new technologies have come into use.

Some multinational companies have developed some techniques of introduction of

recombinant DNA” thereby producing genetically modified transgenic products. The

letter collectively bows to the “long term collective wisdom of GOI and DBT” that “such

products are not permitted for sale in India without confirmatory tests”. It acknowledges

that Mahyco, a private seed company in India is the only company permitted to conduct

Bt cotton trials under strict supervision and screening of a chain of committees formed by

GOI and a lead of agency like DBT. The letter smacks of good behavior all around till the

bollworm appears again.

The annual cotton crop had been a good one till an epidemic of bollworm

devastated the crop throughout the state. “The pest menace was so acute that it compelled

a majority of seed producers to discontinue their hybrid cotton seed production

programmes”. In this devastated landscape “one research cotton product named Nav

Bharat –151 ‘stood’ completely free from bollworm damage”.

What the farmers celebrate, now threatens the seed industry because Nav Bharat

has sold over “8000 to 10,000 packets this season”. The letter warns that it may be a

transgenic product. That has been “sold for the last 2-3 years by the company”. The fact

came to light only because of the bollworm attack”. The happy world of regulation seems

to collapse when smuggling becomes the standard mode for transfer of technology. The

smuggled crop not only makes Bt cotton more democratically accessible, it widens the

domain of risk. The letter adds that many farmers have raised the crop using open-

pollinated (OP) seeds collected from Nav Bharat-151 grown in the previous season”.

The letter warns of an epidemic anarchy, “that OP seeds would spread at a faster

rate in a large area not only in Gujarat state but also in other cotton growing regions of

the country. You can very well understand the consequences and risk to Indian farmers

and to agriculture as a whole, which is associated with the unauthorized and illegal

spread of such seeds…”

On 12th October 2001 in a second letter to Manju Sharma, the seed association

confirms it own suspicions that Nav Bharat –151 is a transgenic item. The association

12

expresses surprise that the company has escaped the attention of local authorities. Nor

can it explain their reluctance to act against the illegal sale of seeds. The association

requested the government

1. To uproot the Nav Bharat –151 crop planted by farmers in different regions.

2. Recover the cotton harvested and destroy it to stop its further use.

3. Destroy all seeds harvested so far from the programme and to destroy any

seed available with the company as inventory

After such appeals the letter makes an important point. It observes that cotton

enters the food chain much earlier in India than in ‘developed countries’. Firstly,

commercial cottonseeds are crushed to obtain edible oil, which is consumed on a large

scale. Secondly large quantities of seed are utilized as cattle feed. As food and feed,

cotton enters the food chain at an early stage.

Yet the seed industry’s concern for Bt cotton is not fully convincing. The letters

appear to be more of rhetorical strategy to face the imminent threat of Bt cotton. This

becomes much clearer in a letter the Gujarat State Seeds Producers Corporation

addressed to Prime Minister Vajpayee. It is not merely the concern for the hazards of

transgenic cotton that motivates the letter. It is fear of monopoly , the anxiety that

Monsanto-Mahyco may dominate the seed industry. It warns that:

1. In an India “where 70 per cent of small and marginal farmers are

engaged in agriculture, the monopoly of any one company may prove

dangerous to the farmers”.

2. The foreign company will sell such seeds at a high rate.

3. The cost of the seeds may be more than for the cost of the pesticides

4. Given agro climatic variation, one or two varieties from any one

company may not be suitable for cultivation in all regions.

The letter then suggests that “Bt cotton gene technology should made available to

all companies” so as to enable “the poor farmers to use such seeds”. The interests of the

local seeds companies and the poor and marginal farmers are represented as identical in

the battle against monopoly. The shift in emphasis is stunning. Page 1 battles transgenic

13

seeds. Page 2 and 3 suggests a sharing of the profits. It is not damage or danger or risk

that is threatening but monopoly of seed control.

An earlier draft of the letter is clearer. It states, “The unknown health risks from

GM foods are the possibility of food allergies and increased resistance to antibiotics.

However, it seems that the GM crops are being pushed in a hurry by certain multinational

companies because of the prospect for high commercial gain, though nothing is being

done on food crops that are of relevance to the poor people….However if government of

India desires to introduce this technology, the government should purchase the

technology and make it available to all public institutions and private organizations for

seed production on commercial base. Such technology should not be restricted or

monopolized to any one foreign company so as others may not get benefits”.

One does not know whether Vajpayee replied to the letter. But as a consolation

one must note that the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), “the powerful farmers wing of

the Sangh Parivar” warned the State government that it was in on mood to accept the

state governments argument that “genetically engineered seed is harmless or that

India’s pesticide lobby is behind the campaign against the new seed. Times of India ,

(28th October, 2001) reported that the BKS considered the seed “an attempt by foreign

multinational companies to expose on India farming techniques that would make us

subservient to the west”.

Apart from the seed industry no local group in Gujarat could sustain the debate

for long. The local media found it difficult to sustain the story and reverted to standard

environmental reports about parks, drought and diversity. Even more inexplicable was

the silence of the NGOs.

V

Kapil Shah a well-known exponent of organic agriculture explained that there

were few scientifically trained NGOs in Gujarat. The Gandhian groups did not have the

resources or personnel to fight such a battle. Shah claimed that even Greenpeace or

Vandana Shiva appeared as fleeting presences unable to carry any local weight. To

14

sustain some suggestion of dialogue Shah invited Dr. P.M. Bhargav an associate of

Francis Crick and Hussain Zaheer. Bhargav who established the Centre for Cellular and

Molecular Biology at Hyderabad is now a successful consultant visited Baroda to

lecture at the University and Ahmedabad to speak to journalists at the Gujarati

Vidyapeeth.

Bhargav is an outstanding popularizer of science. His speech, which was attended

by a dozen people at the Vidyapeeth, was published later in the Economic and Political

Weekly (Vol. XXXVII No. 15. Apr. 13-19, 2002, 1402-1406). It was a reasoned

argument, which deserved a larger audience. Bhargav’s demand was not for closure or

a ban but a proposal for an appropriate risk assessment system.

He began with a risk geography of the world showing that while in USA,

genetically engineered crops were grown in 100 million acres of farmland, in Europe

Asia, Australia and Latin America, “the acceptance of genetically engineered crops was

more circumspect”. He added that no country in the world had a satisfactory system of

risk assessment and emphasized the immediate need for one by observing that the Soya

bean flour that was given as a gift by USAID to the Orissa flood victims a few years

ago was genetically engineered. After outlining the abstract requirements of a risk

assessment system, Bhargav observed that in India the clearance of a GMO requires a

ratification from two committees the RCGM of the DBT and the GEAC of the ministry

of environment (1406). He notes, “ I believe that both these committees, with the

solitary exception of the decision taken by the GEAC under the chairmanship of the

new secretary, environment and forests, at its meeting in August 2001, at which it did

not permit Monsanto to immediately release its Bt cotton in India for

commercialization, have suffered from the following flaws:

a. They have been professionally incompetent, inexperienced and

unknowledgeable, especially about the world scenario; and

b. They have shown virtually a total lack of social environment, courage,

integrity and transparency.” (1406)

Bhargav raises an important point about risk technologies. Risk technologies

demand not only acute forms of governance but necessitate trust and transparency.

Raising once again the specter of a multinational – DBT nexus, Bhargav claims, “we

15

never looked at the poor credibility of Monsanto and its widely known and documented

habit of misleading and exploiting people or even going against the law. Our

government did not take note also of the fact the people’s pe rmanent commission on

global corporation and Public Harm, a successor to the Russel War crimes tribunal

indicted Monsanto and 3 other corporations”.

In examining Gujarat we have tried to show the shades of reaction that marks

different structures. The local government is marked by indifference or at least a

suspension of judgment, the seed industry by anxiety, the local media by tiredness of

“downloaded controversy”, and NGOs by a sense of illiteracy and passivity. One senses

that the defeat of the Narmada Campaign has immobilized them for a new war against

genetically modified crops.

VI

As we move from Gujarat to Hyderabad the texture of the debate changes.

Hyderabad has powerful NGOs with competent scientists with alternative global

scenarios. We have several meetings at the Centre for World Solidarity, the Deccan

Development Society to discuss the implications. A senior entomologist at the CWS

provides a powerful meditation on the Helicoverpa.

M.S. Chari was before retirement a senior scientist at the Gujarat Agriculture

University where the first cotton hybrids were created. For him a meditation on the pest

is a meditation on life unsentimentally done. Facts follow scientific facts in this

reflection on the Helicoverpa and in doing this entomologist changes the terms of the

discourse. The earlier discourses talked of the Helicoverpa as a pest, as a cause of

doomed harvests. Chari performs a conceptual twist. The pest is no longer cause,

leading to mechanical discourses of cause and effect. The scientific nexus, which

mechanically links pest to pesticide, is now broken by three intermediate terms –

nature, livelihood, lifestyle. The introduction of these three terms shifts the contour of

the debate. Now pesticides and regulation belong to logic of mecha nical or monologic

16

discourses. Chari begins by noting that, “50 per cent of the pesticides produced in India

are used on the cotton crop alone”. One is not clear whether one is dealing with a worm

as a social obsession or with the inventiveness of nature. Chari states:

1. The Helicoverpa has developed resistance to all the pesticides used in India.

2. The Helicoverpa has 6-8 generations in a year.

3. It can migrate up to 250 kms and has about 200 host plants.

4. In India Helicoverpa damages commercial and food crops through out the

year.

5. There is no source of resistance available in the cotton germ plasm in India.

But Chari’s analysis is not the usual before / after picture where the answer to a

pest is a pesticide. Chari notes that, “Bt cotton is susceptible to whiteflies and Pink

Bollworm and needs repeated sprayings of insecticides. Once the Bt resistance gene

gets a foothold, it cannot be held back whereas insecticidal resistance is location

specific and changes from place to place and also differs at different growth stages of

the crop”. He claims, “that the introduction of the Bt cotton is a type of biological

treadmill which is more dangerous than the commercial insecticidal treadmill. In fact

the Helicoverpa will develop 30 fold resistance after six generations and 100 fold after

23 generations”.

For Chari and CWS, NGOs must provide the local and global thinking that

bureaucratic or donor driven science may be unable to. It is they who can experiment in

non-pesticidal management, or alter strategy to grow organic cotton. Chari claims that

these are realistic strategies as the expected demand for organic products will be $ 100

billion by 2006. He is cautious to add that life style change and organic farming take

time, and therefore regulation, moratorium and strict rules will determine the short-term

regime. What the bollworm needs is a strong state or a change in life style.

The conversations of CWS like the occasional Gandhian claims about organic

agriculture create a two level discourse on Bt cotton. At one level the sequence is pest -

- pesticide - - Bt gene - - regulation. Parallely or simultaneously, the argument moves

from pest - - symptom-rereading nature - - altering culture. Terms like livelihood and

17

lifestyle alter the Bt debate. However if CWS celebrate the NGO-ization of science,

others tend to be skeptical.

One of the plant breeders at the Warangal cotton research station had a different

take on the situation. “In A.P. there are several non-governmental organizations and they

are actually making huge propaganda on the negative effects of any genetically modified

organism, not specifically Bt. I mean, what they are telling to farmers is that, generally a

kapaas has to be picked from the plant. If you enter the Bt plot, you will develop skin

allergy. There are about thousand seed packets are sold in Warangal. After hearing all

these rumors, a few farmers, say about 30 to 40 farmers have returned the seed packets

also”. The last time someone achieved this was when the sale of Panama cigarettes went

down because rumors were spread that its consumption caused impotence. The breeder

laughed. “That is the actual scene. I think. It is a cold war between the pesticide industry

and the Biotechnology industry. The pesticide industry is uptight that with the

introduction of Bt pesticide consumption may go down. Because they cannot directly

come into the picture, they may be using some NGOs”.

VII

The question about livelihood and lifestyle raised by NGOs may also be a

response to the epidemic of suicides that has haunted Andhra Pradesh. The problem of

suicides is an emotional one. One wishes there was an Indian Emile Durkheim who could

unravel the intricacy of the responses. The epidemic of suicides and the report on the

organ trade had made big news. But the bigger news for the sociologist is the way the

suicides were constructed. Secondly how do the scientist and the administrator respond to

them? Once again we want to present it as a collage on interviews, shifting angles and

perspectives.

Dr. V. Narayan Rao is editor, Annadata (giver of food) Hyderabad, a major

agriculture magazine with a circulation of 1,80,000. He recollected,

18

“In the 50’s and 60’s farmers were making their own seeds. Now that has

changed. There is scarcity of seeds. Look at groundnut. The seed development

corporation can only provide 15-20 percent of the demand. In cotton especially there are

so many spurious seeds in the market. The farmers get deceived that way.

“Several decades ago there was less use of pesticides. Now the farmers are using

them indiscriminately. They don’t even have full knowledge of the pesticide. So many

pesticide companies have mushroomed. Many of these sell spurious pesticide. Last few

years have left many farmers insolvent. There has been a decline in using manure and the

art of composting. Less and less farmers are growing green manure crops. While in fifties

and sixties the agricultural department was depending on the green manure and compost,

by the eighties that was forgotten”.

“Then there is the credit issue for the small, marginal and the landless farmers.

Most of the middle class is giving up farming. 70 percent in agriculture are small and

marginal farmers and the landless. Banks lend them very small amounts and that too on

mortgage. What will they have to mortgage? What happens if the crop fails for a couple

of years? The moneylender is the main creditor. The interest rates vary between 20-30

per cent”.

When we asked him about Bt cotton he did not have much to say. In fact he did

not seem to know what it meant except that he had heard about it in context of infertility!

Dr. M.Gopinath is a cotton breeder at the Warangal research stations said, “Once

upon a time in Warangal district the farmer used to grow jowar, only jowar crop.

Whatever he got from it, he used to consume. Today his demands have gone up. He

wants to see his son get a good education; he needs a two-wheeler, he needs an electrical

connection. In the olden days the farmers never aspired to these things”.

“But now the farmer is thinking if I invest more, I will get more. But he totally

forgets that to get a bounty crop, nature should cooperate. He totally forgets that. He is

only thinking, if I spread more, I will get more. If I dump more fertilizers, the cotton crop

will grow like a big tree, the branches will be more, the balls will be more. Over the years

he goes on suffering losses. He goes on borrowing, investing, suffering without the

strength to pay”.

19

“Moreover the land holdings are so small. About 90 per cent of the people have 2

to 3.5 acres. They have to survive on this holding. Remember there are few big farmers.

Of the 32 lakh population, 10 lakh grow cotton. There are 5 lakh cotton farmers in this

district. I don’t think they have anything but agriculture. During 1987-88, approximately

two years the cotton crop suffered from bollworm. At that time I was working in Guntur.

We used to find hundreds of larvae in each plant. They had suffered heavy losses. They

committed suicides, but there was never such a furore. The media played a horrible role.

Earlier the press had a reputation. But now a tenth-class-fail-fellow in a village claims

that he is a reporter to Varta or a reporter to Enadu. He cannot differentiate between a

pest, a useful pest and a harmful pest and he writes about everything. In Warangal the

suicide is high. But you can’t blame all suicides on the failure of the cotton crop”.

“In fact, the Director General of Police had commented that suicide rates in

Warangal district are high, because of the short temperedness of the people. For every

silly thing, people commit suicides. There are small differences between husband and

wife, the wife goes home and the fellow will commit suicide. The newspapers have been

separate pages on suicide. In Andhra, death and agriculture go together. But reason for

suicides is not always debt”.

“Actually all these suicides were attributed to cotton failure because the chief

minister had declared a one lakh compensation. One farmer committed suicide. Suddenly

our chief minister landed there, announced a one lakh compensation and went away and

the suicides started increasing. Right from that day, the suicides started increasing”.

“Some fellow dies naturally. His body is taken to the cotton field. They put some

pesticide in his mouth and claim it is cotton. Even old people who had died in their home,

they were taken to the cotton field and some pesticide put into their mouths”.

K. Prabhakar Reddy the DC of Warangal described the changes succinctly,

“Earlier in cotton you never lost the entire crop because you go through 4-6 pickings. So

some returns are assured. The entry of hybrid seeds changed the scenario. Once you go

for hybrid seeds, you have to:

1. Pay for the seeds and invariably buy it from the company itself.

2. You have to buy fertilizers because they suggest fertilizers.

20

3. The plants, which are hybrid plants, are not as sturdy as the local variety so they

are affected by various pests. So the farmer has to pay for seed, fertilizer, pesticide.

Many of them thought more and more fertilizers meant more and more returns”.

“All this made investment very high. When there is a fall in prices that is less

than1900 or 2000 a quintal, input and output stop matching”.

The DC remarked that the first thing he assured was a minimum support price. It

was his second tactic that was more intriguing. He said,

“We decided that no one will use the word suicide. I made it clear that no

politician, no press reporter, no one will use this word. You see there is this phenomenon

of mass hysteria (the DC studied it in popular psychology book). I told all the ministers

‘no use of the word suicide’. Which family does not have trouble but why should one

recourse to suicide because there is trouble? Everyone will have a problem but the

solution is not suicide. Cotton failure = suicide and this is the connection I broke. I said

“no compensation for suicide”. We will not help you if you commit suicide because the

moment I allow that I encourage you to commit suicide. And it worked”.

The local DCs administrative approach to combating suicide found independent

support from the SP of Warangal, Nalin Prabhat.

Prabhat, an IPS officer of the Andhra cadre described himself, as “an objective

outsider” and an ardent admirer of Chandra Babu Naidu. He saw the suicides as part of

the problems of the welfare state that AP is. “So while there are some cases of farmers

committing suicide due to crop failure, there are others who do it because government

gives them help”. He gave us a few angular examples. “In one of the cases in

Mehbubabad, two brothers had a fight and one brother who had been the aggressor went

outside the police station and drank pesticide maybe out of fear or to get sympathy. We

rushed him to the hospital. Once he got well, I brought him to the police station and gave

him a beating. I told him the next time he wanted to commit suicide, not to do it outside

my police station. You see that would raise questions from National Human Rights

Commission, then the blame will come on police… In many other cases I have seen that

many elderly people have been smothered to death by their own family members- the

purpose is to say they committed suicide due to debt or crop failure and then claim

compensation”.

21

The Karnataka edition of the Indian Express of 16th September 2003 (pg.8) also

pushes for a similar argument. One must cite the article to get a flavour of the attitude,

the sense of confusion and distance, which greets the sadness of cotton. Titled, “How

many votes for a suicide” It reads:

“The land of a zillion mouse clicks is focused on the morbid these

days. Suicides among the farming community are the subject of

heated debate. Since April, of the 208 farmers’ deaths that have been

reported, state government-appointed committees have so far

investigated 156 cases: 93 aren’t linked to debt, 23 have been paid

compensation of Rs 1 lakh, 20 await payment, 20 other cases are still

being looked into. As for the big picture till August 31, the state

recorded 6667 suicides, last year saw 7,098 while in 2001 it was

6,584.

Of the 208 farmers’ deaths only 63 could be attributed to crop

failure and the number of suicides so far was within the state’s yearly

average of 6,000.

Fifty-eight year old Gangappa of Gaddikaravinkop village in

Belgaum had borrowed heavily to pay off previous debts. But low

yields and subsequent crop failure due to drought stopped fresh loans.

He was driven to suicide. A genuine case of a farmers’ suicide due to

debt? Perhaps.

60 year old Mudalagiriappa of Honakere village in Tumkur

district. He has borrowed Rs. 25000 from friends a long time ago for

farming. Mid way he lost interest in agriculture, took to drink and

committed suicide. Where do we fit him in?

Case of 55 year old Hanumantharayappa of Devarayapatna

village in Tunkur district. He was found hanging with a bottle of

insecticide nearby. The family claimed he had borrowed R. 1.5 lakh.

Investigations revealed he had taken a loan of Rs 7,500 in 1991 and

was issued a recovery notice in 1996. Postmortem saw no traces of

22

insecticide and ruled death due to hanging. Obviously, the lure of

compensation forced the family to exaggerate the circumstances of

his death”.

The setting of suicides emphasizes the crisis of agriculture with its pesticide

overuse. Such a frame of reporting tacitly sets the behavioral stage for Bt cotton.

Agriculture is now a style of consumption not just a mode of production. The presence of

pesticides salesman moving from village to village and advertisements encouraging

pesticide use inadvertently emphasize this. Cotton now is a celebration of a cash

economy emphasizing consumption and desire. As one of the scientists said, “farmers

always ask us, give us a crop with returns like cotton”.

Mr. Mohan Rao, Joint Director, agriculture admitted that the cultivation of Bt

cotton had been introduced in 2002. He observed that it was a limited introduction of

1550 packets and 1500 acres only.

“Monsanto is not giving it to all, only to limited number of people. They have

selected beneficiaries. The people have been selected on their previous record. It is a new

product and they want to give it to some good people only, good cultivators, who will

take a lot of care of the crop”.

We walk around Hyderabad talked to seed sellers. Devinder Reddy of Shree Ram

Agro observed, “The farmer is now slowly moving away from loose seeds to brand names.

Mahyco is selling 450 gms for Rs 1650 i.e. 400 gms of Bt and 50 gm of non Bt. They are taking

undertaking letters from the farmers that incase of any environmental damage they cannot be held

responsible. Monsanto has appointed field officers to monitor their fields. For every 50 acres

there is one field officer”.

Mrs. Vani of Padma Seeds notes, “Seeds and cultivation costs have become very

expensive. One bag of Urea can cost anything between 400-500+ and hybrid seeds (Korean)

would be about 30,000 Rs per kilogram. Syngenta seeds are 60,000 per kg, you need 60 gm per

acre”.

“Actually you know these hybrids are not good for germination. They are very delicate.

The local varieties are rough and tough. But hybrids are good for profits. Fertilizers, seed and

pesticide = (is equal to) Motorcycle or car. But apart from cotton there are no good commercial

crops. 50 percent of the people who come here want to buy cotton seeds. Districts of Guntur,

23

Warrangal, Adilabad, Nizamabad are all for cotton. It is the middle class people who commit

suicide more if the crops fail”.

“Do you want to know about Bt cotton? Panchaparn (bollworm) come less on it and it

will yield 30 percent more cotton. This is the first year of marketing, we are only giving it to

some farmers. Those who we think will follow the instructions. We have given seeds to 500

farmers about 10 packets per village in 3 districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Medak. The

demand was very high but we did not give it to everyone. Observations have to be carried out.

N.G. Ranga Reddy University is not responsible for the experiments or observation. They will be

carried out by the company people. Do you want to listen to the Bt cotton song? We have it in six

languages”.

VIII

The celebratory mode of Bt cotton or the rituals of anxiety centring around regulation

hide a third level of debate which is emerging in fragments in our paper. This is the crisis of

Indian agriculture itself and the question of whether transgenic crops are the panacea. Strangely it

was one particular set of scientists who provided the cautionary tales. We interviewed them at the

Gujarat Agricultural University (Extn.) at the Punjab Agricultural University (Ludhiana) at the

agricultural station at Warangal and at the Cotton Research Institute at Nagpur. Sociologically all

of them were from a generation, which teethed on the green revolution of the sixties. Now

seasoned veterans it is they who provided the cautionary fables in an everyday sense. Mr. Mohan

Rao, director of agriculture at Warangal provided the case of spurious seeds.

He observed, “During Kharif 2000, cotton crop is cultivated an area of 1,22,808 hectares in

the district. Most of the cotton cultivated is under Hybrid varieties like Brahma, Bunny, RCH-2,

Mourya, Bhishma and XL-35 etc. The sowings of the cotton crop is completed by end June 2000.

During Kharif season, 17,135 packets of XL 35 hybrid variety were distributed covering an area

of 17,135 acres in Warangal district. During the last week of August 2000 certain complaints

were received from the farmers of Hanamkonda, Geesugonda, Sangem, Pavatagiri, Narsampet,

Duggondi and other mandals about the poor performance of XL 35 variety. The XL 35 crop is

not exhibiting uniform plant characters. Further, boll setting is very poor, compared to other

varieties. To ascertain genetic purity the DAATTC coordinator has been requested during

September to inspect XL 35 fields. The DAATTC Coordinator, Warangal has replied that they

are not competent to give opinion on seed quality regarding germination, physical purity, genetic

24

purity both at source and field conditions. On the request of this office, the Director of Research,

ANGRAU has directed cotton breeder to visit the fields and submit the reports. He has inspected

two fields. His observations are that XL 35 is a non-notified variety of a private company and the

characteristics of the parents are not known. On the directions of the District Collector, the

mandal level committees have been constituted to enumerate the extent of off-types and yields

expected in XL 35 fields. The team will submit its report on first November 2000. Since the new

areas are also reported about the admixtures of XL 35, the mandal level survey will be completed

after a week. After completion of the survey, the magnitude of the crop damage on account of

off-types will be known. According to the provisions of the Seed Act 1966 and the Seed Rules

1968, action has been initiated against the retail dealers who distributed XL 35 cotton variety in

Warangal district”.

Rao provided us with detailed documentation to make one key point. There is a certain

anomie in commercial agriculture. It is not only the illiteracy of the farmer repeatedly applying

unnecessary or adulterated dozes of fertilizer, but the rampant spread of adulterated seeds. For

him this everyday level of regulation appeared as crucial as the anticipated control of transgenic

varieties.

The scientists of Ludhiana University used a wider canvas while talking about Punjab. What

used to be celebration of statistics appeared like a litany of numbers. The Vice Chancellor said,

“During the green revolution, we achieved the achievable. Intensive agriculture is creating new

problems. We have 9 lakh tubewells in Punjab. We burn 10 million tonnes of crop residue. In

October you can’t breathe. The cloudy weather is suffocating in night as in day time. The

problem is, it is very difficult to sustain economically and environmentally what we have

achieved”. The professor suggested that Punjab’s use of pesticide was an invitation to agricultural

psychiatry. “It is not a question of side effects. Even tea has side effects. The problem is of

unrecommended pesticides. Recommended pesticides degrade in a specified period. Punjab is the

second biggest consumer of pesticides. The residual affects of pesticides may be more harmful

than Bt cotton”. The Vice Chancellor continued that the ironies of the green revolution could

drive it to Bt crops. “The farmer of the state have risen from rags to riches. This land was not

fertile. Ludhiana was sand dunes. We were growing ground nut here. No body remembers that

now. Asides apart, we can’t maintain the green revolution standard of living. Our farmers will

accept anything that increases productivity. Our farmers will introduce Bt themselves here. They

will not wait for permission, another scientist added, “People in Punjab have grown Bt last year at

Muktsar, Faridkot. One farmer gave us 2 packets. He has grown it”. The cotton farmers are the

25

biggest suffered and consumers of pesticide. We spend 300 crores annually on pesticides,

primarily on cotton. No one can stop this technology, particularly if it starts within cotton”.

The Vice Chancellor was not worried about poverty and suicides. He admitted there were

some suicides on Punjab. “If poverty were the only criteria of suicide, 33 per cent of India should

be committing suicide. Half of Africa also. Life is too precious for that”. For him the problem

was wealth. He put in succinctly, “Sardar ban gaya gentleman and a poor economist. We have 4

lakh tractors in Punjab that is 26 per cent of all the tractors. We need only 1.5 lakh tractors. It is a

colossal over investment. Our farmers overdo everything – tractors, pesticides”.

One of his colleagues began with a more historical complaint. Ram Gopal Saini said,

“Genetics started in this agricultural university. This is the oldest department of genetics in the

country. Yet modern genetics has moved out of the agricultural university”. The heroes of the

green revolution, the agricultural universities have been the victims of the next, abandoned or

designated to a second class status next to laboratories in Bangalore etc. The biggest tragedy is

that the agricultural university has not made the transition from green revolution I to II. “In fact

the biotech groups have a club culture. They are not tied up to the people who test evaluate and

transfer knowledge to the farms”.

What was emerging was a fragmented disquiet about agriculture itself. Bt cotton rather than

being text often appeared a pretext for a wider meditation.

Dr Mayee, Director of the Cotton Research Institute at Nagpur reflected, the green revolution era

was the “input revolution era- more water, more pesticide, fertilizers, seeds, nutrients etc. Our

priority was to increase productivity. The slogan those days were increase yield, so we were blind

to any other issue like environment. We did miracles in sordum , bajra, wheat, rice but in oilseeds

and pulses we did not do much. What inhibited us was that 65 percent of our area is under

dryland. After 1985 when we introduced watershed development and regional agricultural

research programme and agro- climatic zones were created”.

“But then a new range of problems came up. With globalization the quality of issues

changed. There was a conceptual change. There came issues of accessibility , pollution free

environment, recycling of organic waste. In many ways traditional breeding came to an end. We

moved from cellular to molecular. The controversies became personalit y and stakeholder

oriented. There were the issues of pesticide and seed”.

“When we evaluate technology like Bt we must be aware it wont be a panacea to

everything. It won’t solve all your problems. You will still need sucking pest pesticides. We have

submitted one report to the relevant regulatory body on the Bt field trial to that effect.”.

26

There two major changes that took place in cotton cultivation in the 1970’s

1) We brought American cotton into India and created a local tradition of growing hybrids

commercially

2) Pesticide consumption and pests came together”

“There is a pressure of ever increasing demand for cotton . India produces 17.5 million

bales the requirement is 25 million bales by 2025. There was a time when we told farmers to put

fertilizers and pesticides but now we tell them not to do it. Situation has changed so much”.

“Today the issue is marketing. Farmers want an assured return cash of at least Rs. 2000

per quintal. But even then the benefits would be restricted to 10 percent of the farmers. Changes

in our agricultural policy with liberalization have not helped. M.S. Swaminathan had said that

agriculture must be job growth sector. Inputs for agricultural sector are must. If we can spend

30,000 crores for a highway why can’t we invest also in Ganga- Kaveri link or Brahmaputra link

or monsoon management. We should be able to think of the nation as a sub-continent think both

at micro and macro level. We should be able to look at India as Europe with many nations in it.

Agriculture is a state subject. Also so there are a lot of paradoxes. There are three ministries

dealing with cotton – Textile, commerce and agriculture but the figures of all three do not match.

We have delivered in the last 25-30 years as a system. But after 1995-96 with WTO coming in

the questions have changed. It is more about marketing and quality. But we cannot be dogmatic.

We must do what the farmers need”.

Dr. Hemchandra Gubhiye a sociologist at CICR talked of the 29 cotton suicides in

Yavatmal district of Maharastra. “CICR always treated this as a technical problem never a social

one.. Moreover there is a crisis for cotton scientist in the country. All the major chunk of money

is going to biotechnology. Etymologist group is against biotechnology because funds to them

have proportionally come down. You see in 1992 there was a policy switch to biotechnology and

CICR had only two trained biotechnologists. Conventional breeding programmes got affected.

80-90 percent scientists going abroad today are biotechnologists while they constitute only 2 per

cent of the scientific community”.

IX

It is difficult to consolidate the above fragments into a systematic conclusion. But a few

things are clear: (i) a meditation on Bt cotton is a meditation of middle class needs and desires.

27

Agricultural in India becomes a double reflection both on middle class desires and marginal

needs. We need an integration on both if agriculture is to be sustainable. The politics of India is

the politics of the middle class and as yet there are few reflections within about the implications

of transgenics for agriculture. The poor are more a derivative or residual category or a rhetorical

device than a real social group. Within this narrower perspective one can still obtain a few

insights. (ii) Regulation in a meritorian sense is a middle range concept for understanding

agriculture. It has to be either immersed in a wider debate on democracy, diversity and

sustainability or understood within a political economy of marginality. Viewed monadically

discourses on regulation can be self perpetuating providing us little understanding of the role of

desire, over consumption, or the ironies of a green revolution that does not transform itself into a

sustainable agriculture. Regulation viewed in isolation would become a tragicomic battle against

smuggling, illegal spurious seeds dumping, border crossing or even the sheer irreversibility of

transgenics. (iii) More crucially the debate in Bt cotton points out to a dualism in agriculture and

science. Bt technology seems more dynamic in private corporations than in public sector

scientific institutions. Earlier, the requirements of the green revolution brought about a dynamic

farmer sensitive structure. Today the new needs of innovation are splintering agricultural science

into private and public, with the agricultural universities playing the charwoman to a bio-

engineering aristocracy. One senses that this will raise problems not merely for science but for

Indian democracy. (iv) The nature of the debate reveals oceans of indifference along with islands

of concern. It suggests that middle level concepts cannot sustain the institutionalization that

agriculture needs. Do we need concepts like regulation, expert committee audits or do we open

the debate to a civic consciousness, locally and internationally? What kind of concepts does one

need to understand the fertilizer addiction, conspicuous consumption in agriculture. What notions

of civilization and civic time can grasp the current challenge of risk? The precautionary principles

by itself would only add to the litigious nature of our society. (v) Finally it is clear that the

agricultural scientist has also to be a political scientist. He has to create new social concepts that

will allow him to ensure that innovations in agriculture become institutions for democracy.

Otherwise marginality is one form of life that technology may have no response to except as

erasure. We must remember that predetermined or overdetermined narratives can lead to pre-

emptive futures.