Backpage

 

In early May, the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation, a statutory body under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), granted ‘biosafety clearance’ to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a genetically engineered variety of cotton, developed by the American multinational, Monsanto. With this decision Bt cotton, so far restricted to 60 field trial plots, can now be introduced across the country.

While seed companies are likely to celebrate this decision, activist groups spearheading a campaign against the introduction of genetically manipulated seed varieties have suffered a major setback. Evidently, the experts in the review committee were not sufficiently moved by the ‘scare scenario’ painted by the activists or hold as serious the ‘threat’ of new crop diseases affecting Indian agriculture.

The opposition to Monsanto was fuelled not just by Luddite fears but also by swadeshi concern about control of our agriculture by multinational companies. Monsanto, more than other companies, generates dark fears because of its association with ‘terminator technology’, i.e., seeds which do not automatically regenerate, thereby forcing farmers to go back to the seed supplier for every crop cycle.

Scientific debates about genetic technology apart, what has been less realized are the political implications of this clearance. The field trials for Bt cotton have been challenged in the Supreme Court by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology; the petition is up for hearing in early July. Does this decision of the DBT then represent a ‘side-stepping’ of our legal regimen? Given the ‘legendary’ pace at which our legal system moves, it might be years before the court concludes its hearings and pronounces judgment. Meanwhile, Monsanto would have dramatically expanded the scale of its operations. What then happens to the many farmers hooked onto Bt cotton, that is, if the court rules against its use?

Or will the court be saddled with a fait accompli, since the seed may already be in widespread use. If this indeed is the intention behind the granting of speedy clearance, then the move bodes ill for our democracy. As much as direct agitation and lobbying statutory bodies, courts in our country are still seen as a forum for final appeal. The Supreme Court, in particular, has in recent years acquired a green tinge, an image consolidated by its directives to government on issues of air and water pollution.

Another crucial concern relates to the procedure followed in the Monsanto case. The DBT’s decision followed the presentation of trial data by the concerned company. News reports make no mention about whether the critics were invited to present their arguments. Is this a case of a ‘rigged’ hearing? Or are we to assume that the presence of experts is sufficient to safeguard both national interest and environmental concerns.

If so, at least procedurally, it appears a dangerous move. Consultative committees to Parliament and the courts constitute public space. It is feasible, given some effort, to know the arguments advanced. Also for interested experts and public interest groups to intercede and present their case. Forums like the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation are ‘closed’ bodies, shrouded in secrecy. What one comes to know is the decision, not necessarily the process through which it is arrived at or the presuppositions.

There is today widespread criticism of the pace of our decision-making. As much as the innumerable forms to fill, guidelines or departments to satisfy (notwithstanding brave talk of single window, time-bound clearance), there is the danger of projects being tied up in unending legal battles. Cost and time over-runs are common and many projects become unviable even before they can start.

Given the overloading of our court system, the current tendency is to assign ‘clearing power’ to autonomous boards. In all likelihood, these may become the new sites of struggle, particularly in matters relating to the environment. The tragedy is that most NGOs and advocacy groups have little access to these bodies. Nor are the rules of the game clear. Equally, since the terms of discourse are scientific and technical rather than legal and ethical, and public interest groups are better-known for their missionary zeal than scientific expertise, they are likely to lose out.

One possible corrective is to modify the Freedom of Information Act currently before Parliament to one that ensures a Right to Information. Also, that the proposed Act be modified to cover all decision-making and clearance-granting bodies. Only then can we learn the basis on which decisions are made, assess the ‘integrity’ of these mechanisms, and institute corrective action. Otherwise we may will be in for a politics of closure.

Harsh Sethi