Gobind Thukral

FOR once a union minister has shown rare courage and placed a moratorium on the release of BT brinjal for commercial cultivation. Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh has boldly withstood the pressure from the multinational corporation Monsanto, his cabinet colleagues and a section of scientists and some farmer lobbyists. The recommendation of the high powered committee that had cleared the BT brinjal has been put on hold. In its place the minister who had earlier travelled to seven state capitals for talks with the stake holders- farmers, scientists and NGOs has sought complete relook into all the aspects of Bt brinjal. He wants appropriate studies and at appropriate laboratories before clearing the new variety.

The reports of this minister stated clearly. “There is a need for a consolidated report on ecology, biology, genetics and population dynamics of insect pests of Brinjal that are available thus far. Based on the ecology, biology and population dynamics, simulation models should be developed so that appropriate strategies can be formulated to prevent the emergence of new pests and delay development of resistance in key pests.”

Mr. Ramesh also mentioned the excessive use of pesticides and its bad effects. He wrote, “Clearly, Bt-technology is not the only route for reducing pesticide use. That pesticide use can have deleterious public health impacts is already visible in places like Bhatinda which, as the Chief Minister of Punjab himself told me a couple of days back, has emerged as a major cancer-afflicted region. How to reduce pesticide use without compromising on food security at the macro-level and returns to farmers at the micro-level is an urgent public policy in our agriculture. In this connection, it is worth recalling that there are now close to 6 lakh farmers in Andhra Pradesh fully practicing non-pesticide management agriculture over an area of about 20 lakh acres. It eliminates chemical pesticide use completely whereas Bt-technology only reduces the pesticide spray, albeit substantially.

It was a massive cover-up operation for the scientific swindle perpetrated in the case of the controversial approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal. Fortunately the minister saw through the game and called the bluff of agriculture minister Sharad Pawar who was keen on introducing this poisonous variety. Once it had been introduced there was no stopping as in due course local varieties would have disappeared. In short, we could have some advantage as per acre production would have increased and the use of pesticides got down. But the long term affects on health and seed as scientists argued would have been disastrous.

Ten states ruled by the communists and the BJP have already announced that they would not allow the sowing of BT brinjal as it was harmful for human consumption. Public outcry against the introduction of such crops has come handy, but the science of genetic engineering backed by a strong capitalist force has the power and will try hard to tilt the scale. Will political economy of `captalist technology' be allowed to overwhelm good intentions of `pure science'? Some wanted `conditional approval' but this would have helped the industry to manipulate facts in its favour, because `science' is now increasingly been motivated by `profit'.

No one dispute that science must be allowed to progress. If proponents are so `sure' that their technology is `safe' then genetically modified crops like Bt brinjal must be granted permission, but only after trials by scientists of impeccable credentials. Can those who have been supporting this introduction stand guarantee that for any `undesired' impact of GM crops on living beings over a definite period of time accept they be held `accountable' and punishable under the law.

Brinjal has its origin in India and we have nearly 170 varieties grown across the country. We produce enough of this vegetable and of good quality. International conventions decree that the seeds could not be appropriated or manipulated by commercial companies. Only the government could through research improve the varieties of brinjal. Now, however, a multinational corporation, Monsanto through dubious means and half baked research was trying to introduce this new variety and thereby establish total control in next some years over the seeds. Deprive farmers of their basic right to produce seed and make them depend upon Monsanto for future. The critics say that these international business houses are aiming at total control over seeds and establish a kind of seed imperialism.

It may be mentioned that according one study Monsanto, one of the largest players in the seed industry and a leading biotechnology company and pioneer in genetically engineered seeds. Based on 2005 figures, its reach was phenomenal, in case of beans - 31% of the global seed market. in case of cucumbers - 38% , hot pepper- 34% , sweet pepper - 29% ,tomato - 23% and onions - 25% of the global seed market. It’s already controlling BT cotton. In case of corn and maize it has 41% global market share and 25 per cent of soybeans. It is aiming at total control of the seeds worldwide and monopolise food production. Monsanto does not accept this declaration , but claimed to be the leader in this line of business.

It is interesting to watch how China which has introduced Bt varieties in cotton, soya beans and is aiming at rice has its government research and seed companies. But here in India, corporations with money bags can buy anyone; ministers, officers and scientists. Of course not everyone is on sale.

British newspaper the Guardian woe sometime back, “Historians of the future may mark the early 21st century as the point where the science of agriculture finally broke into public understanding. Years of ill-humoured debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have had many malign effects, not least adding to public scepticism about science and scientists. It has pumped dye into the veins of the global food business, graphically illustrating the monopolistic ambitions of agribusiness and ultimately, perhaps, its ability to control the food we eat.”

“This Monsanto model excludes all kinds of developments that might make a more significant contribution to food sustainability than merely increasing yield sometimes by enabling heavier use of herbicides or pesticides. Food sustainability in an era of climate change requires not only, nor even primarily, higher yields, but greater resilience – the ability to survive in harsher conditions and on poorer soils. There is work to be done on developments that would lower the need for high-cost inputs, by for example developing crops, or breeding varieties that do not require soil cultivation or that improve the soil by fixing nitrogen.

They need simpler improvements. And globally the need is for publicly funded science to investigate sustainable agriculture in the widest possible meaning of the word: better farming practices, a viable pricing system and, for the global north, a radical change in patterns of consumption.
It’s good that currently a moratorium has been declared, however, none.

BACK

Massive black money

Vinod Anand

APART from a strong democratic country, India is also a parallel economy, which is also termed as a shadow economy, and even underground economy, because a number of things/events that go along with the functioning of the economy are not seen in reality as they are highly concealed. This term was coined long back by, and it applies very well to India. It has many connotations. One of them relates to the existence of black money. Let us briefly elaborate on this issue.

Black money is usually untraceable, and hence untaxable, business and other dealings that are not reflected in a country's gross domestic product (GDP) computations. In other words, it is concealed money that is kept in secret account books (called 'number two' accounts). It employs illegal (and even criminal) methods. Black economy and black money go hand in hand. It is an essential feature of the parallel economy, shadow economy, or underground economy.

India is presently going through the pre-election phase, when each party comes out openly with the weaknesses of their rival parties to lower down their electoral support. The silver lining in these comments is that they bring out a few important truths, and one can see what is going on in the country. One basic truth that has recently emerged in this context is that Indians (especially the undeserving super rich like the film stars, cricketers, business tycoons and so on)) have amassed huge amount of black money both in India and abroad. Besides, there is also enormous black money in the coffers of the politicians, bureaucrats, and their supporters. They normally get involved in nefarious activities and entertain strong links with the mafia world essentially for muscle power, and through that they get involved in ‘rent-seeking activities’ and also in ‘directly unproductive profit-seeking activities’ to gain ‘unearned’ income. According to one study, about 45 per cent of our national income gets channeled every year to this concealed kitty. Even the custodians of the administrative machinery themselves seem to have joined the race to accumulate such wealth.

Even many professionals like medical practitioners, chemists, lawyers who charge good amount of fee from their clients, but do not give any receipt do not show such collections in their income tax returns, and this amount eventually gets automatically converted into black money. Besides, tax evasion is also done by the intermediaries between the buyers and the sellers like the property dealers, and also the agents between the public and the government officials like the income tax experts, RTO agents and so on. Even the fake pharmaceutical companies severely violate the copyrights of the patent medicines, and evade everything they earn. They are the worst tax evaders.

All this happens despite the fact that tax rates in India today are moderate by any yardstick in the world. Even bribery also helps in the creation of the black money. In terms of bribery we are the worst. According to the Transparency International, which publishes a Corruption Perception Index, about Rs 21,000 crore (US $ 4,108 billion) annually is estimated to exchange hands in the form of bribery in the country. All these activities are highly illegal, unethical, and immoral. They also reflect severe lack of loyalty towards the nation. It is indeed pathetic for a country that is known to be culturally rich. The fact is that through these activities, country’s parallel economy has got deeply entrenched with massive black money.

It has been revealed that the Swiss Bank Deposits by Indians over the past decades are estimated to have swelled. It is estimated that last year Indians had whopping US $ 1, 456 billion in secret accounts, which is more than the balance held by all other nationalities taken together. Russians held US $ 4700 billion, UK US $ 390 billion and China US $ 96 billion.

Once there is a strong will to provide strong barriers to the generation of black money in the country, there is nothing that is difficult. Let the concerned public authorities focus on tracking the black money and their manipulators, and then seize what ever they have, and punish them in a highly deterrent way, so that no one can dare to go for black money. If this happens all black money would become white, and we will become a strong nation. All this hoarded money will give a strong push to our growing economy, and we will surpass all the nations of the world.

[The writer is a well known professor of economics and commentator on public affairs]

BACK

WSF: Brazil – Another power Is possible

Fabiana Frayssinet

RIO DE JANEIRO- The birthplace of the World Social Forum (WSF), conceived as an alternative to international meetings pursuing free-market economics, Brazil is on its way to becoming a major economic power, analysts say. The question is, what kind of model will it adopt to avoid the behaviour it has previously criticised?

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is apt to reiterate that Brazil has its own model – one that works – in his speeches at home and abroad. But it is up to his ministers to express it in the shape of programmes and goals, including Tourism Minister Luiz Barretto.

“Brazil is likely to become the world’s fifth largest economy by 2016,” said the minister at the launch of a strategic plan for tourism for the next 10 years.

“Brazil’s present excellent economic condition, as the last economy to enter and the first to recover from the (global financial) crisis, definitively ensures the country will have great importance on the international scene in the next decade,” he said.

Francisco Barone, an economist with the Getulio Vargas Foundation, produced statistics to verify this prediction. One measure of a country’s potential economic growth is its gross domestic product (GDP).

“According to its GDP, Brazil is one of the top 10 economies in the world,” said the economist. And its prospects for further growth mean it will become one of the leaders among the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China, all fast-growing developing economies – within five years, he predicted.

Barone attributes these prospects to Brazil’s huge internal market. With a population of 190 million, most of what is produced is consumed domestically.

Brazil has other advantages, too, such as its enormous energy matrix – boosted by new oil reserves recently discovered by state oil giant Petrobrás – and its industrial diversity, economic stability and export sales, ranging from agricultural commodities to airplanes manufactured by Embraer, a state firm.

Cándido Grzybowski, the head of the Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analyses (IBASE), which has participated in the organisation of the WSF since its inception, said, quoting the WSF slogan, that just as “Another World is Possible,” so too another kind of world power is possible.
In an interview with IPS before the 10th WSF, which opens Jan. 25-29 in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, Grzybowski said he would like Brazil to model itself as a “world power” that first and foremost corrects shortcomings in its own society, like its appalling social inequality.

Barone said Brazil has made some progress on this issue, highlighted in official statistics from the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA), which reported that 19.5 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2003 and 2008, and the incomes of the poorest 10 percent of the population grew faster than those of the richest 10 percent, “indicating a reduction in social inequality in the country.”
But there is still much more to be done, said Barone. The scourge of hunger has not yet been overcome: 15 million people still live with food insecurity.

“To become an economic power, social inequality must be reduced,” for humanitarian reasons but also pragmatic ones, Barone said. “When millions of socially excluded people become consumers, there will be more demand for national products, and industry will produce more and will take on workers, creating a virtuous cycle of growth.”

Grzybowski mentioned other problems arising from Brazil’s epic inequality, such as “the right to fair distribution of common goods in this wealthy land.”

In Brazil “it is considered normal to have estates of 3,000, 200,000 or 500,000 hectares.” The owners of huge estates “are less than one percent of all landowners, but they have enormous powers of veto in Congress,” he said.

“Something is wrong with this world power,” he reflected.

The head of IBASE – one of the organisations on the WSF International Committee – is seeking another kind of world power, one that “does not reproduce the imperialist model,” so often criticised at the forum, which is being held in decentralised fashion this year in at least 27 regions worldwide.

Grzybowski would like to see Brazil become a “positive” world power, with a “balanced” international agenda, for instance in the case of Petrobrás’ expansion into neighbouring countries like Bolivia, or Brazilian negotiations with Paraguay over the Itaipú hydroelectric station, shared by the two countries.
In his view, Brazil’s “attitude of respect towards those (smaller) countries” needs to be further reinforced, recognising that “the relationship (with them) is completely asymmetrical.”

“We cannot simply go on treating them like the rest of the world has always done, using the power of our dominant position. We have to turn that relationship upside down,” he said, adding that he fears his country might start to “take advantage of the poverty of others.”

“I would like to see a Brazil that is motivated by solidarity; not a Brazil that competes for membership of exclusive clubs like G8 or G20, but a country that promotes equality between peoples,” and that accepts “that it administers a great natural heritage, and therefore has a responsibility to the planet as a whole,” Grzybowski said.

He said he also wanted his country to take a more “radical stance on human rights.”

“We cannot just go all over the place, making trade agreements to capture markets while ignoring systematic human rights violations in the countries we do business with,” he said, referring to African countries ruled by dictators, with which Brasilia has negotiated agreements.

Grzybowski said he is concerned, for instance, “about what China is doing in Africa,” and hopes that Brazil will not adopt the model of this other emerging power. “China is making the most of underdevelopment to serve its so-called national interest,” he said.

“Is that really a model we want to follow?” he asked.

In his view, the WSF could also contribute to an alternative model of power by promoting, through its social organisations, a “progressive, democratic and egalitarian agenda based on social justice.”
“An agenda that redefines the model of development, an agenda that connects social justice with environmental justice, can only emerge from civil society,” Grzybowski said. [Courtesy IPS]

BACK