Military ties for industrial interests

By S. G. Vombatkere
01 Oct 2010

A careful examination of deepening strategic ties between India and U.S.A. has become necessary, particularly when direct military-to-military dealings are proposed sidelining democratic functioning.

It is necessary in today's world of intimately linked national economies to strengthen and deepen economic and cultural ties between all nations in the interest of peace. This would also be a positive move to effectively combat the scourge of terrorism synergistically. But if economic ties are predicated on ‘fighting terror’ by the use of police and military force and trade in military hardware and software, it would imply that the military-industrial complex (MIC) has an increasing role in economic ties, presaging ill for the whole world and particularly for those countries that join in strengthening such ties. This is especially as USA has made the first-ever step in formally corporatizing armed conflict and confirming the legendary power of USA's MIC by converting ‘combat operations’ by regular U.S. troops in Iraq to ‘stability operations’ by US-paid contractors such as Halliburton in the guise of military disengagement.

Military-to-military relations
A day before the Ninth Anniversary of the horrendous 9/11 attack-cum-tragedy in USA, leading Indian daily The Hindu reported two events indicating deepening strategic ties between India and USA [1, 2]. The on-going defence engagement of ‘military cooperation and inter-operability’ [3] and defence equipment procurement was proposed by US Admiral Willard during his visit to New Delhi, to be expanded to a ‘much richer dialogue’ including the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), to go ‘beyond bilateral exercises and sale of military hardware’. It is acknowledged that the top-most US military commanders have a US foreign policy role in addition to their military role [4]; thus these two Agreements, designed ‘in order to slice away bureaucratic procedures for the armed forces to work with each other’ need to be considered seriously in the public domain.

Speaking of the Indian military, Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi notes that "Our political leadership is highly uncomfortable in dealing with the military directly and prefers to let the bureaucracy do so." [5]. Thus effectively, the military's contact with the elected Executive is through the bureaucracy, giving bureaucrats a large degree of control that the military resents even while it unhesitatingly accepts civilian control. It is easy to blame the bureaucracy for this, but the historic and on-going failure of the political leadership in maintaining contact directly with the Defence Chiefs, cannot be wished away. (Creation of a Chief of Defence Staff post would overcome the problem, but this has been successfully stalled by the bureaucracy for years notwithstanding the cost to national security).

Willard's suggestion to ‘slice away bureaucratic procedures’ in military-to-military contacts seeks to further weaken the existing weak link between India's military and its political leadership by taking the bureaucracy out of the loop. This is interference in India's internal affairs and government functioning, and dangerous for India's security. Thus, even in the present scheme of skewed civilian-military relations within India, it must be ensured that the bureaucracy is not ‘sliced away’ from direct India-US military-to-military interactions; the elected Executive must urgently get its act together in the interest of national security.

Logistic support
The LSA clearly envisages providing logistic bases for the US military. This needs careful thinking-through; it could be the thin end of a wedge commencing with providing facilities for docking or landing, victualling and re-fuelling for US military ships and aircraft, later expandable to ammunitioning that includes stockpiling US weapons protected by US military personnel stationed on Indian territory. The serious problem with this is, a US weapon stockpile is an attractive target for militants and terrorists, and a successful attack can well become reason for USA to multiply its military presence on Indian soil, even without this provision built into the LSA.

India's strategic hot potato

By S. G. Vombatkere
11 Sep 2010

Willingly or forced by global developments, India got into an uncomfortable strategic embrace with USA and invested heavily in Afghanistan's reconstruction. But as USA is desperately looking for a way out of Afghanistan, India may soon find itself in a difficult situation.

Manmohan Singh is keen to further strengthen Indo-US relations
Exactly nine years ago the world stood aghast at the real-time TV screening of the audacious, coordinated attack on WTC and the Pentagon and trembled when, weeks later, USA invaded Afghanistan in retaliation to what was understood as an Al Qaeda attack masterminded by Osama bin Laden. This was first seen as a knee-jerk reaction to retrieve American pride and prop up USA's international image, but soon enough the world interpreted it as a strategic move to gain a secure foothold in Asia. This interpretation was confirmed when USA subsequently defined it as a Global War on Terror (GWOT) and invaded Iraq to execute “regime change” there.

USA's global strategic interests are by now well-defined, and the shocks delivered to Afghanistan and Iraq have been integrated into the way in which the world views USA. US President Obama's recent commitment of withdrawing US troops from Iraq is nothing but outsourcing warfare and corporatizing conflict, since “combat operations” by troops becomes “stability operations” by US-paid mercenaries operating out of US bases in Iraq to maintain hold on the ground.
Strategic partnership

After 9/11 attack, New Delhi thought that USA had at last become aware of cross-border terrorism of which India had been complaining for years. But Pakistan being the long-time seed-bed for terror attacks against India and then becoming a strategic partner of USA, and that too for GWOT, made New Delhi's complaints somewhat ineffective.

After 2004, New Delhi, under a Congress-led UPA government with known “Americanophiles” at the top of the pile, began to cosy up to the US administration, going so far as to say words to the effect that India loves G. W. Bush.
Thus it came to pass that in Washington in July 2005, Indian PM Manmohan Singh and US President G. W. Bush issued a joint statement on a framework agreement for India-USA civilian nuclear cooperation that came to be known as the 123 Agreement. However, this N-deal was overshadowed by the provisions of the Hyde Act enacted by the US Congress in January 2006, which is an India-specific legislation (titled “Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006“) that visualises India having a foreign policy “congruent with” that of USA, and actively participating in USA’s efforts to implement sanctions against Iran if that country fails to conform to USA’s checks on its acquisition of N-weapons.

While certainly India was not bound by the Hyde Act, it is necessary to understand that the provisions of that legislation were part of USA’s foreign policy to bring as many countries as possible under its influence, if not control, for its global designs. Thus, notwithstanding New Delhi's protestations to the contrary, the 123 Agreement overshadowed by the Hyde Act was in fact nothing less than a strategic convergence between India and USA. Indeed, following this, there have been several army, navy and air force joint exercises between India and USA with the stated aim of enhancing military cooperation and inter-operability.

Locked in a strategic embrace
To emphasize the fact of it being a wide-spectrum strategic tie-up, it needs to be noted that the nuclear framework joint statement was issued on 18 July 2005, and on the same day, the Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture (KIA) Agreement was finalized and the KIA Working Group formed. And just two days later, on 20 July 2005, the KIA Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by Indian PM Manmohan Singh and US President G. W. Bush. It is left to conjecture whether India was being railroaded into strategic linkage with USA.

On March 3, 2006, US President G. W. Bush was in New Delhi, and he and PM Manmohan Singh signed the Joint Statement on India-US Strategic Partnership with emphasis on civilian nuclear cooperation, but including KIA. This came to be known as the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty, which raised a furore in Indian politics and nearly caused the UPA government to fall when the Left Parties withdrew their support.

It is not out of place to note that the USA's KIA Board gives official status to US seed and food MNCs like Archer-Daniels-Midland, Monsanto and Walmart since their representatives are US KIA Board members, while the Indian KIA Board has full representation of industrial interests with the sole “representative” of the agricultural sector being Dr. M. S. Swaminathan. The purpose of highlighting this is to show, firstly, that the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty was the trojan horse with the little known and even less debated KIA Agreement (which gives free rein to US MNCs and impacts India's food security) in its belly, and secondly, that the strategic tie-up was carried out with political stealth. Of course, with the MNC-friendly provisions of the nuclear accident liability bill, it is clear that for USA at least, the nuclear deal was meant to resuscitate and hugely benefit moribund US nuclear corporations. In sum, India is locked in a strategic embrace with USA, a fact internationally well recognized.

Presence in Afghanistan
India has ancient and modern cultural and economic ties with Afghanistan. New Delhi's interests in Afghanistan also coincided with undoing Pakistan's influence there, and the US invasion was a convenient excuse to upgrade its “soft power” and regain its former strategic depth. However at present, Indian presence there is opposed by the Taliban and Pakistan because New Delhi supported the 10-year long Soviet occupation of Afghanistan which was opposed by CIA-sponsored Taliban trained in Pakistan.
The US occupation of Afghanistan post-9/11 placed Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan in a subordinate position relative to its earlier dominant position following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. This, along with the India-US strategic partnership and USA's happy acceptance of India's role in Afghanistan, led to New Delhi providing monetary aid for Afghanistan and actively assisting in infrastructural construction and re-construction by sending manpower.

It should be clear to any perceptive observer of Afghanistan that the rules of the contemporary “Great Game” imposed by USA in Afghanistan would last only so long as the US military has a presence in that country. Even though New Delhi knew the history of the impossibility of subjugating the fiercely independent tribal people of Afghanistan, as the British and Soviets know at their cost (never mind the cost paid by the Afghanis), the inevitable withdrawal of USA from Afghanistan was apparently not considered when New Delhi jumped into Afghanistan with both feet.

Thus, New Delhi as USA's strategic partner, went ahead to help Afghanistan with monetary investment – while people starve at home and there is no money for education and health, India pledged to invest $1.2 billion, becoming the second largest contributor of funds after USA – and also sent Indians to undertake construction work in the face of attacks by the Taliban. India's Kabul embassy is its largest in the world and India has re-built two previous and opened two new consulates in Afghanistan. All this shows India's level of commitment to “re-build” Afghanistan and maintain an enhanced diplomatic presence; predictably, this has enraged Pakistan.
New Delhi's investment in Afghanistan in construction and re-construction work is considerable. Border Roads engineers and Indian military personnel have been airlifted to construct roads and other infrastructure such as a new Parliament House, erecting power transmission lines and a sub-station to supply Kabul with 24x7 power, building the 218-km Zaranj-Delaram highway, sinking tube wells in 6 provinces, running sanitation projects and medical missions, lighting 100 villages with solar power, and building a dam. In addition, India has given three airbus aircraft to Afghanistan's Ariana airline and offers scholarships for studies in India to young Afghans. All this may add up to cost New Delhi around $1.2 billion – a huge amount considering that India's internal development suffers at least partly due to lack of funds.

The Afghan hot potato
When USA begins to consider withdrawing its military from Afghanistan, it is obvious that Pakistan will strenuously endeavour to regain its former influence, and it follows that India would be forced into a difficult position due to its considerable investment in Afghanistan being at stake. Its position may by similar to a man putting a hot potato into his mouth – he cannot chew or swallow it and he cannot spit it out either; and it burns his mouth. New Delhi appears to have already acquired the hot potato by its involvement in Afghanistan, and may put it “into the mouth” when US troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

To put a finer point on the matter, some questions need to be asked: Will India be able to withstand the combined might of Pakistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda on its own in Afghanistan? Will it be worthwhile to pump Indian troops into Afghanistan at enormous cost in order to “save face” and protect Indian interests in Afghanistan? If so, for how long would India remain committed militarily in Afghanistan and, more importantly, will there be an exit policy? Or will New Delhi pull out of Afghanistan a tad earlier than USA does (at the risk of displeasing its senior strategic partner), and write off its huge investment in Afghanistan as a financial misadventure?

The die is cast; the act is committed. Now only time will tell; but the tale it will tell will surely be an unhappy one. Either way, it will have huge repercussions at home.

Non-alignment with violence

By S. G. Vombatkere
06 Apr 2010

As war between Maoists and government forces intensify, it is not a crime to underscore the futility of violent methods to agitate and to curb agitations.

Between the violent paths chosen by the State and the Maoists,
there lies a non-violent option
In a charge sheet against Kobad Gandhi produced by the Delhi Police in the Tees Hazari Courts, New Delhi, on 18 February 2010, besides naming few individuals, some organizations like People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) are named. It is quite strange that governments treat members of PUCL and PUDR as members, collaborators or sympathisers of Maoist, Naxalite or other militant groups.

This possibility needs to be examined in terms of whether it is possible for a socially responsible position to exist, which supports neither the militancy of certain groups of people, nor the government response to militancy with the use of police and military fire-power.

It cannot be ignored that a high-power committee set up in 2006 by the Planning Commission of India, ascribed growing Naxalism to people's discontent and failure of governance, and showed a direct relationship between extremism and poverty. It also recommended that "public purpose" for land acquisition should be limited to national security and public welfare. Clearly, that opinion and recommendation have found a place in the capacious waste bins of government, because the RR Bill and the LA Amendment Bill do not reflect those concerns.

It is well known that the lands and forests occupied peacefully by tribal people are rich in minerals and that MNCs have an eye on exploiting that mineral wealth. At the same time, that exploitation, willy-nilly combined with exploitation of the occupant tribal people through their forced displacement, adds to the nation's GDP, and puts India on a 'growth path' to become a "regional superpower". Forceful displacement and exploitation is nothing but economic violence being wrought upon hapless tribal people.

It is pertinent to note that while there are no official figures, Dr. Walter Fernandes, a noted scholar, gives some idea of the magnitude of displacement. He indicates that between 1947 and 2004, about 60 million people were displaced forcibly and 40% of them are people of the Scheduled Tribes. Compared to 50 million Africans displaced over 200 years by slave-trading Europeans, 60 million Indians displaced in 59 years and that too within and by an independent, democratic nation in the name of development, is shameful beyond description.

Violence begets violence. When governments wreak economic violence upon people by displacing them for industrial projects causing loss of land and livelihood, they cannot resist or respond with economic force since they have none. They protest, agitate, demonstrate and physically resist the occupation of their land by the industry. These protests do turn violent when their point of view is not properly considered or even heard. Whether the protesters or the police started the physical violence, the first cause is economic violence by government that has led to the situation.

The perpetrators of economic violence are primarily corporate interests which have enormous and proximate influence in the highest levels of governments. These interests ensure that they receive official go-ahead for their projects which, in almost all cases, involve the acquisition of land for a "public purpose", land on which poor and marginalized people subsist. These project-affected families (PAFs) have little or no means to argue or represent their case in the corridors of a geographically distant and corporate-favouring government. It is commonly observed that elected representatives, whether or not they are from the ruling party in government, rarely if ever take up the cause of PAFs. In recent times PAFs have been frequently led by some educated members of their group or by intellectuals motivated by notions of social justice or human rights.

However, the involvement of intellectuals is not only for PAFs, but extends to social or physical violence by "upper castes" against dalits, atrocities against women, attacks on religious communities, child-exploitation, etc., under the rubric of human rights or civil liberties. There are organizations that have been formed to uphold and protect the constitutional rights and privileges of all sections of people, especially human rights and civil liberties. These organizations have been formed under the constitutionally granted right of freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form association under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) respectively, and they function under the constitutionally prescribed fundamental duties under Article 51A(e) to promote harmony and Article 51A(i) to abjure violence.


Gandhiji preached and practiced non-violence and is recognized internationally as its apostle. He demonstrated ahimsa by example in his personal life, with the conviction and courage of truth (satya), often through satyagraha. He did not restrict his idea of ahimsa to the physical plane but generalized it to other spheres including the economic and political. In today's India there are people who, though they may not be followers of Gandhiji's doctrine of ahimsa, believe that violence is wrong and counter-productive. And they speak against all forms of violence - social, economic, environmental, political, physical - since ultimately it is the weak who are the victims.

It is unfortunate that governments do not understand the oft-repeated position of human rights and other social activists, that standing against violence does not mean sympathy with or support for militant groups, that there is a third position which is equidistant from both sides of the conflict, and that the position of "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" is deeply flawed in the common law and social senses.

Equally unfortunate, speaking against violence and in favour of peaceful negotiations is interpreted by government as opinions of misguided peaceniks at best, or as overt or clandestine collaboration with militants. Today, governments are openly adopting policies of up-scaling police and military fire-power based on intelligence using the latest hi-tech from the military-industrial complexes of the world.

In matters such as the militancy and terrorism that are presently rife, many people fear that governments' policy that militancy (caused by decades-long neglect and misgovernance) should be crushed by the use of police and military firepower, will make presently bad situations worse. Such people take the so-called third position, standing apart from the "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" position, and in favour of peace and harmony.

Naturally, the third position is all about finding solutions of the problems within constitutional framework and with non-violent and peaceful negotiations. But as casualties from both sides rise in the ongoing operations, voices for peace will get obscured under the cacophony of gun battles.

Farmers know what they need

By S. G. Vombatkere
26 Feb 2010

As sustained propaganda to establish private laboratory's control over farmers' rights is gathering momentum, a unique Farmers' Jury comprised of small and marginal farmers from diverse communities and regions asserted their right to be consulted for farm research and policy making.

One of the specialist witness answering queries of the Farmers' Jury
India's silicon city Bangalore was the scene of yet another first, though this one was quite at variance with the money-spinning IT industry. The occasion was Raita Teerpu or Farmers' Jury, when small and marginal farmers of Karnataka spoke out about current agricultural research on December 5, 2009.

The Farmers' Jury is a unique social experiment, the first of its kind in India and probably the world, aimed at democratizing the governance of agricultural research. This is an initiative of the Alliance for Democratising Agricultural Research in South Asia (ADARSA), supported by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in UK; Deccan Development Society (DDS), Hyderabad; Centre for Agriculture Media, Dharwad; Institute for Cultural Research and Action (ICRA), Bangalore; and Chipko of Karnataka.

ADARSA formed an 18-member Steering Committee to provide overall guidance for the process. Based on this, volunteers of Roshni Nilaya School of Social Work, Mangalore, interviewed 100 small and marginal farmers in all districts of Karnataka. This was followed by screening according to criteria set by the Steering Committee, to identify 15 women and 15 men who would form the Farmers' Jury with representation from all districts, including dalits, adivasis, small farmers, dryland farmers and landless labourers. An Oversight Panel consisting of senior-level people from civil society with a record of public service, headed by former Supreme Court Chief Justice M. N. Venkatachalaiah, was also constituted for detached observation to ensure that there was no bias in the entire process.

The proceedings began by assembling the jury members from across Karnataka at the Fireflies Intercultural Centre just outside Bangalore on November 30, 2009. They were housed separately and not permitted to meet anybody except logistics volunteers, and they also dined separately from other participants (including members of the Steering and Oversight Committees) in the project.

During the sessions held on three successive days, the jury was seated on an elevated platform with all due deference, and were addressed by 12 selected "specialist witnesses" who were government officials, farmers' movements activists, media persons, agricultural scientists, social scientists, agriculture industrialists, academics, and social and development activists. Thus, all facets of opinion were presented before the Jury. The names and details of the persons on the Jury, Steering Committee, Oversight Panel and specialist witnesses may be seen at .

The daily proceedings were videographed as a record. In four 90-minute sessions per day for 3 days, each of the specialist witnesses was allotted 30 minutes to speak and 60 minutes was given to the jury to confer amongst themselves, to ask questions and hear the response from the specialist witness. After hearing the specialist witnesses, on December 4, 2009, the jury went into conclave to finalise their verdict.

The Farmers' Jury pronounced their verdict on December 5, 2009, at a public function presided over by former Chief Justice M. N. Venkatachalaiah, at the Institution of Agricultural Technologists in Bangalore. The function, attended by over 200 people, began with an explanation of the concept and process of the Farmers' Jury. An international expert and consultant to the Farmers' Jury process, Dr. Michel Pimbert, spoke about similar concerns in Africa (e.g., Benin and Mali) and South America (e.g., Bolivia and Peru).

It was clear that the Farmers' Jury as a social experiment was unique and without precedent. Members of the Steering Committee and Oversight Panel presented their frank impressions and finally spokespersons of the Farmers' Jury read out the verdict that they had arrived at after hearing the specialist witnesses and due internal discussions and deliberations. The 22-point verdict reads as follows:

Today the farmer is unable to return to traditional farming and nor can he pursue expensive modern farming practices. There is great need for pro-farmer agricultural research.
Government must recognize farmers' innovations, respect the innovators and compensate them the way it compensates scientists in formal institutions.
We do not want research in hybrid crops that demand repeated purchase of expensive chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Instead, we demand research on local landraces that adapt to their ecosystems, are drought-resistant, provide quality and tasty food and fodder, and can be produced by the farmer himself.
Information on agricultural research done in public-private partnership must be transparent and accessible to farmers.
Agricultural universities and other public sector research institutions must make farmers equal partners in research and offer farmers an equal share in profits resulting from research.
When private or multinational corporations conduct research in their own or farmers' fields, the effects of these trials on farmers' health, the changes in the soil and the impact on the surrounding environment must be monitored by citizens' groups including farmers. This information should be made known every year to the farming community through media and Gram Sabhas. If there are negative consequences (resulting from such trials), the companies or corporations must be held responsible and accountable for those consequences.
Farmer Field Days and Farmer Field Schools conducted on various crops must be held under the jurisdiction of all Gram Panchayats in the state.
Information related to agricultural research and technology must be made available in local languages and made accessible to farmers.
We feel that sufficient research on sugarcane, which is an important crop in Karnataka, is not being carried out. A research centre for improvement of sugarcane cultivation must be established.
Weather-based crop insurance schemes must be abolished and every farm must be made a unit for the assessment of losses and resultant compensation.
In order to make water and soil testing available to farmers, government must set up and use mobile laboratories.
There must be a scientific system to predict reliable information on rainfall, and this information must be available to farmers.
It is well known that there are scientists who conduct research and produce results that benefit those who pay their salaries or finance their research - and practice "bad science".
In partnership with the farming community, government must establish at every hobli level, cottage industries for processing agricultural produce and value addition. Such cottage industries must be related to the local crop produced and must be funded by government.
Seed banks of local seed varieties must be established at the level of every Gram Panchayat. Seed distribution, seed festivals, field trials and seed improvement programs must be conducted through Gram Panchayats with government support.
We oppose anti-farmer seed laws.
In view of the fact that farmers constitute 70% of the population and the farming sector makes a very important contribution to the economic system, the state and central governments must have a separate agriculture budget.
Pastures and tanks reserved for grazing of cattle and sheep have disappeared. They must be renewed and made available to the farming community.
In order to educate the younger generation on agriculture and to help them develop interest in this sector, agriculture must be incorporated in school syllabi.
Stop grabbing land from farmers in the name of development and Special Economic Zones.
The Forest Department must stop distributing saplings of Acacia and Eucalyptus to farmers. Instead of monoculture planting of such species that harm the environment and deplete ground water, the Department must plant diverse species that protect land and water and are needed by animals, birds and human beings.
Small farmers, farm labour, artisans' communities such as carpenters and potters who produce farm-related instruments must be taken into partnership in formulation of agricultural policies that are location-specific.
Shepherds and pastoralists must be part of the Karnataka Sheep Development Board and must play a role in the formulation of related policies.
What is special about the experiment?

The social experiment of Farmers' Jury has brought out some interesting facets of rural culture which are not really surprising but which bear highlighting:

Women members of the Jury were observed asking questions just as much as the men.
The questions to the expert witnesses were information-seeking, often searching and sometimes pointed, but never with rancour or ill-intent.
The Jury members who had met together for the first time on November 30, 2009, were always well behaved and cordial with each other regardless of their varied castes and socio-economic backgrounds.
Small and marginal farmers may be illiterate and uneducated in the conventional sense, but their deep knowledge of farming and understanding of the complexity of nature and the inter-dependence of all things living and non-living, spoke volumes for their innate cultural strength arising from 5,000 years of agricultural tradition of India.
In the context of climate change and the economic situation, there is a growing number of agriculture scientists who opine that the current trend of agricultural research cannot ensure food security with justice and equity for the under-fed or starving millions across the continents. These scientists, who are not a minority in the scientific community, are free from the corrupting influence of MNCs in the seeds, farming and retail food sectors, and hence practice true science. It is these scientists who are addressed by the Jury's verdict to make their science relevant to on-the-ground situations and recognise farmers' knowledge systems.


It is abundantly clear that business-as-usual, market-oriented agricultural research will not address food security but will intensify existing and growing hunger and malnourishment, and resultantly spread the existing and growing social discontentment and militancy.

Importantly, this verdict comes from people who are not heard because planners and scientists at national and state levels presume that they are ignorant or lazy. The Farmers' Jury initiative and their verdict demolishes all doubts as to their competence to judge what they need and what is good for them, and also as to their mature ecological awareness and understanding that is absent among many formally trained scientists.

Living the Constitution

This social experiment in democracy designed and led by P. V. Satheesh of DDS is path-breaking because for the first time ever, poor and marginalized farmers were enabled to form a responsible jury, and show that they are the best judges for their own progress and development. This is giving a voice to the voiceless.

Highly qualified scientists, even if they are committed, are often unaware of the actual needs and problems of poor and marginalized farmers who form the bulk of the agricultural community and are an important part of the economy since they feed the nation. The Jury's verdict clearly shows that farmers are not against science and scientific research, but they demand that science be used with due regard to people's needs. This is because it is well known that there are scientists who conduct research and produce results that benefit those who pay their salaries or finance their research - and practice "bad science".

The Jury's verdict demands more inclusive governance to "pull in" participation of the farming community. This is especially required because Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister's Office are regularly and routinely advised by the industry bodies like CII and FICCI even on agriculture matters without any manner of farmer representation.

The Constitution of India can be brought to life for over 60% Indians only when science and technology can be made to work for their progress and development - living the Constitution instead of leaving the Constitution.