Thousands of farmers detained in Ahmedabad

By d-sector Team
27 Feb 2010

Farmers and social activists opposing the Nirma group's planned cement plant and limestone quarry in Mahuva in Gujarat detained in Ahmedabad before they could organise a rally from Sabarmati to Gandhinagar.

Over five thousand farmers from the Mahuva area in the Bhavnagar district of Gujarat were detained and prohibited from taking out a peaceful rally protesting the Gujarat government’s approval for a cement plant and limestone quarry in their area.

The Mahuva farmers had managed to reach the Sabarmati Ashram despite Gujarat government’s measures to stop them from reaching Ahmedabad to organise a rally from Sabarmati Ashram to Gandhinagar to protest against the proposed plant by the influential Nirma group. Police had blocked all the entry points to the city but several hundred farmers managed to escape police checkpoints by walking long distances in the night.

However, the planned rally couldn't be organised due to preventive arrests and deployment of large number of police personnel to stop it at any cost. Most of the leaders and activists supporting the farmers protest were taken into police custody before they could start the rally.

Chunibhai Vaidya, 92 year old Gandhian who founded Gujarat Loksamiti, Kanubhai Kalsaria, MLA of Mahuva, Sanatbhai Mehta, ex Finance Minister of Gujarat, Ilaben Pathak of AWAG and a senior editor Prakash N Shah were the prominent persons among those detained by the police. Social and political leaders of Gujarat have criticised the high-handedness of the State government terming it ‘suppression of collective democratic rights’.

The farmers were enroute to the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, from where they intended to start a peaceful march to Gandhinagar to submit their petition, signed in blood by 11,111 affected individuals, when the buses and other vehicles they were travelling in were stopped by the police. The farmers were taken into police custody and brought to police grounds in Shahibagh area of Ahmedabad and detained there.

Several hundred protestors who reached the Sabarmati Ashram directly were also whisked away in police vans and blocked from taking out the march.

These farmers from Mahuva area in Bhavnagar district are protesting the decision by the Government of Gujarat to sanction a cement plant by Nirma Ltd, which includes 288 hectare of land for the factory and another 3000 hectare for a limestone quarry.

The affected villagers say that Mahuva area has among the most fertile lands in Gujarat, where farmers grow three crops, and export dehydrated onions and numerous other fruits. Moreover, the numerous onion dehydrating plants (turnover Rs. 300 crore) & cotton gins (turnover Rs. 3,500 crore) provide employment to an additional 10,000 people in the factories. They allege that the proposed cement plant will employ only 418 people for an investment of 2500 crore (Rs. 2.5 billion), but will end up devastating around 50,000 land owners, farmers & farm labourers, besides polluting the air and destroying the pristine coastal & inland ecology. It was only in the last few years that the Government had invested tens of millions of public money to construct structures for water conservation & prevention of salinity ingress in this area.

The farmers of the area contend that they have been facing the combined wrath of the government and company goons for protesting the government action. The government appointed a committee under SK Shelat (ex-Chief Secretary) to look into people’s grievances last year, and the company was required to stop work pending the presentation of the report of the Shelat Committee. The affected farmers allege that this Committee, without either visiting the area or listening to the affected people, has given the 'go-ahead' to the company for this project, which is likely to destroy the lives of around 50 000 people.　

The agitating farmers and activists assert that the Sabarmati arrests was not the first incident to repress the non-violent and peaceful expression of dissent by the affected villagers. Couple of months back, on 13 December 2009, the local MLA Dr Kanubhai Kalsaria, veteran Gandhian Chunibhai Vaidya, and several other leaders were prevented from holding a public meeting in Vangar village. Farmers also allege that two local leaders Wamanbhai and Pravinbhai Kathiria were apparently beaten up by hired goons, and other villagers were manhandled by the police.

Recently on 20 February, the police lathi-charged a peaceful rally of villagers, and ten activists were imprisoned on false charges, charge activists. Dr. Kanubhai Kalsaria, the MLA from Mahuva area, his wife and companions were reportedly again attacked on the way to Doliya village on 21 February, and their motorcycles were badly damaged. However, undeterred people from the Mahuva area decided to organise a massive march from Sabarmati Ashram to Gandhinagar (State capital) to present their petition to the Chief Minister, which they were not allowed to do. Social activists have condemned the latest round of police suppression of the affected villagers’ movement and expressed concern over the declining space available for voicing dissent in Gujarat today.

Instead of discouraging the affected farmers, the government action has encouraged them to spread the movement all over the state. It has been decided that the coming March 6 will be observed as Mahuva Day across the state. To make it effective, several organisations and activists have decided to organise various programs to create public awareness about the state government's move to grab lands of poor farmers across the state.

The Mahuva MLA Kalsariya, who has been leading the movement said, "We were just trying to march to Gandhinagar peacefully without creating any nuisance but it seems that the state government doesn't want to have a dialog with us. As thousands of protesters have gathered here despite of state government's efforts, we will continue our agitations in peaceful and non-violent but aggressive manner."

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.

Why we should oppose Bt brinjal?

By Devinder Sharma
11 Feb 2010

Though the government of India has cancelled the GEAC approval for commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal, majority of people remain unaware of the facts related to the controversy. Here are FAQs to help the readers:

Brinjal is in the eye of a storm. With the Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh putting a moratorium on the introduction of what could have been India's first genetically modified food crop - Bt brinjal - the nation has been saved from a poisonous food.

Based on the wide ranging public consultations held across the country, Jairam Ramesh's decision has also come as an indictment of the scientific regulatory process. At the same time, the Minister has for the first time questioned the need to go in for GM technology when there were other pest management alternatives, much safer environmentally and for human health, available.

As expected, the historic decision has opened up a can of worms. Agricultural scientists and the private seed companies have come under a cloud, and therefore an orchestrated media campaign has been launched. It is therefore important to explain some of the hotly debated aspects of the decision, which are getting lost in the din of accusations and counter-allegations. Let me answer some of the frequently asked questions.

Bt brinjal and GM crops are important for a country which has more than 1 billion people to feed.

There is no GM crop in the world which increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of the normal varieties.

There is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than 1 billion people are going to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the unavailability of food. The same holds true for India, where one third of the population cannot even buy food that is available. Poor people find it even difficult to buy wheat and rice at Rs 2/- a kilo. The question therefore is not of production but access and distribution.

Bt brinjal increases productivity. So why stop it?

This is not true. Bt gene acts more or less like a chemical pesticide which is sprayed from outside, whereas Bt produces a toxin within the plant.

If the Bt gene increases productivity, then some may argue that chemical pesticides also increase productivity. Can scientists accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity? But in case of Bt crops, they don't mind creating a false illusion to misguide the farmer.


How can Bt brinjal adversely affect farmers?

Bt is a biological pesticide. It releases poison in the plant. It has been established that compared to Bt biopesticide sprays, the concentration of Bt toxin in Bt brinjal is one thousand times more. Bt biopesticide sprays are harmful, imagine the impact Bt brinjal toxin will have on the environment.

Bt crops releases a toxin in soil through the roots. It has affected beneficial soil microflora, and studies at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have proved this. There have been animal deaths from grazing on Bt cotton leaves in Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. The GEAC has simply brushed this aside even though the Andhra Animal husbandry department has warned farmers not to let their livestock graze in Bt cotton fields.

Genetically modified crops also create superweeds, which are not controlled by any chemical. Georgia province in America is fast turning into a wasteland due to massive infestation of superweeds. World-over, 26 countries are now facing the menace of superweeds. GM crops also destroy biodiversity by contamination. India is the Centre of Origin for brinjal, and therefore needs to be more than cautious.

Bt is supposed to kill sucking pests like pink bollworm in cotton, and fruit and shoot borer in brinjal, thereby reduce pesticides consumption. This however does not hold true for long. In China, which was promoted as a silver-bullet case, cotton farmers growing Bt cotton are now reported to be spraying 8 per cent more pesticides than on non Bt crops and thereby incurring losses. Resurgence of secondary pests has been observed in China (like mealy bug in Punjab), as a result of which farmer's total usage of pesticides increases. This report is based on a study conducted by the Cornell University.

In India too, insects are developing resistance to Bt cotton. That is why the need to bring in Bollgard-II with two Bt genes. But no scientific study is being undertaken on pest resistance in Bt cotton.

Even in America, where herbicide-tolerant crops are prevalent, the usage of herbicides has increased. There are several USDA reports stating this.

Bt crops are safe for human consumption. So why are people expressing concern?

Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that Bt in particular and GM in general poses tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto's own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have terrible problems with their body organs- kidney, liver, pancreas, blood etc, and also can result in serious diseases and allergies. Some studies in Austria have recently shown that GM also leads to infertility.

All those scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs by the proponents of the GM industry. The only human safety trial conducted so far establishes that the alien gene in the human body does transfer to the gut bacteria. This can have serious implications. But no further tests are allowed to be conducted anywhere in the world on human safety.

Bt brinjal is one thousand times more poisonous than the Bt biopesticide sprays. If Bt biopesticide sprays can kill insects, imagine what would happen to human bodies after consuming food that has one thousand times more toxins inside.

These deformities can pass on from generation to generation, like some studies on pesticides have now shown.

But the GEAC, the regulatory authority, had conducted enough tests on human safety. So why worry?

Adequate scientific tests to determine human safety of the genetically modified food were not performed. Instead of the 29 tests that should be conducted before GM food is allowed to be served, the GEAC had expressed 'satisfaction' with some 4 to 5 tests and that too done in a shoddy manner. Interestingly, the GEAC says that it had conducted tests as per the international protocols, but the fact is that there are no accepted international scientific protocols so far.

Even in tests on rats, the tests have been conducted only on ten rats for 90 days. The results show that the rats did suffer serious abnormalities in kidney, liver and blood. These have been simply brushed aside as 'biologically insignificant'. This is shocking considering that Bt gene releases poison in the plant. How can the GEAC simply ignore the health abnormalities seen in rats, even if it is on one rat?


The normal life span of rats, corresponding with the human beings, is for 2 years. Since it has now been found that the impact of chemical pesticides for instance are passed on from generation to generation, and are even felt in the third generation, the human safety tests for Bt brinjal need to conducted for several generations. After all, we are going to eat Bt brinjal all through our life. How can its safety be determined by rat studied for only 90 days and that too inconclusively?

We know that smoking cigarettes for 2-3 weeks does not cause cancer. To know whether smoking cigarettes can cause cancer you have to tests for several generations. Why is the industry not willing to perform tests for several generations in rats to know the health impacts from continuously consuming genetically modified crops?

GEAC is an expert committee. Why doubt the recommendations of the expert committee?

The GEAC recommendations were rigged. The GEAC had set up an Expert Committee -II (called EC-II) which had some members who were also involved in developing Bt crops. This was a sure case where a conflict of interest was evident. How can people who develop GM crops also sit on the approval process?

The norms and bylaws of the EC-II were lowered to suit the interests of the private seed companies. All experiments were conducted by the private companies, and the GEAC had accepted the data provided by the private seed company. Let us also not forget that the private seed company had refused to share the analysis with the general public, and it was only after the Supreme Court's directive that the research data was made public.

The entire regulatory process is a sham. Jairam Ramesh's decision is clearly an indictment of the GEAC. The report is full of unscientific conclusions and inaccuracies. At the same time, the report blatantly ignores the dangerous impact of Bt brinjal on the body organs of rats and other animals, and also the environment. The chairman of EC-II himself has said that he is not sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal.

Let us have an open and transparent debate on the regulatory process. If the GEAC decision is found to be wrong and unscientific, the chairman of GEAC should be put to trial. After all, we cannot allow anyone to play havoc with the lives of the masses.

Farmers are better judge of a technology. Why not leave Bt brinjal as an option for the farmers to use, if he finds it useful?

This is a joke. If we leave harmful technologies in the hands of people, the world would die an unnatural death sooner than later. Cigarette smoking for instance cannot be left to people. Even though every packet contains a bold statement 'cigarette smoking is injurious to health' and yet its sales goes on increasing. Because it was unhealthy and dangerous, governments have stepped in and banned its usage in public places. Was that a wrong decision?

Similarly, GM crops cannot be left to the farmers to decide as an option. Farmer too gets influenced by the marketing blitz of the companies. The entire State machinery -- Agri Universities, Farm extension depts, companies and the media have been promoting GM crops. With such a powerful marketing blitz how do you expect the farmer to make informed choices? Also, if the farmer was so sensible, the usage of chemical pesticides would not have multiplied to the present dangerous levels.

Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed upon them. How many more farmers do we want to be killed before stopping the killer technologies from being used?

A farm model to sustain the world

By Devinder Sharma
07 Jan 2010

Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA) model successfully implemented in Andhra Pradesh is a roadmap for the future of Indian and world agriculture. It has tremendous potential to remove poverty and hunger with a very low carbon footprint.

As we enter 2010, the script for a futuristic agriculture which brings back the smile on the face of the Indian farmer, without leaving any scar on the environment, is being rewritten.

What began as a small initiative some six years back in a non-descript village in Khamam district, has now spread to over 20 lakh acres in 18 districts of Andhra Pradesh. I remember when I first talked about the miracle brought about in village Pannukula in Andhra Pradesh, many thought I was simply trying to romanticise agriculture. How farming can be done without the use of chemical pesticides, I was repeatedly asked.

Pannukula dug out a lonely furrow, but eventually blazed a trail. In the next four years, more than 318,000 farmers in 18 out of the 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh have discarded the intensive chemical farming systems, and shifted to a more sustainable, economically viable and ecologically friendly agriculture. A silent revolution is in the offing. In Kharif 2009, some 14 lakh acres was covered with what is now known as Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA).

As I write this in the first week of January 2010, the area had expanded to 20 lakh acres of 21 districts. Six lakh acres increase in a farming system that does not use chemical pesticides, and is also phasing out chemical fertiliser, that too in matter of few months, is a record of sorts. And all this has happened without any push from the government agencies and the private sector. I see no reason why this environmentally safe, and a farmer-friendly system of sustainable agriculture, cannot cover 200 million acres across the country in another ten years or so if the government gets serious.

Ten years from now, in 2020, when we try to look back, Indian agriculture can be transformed into a healthy and vibrant system where farmer suicides have been relegated to history, where distress and despondency has been replaced by the lost pride in farming, and where agriculture becomes sustainable in the long run and does not result in climate change.

What began as an experiment to evolve a farming system without the application of chemical pesticides is now also phasing out the use of chemical fertilisers. It uses a mixture of scientific proven technologies, indigenous knowledge and traditional wisdom. Farmers are replacing chemical fertilisers and pesticides with microbial formulations, intensive use of composting techniques, vermi-composting, and apply bio-fertilisers, and use bio-extracts for controlling pests.

It therefore brought in a complete shift from conventional agriculture and offered secure and stable livelihoods. The crop yields have remained the same, the pest attack has drastically reduced, and the soil is returning back to its natural fertility levels. As soil fertility improves over the years, crop yields have started going up still further. More importantly, farmer's expenditure on health problems emanating from pesticides application has also gone down by 40 per cent on an average.

There is more money now in the hands of the farmers. The cost of cultivation per acre has also come down by 33 per cent. Take the case of cotton, a CMSA farmer saves more than Rs 12,500 per hectare in a year on account of no application of pesticides alone. With his crop productivity remaining stable, cotton farmers have got a new lease of life. The environment too has become healthier and safe.

Normally, 56 per cent of the cost of cotton cultivation is primarily on account of pesticides. And don't forget, elsewhere in the State and for that matter in the country, 70 per cent of the farmers who are committing suicide are engaged in cotton cultivation.

No farmer has committed suicide in the areas where non-pesticides management system of farming is being followed.

More money in the hands of farmers means less debt. I haven't seen any other village in the country in past three decades of my work in agriculture, which has been able to recover its entire mortgaged land from the money lenders in just three years of adopting non-pesticides management. This happened in village Ramachandrapuram in Khamam district where all 75 farmers have even paid back the outstanding rate of interest.

Studies in five districts show that out of the 467 families that had mortgaged their land, at least 386 have recovered it in two years time.

This is a roadmap for the future of Indian agriculture. It not only provides a sustainable path, with a very low carbon footprint, and has tremendous potential to remove poverty and hunger. It has been conclusively demonstrated that household food security has improved with a 40 per cent drop in the purchase of food from the market. The crop yields have gone up, and farmers are now able to cultivate two crops in a year. This is the Zero Hunger model that needs to be adopted under the proposed National Food Security Act.

Savings have increased, and a federation of 850,675 self-help groups now involves 10 million women from the poor households. This federation now holds a corpus of US $ 1.5 billion providing a bundle of economic services. No wonder, sustainable agriculture without external inputs can revolutionise the rural landscape, where hunger and poverty becomes history. #

Making profits from poverty

By Devinder Sharma
25 Nov 2009

Micro-finance is a highly profitable business. No wonder Micro-finance institutions are competing with each other to extract their pound of flesh while 'helping the poor women'.

Poverty has literally become a big and organised business. If you are educated, and looking for a profitable business enterprise, and more so if you are a non-resident Indian and want to translocate to India and still make millions, micro-finance offers you the right avenue.

There can be no better business opportunity than starting a micro-finance institution with assured returns and 100 per cent loan recovery. You can even think of trading on the stock exchange after a couple of years. And still more importantly, you can hold your head high and claim that you are helping the poor to come out of the poverty trap. You don't have to feel ashamed and morally guilty. The elite in the society have knowingly (or unknowingly) given you a license to loot.

The unprecedented growth in micro-finance tells us that modern-day Shylocks are everywhere, looking at every possible opportunity to make profits from poverty. Rich countries become rich at the cost of the poor countries. Rich people in any society (of course there are exceptions) also follow the same path. Micro-finance is a classic example.

I am sure if Shakespeare were alive today, he would have easily penned down a sequel to his great classic Merchant of Venice.

We agree that micro-finance institutions are the game changers. They have shifted the game from the hands of the villains of the story, the sahukars or moneylenders, to a sophisticatedly organised class of neo-moneylenders. These are not the usual banias but a highly educated class of people who use all sophisticated skills to rob the poor. And they have done it remarkably well.

It is all in the name of empowering the poor. I have often asked academicians how you justify the exorbitant rate of interest the micro-finance institutions extract from the poorest of the poor. The answer I get is that at least it empowers the poor. At 24 per cent rate of interest if the micro-finance can empower the poorest of the poor I wonder why do we have to keep the rate of interest for the urbanites, whether it is for housing, for car, or for any other business activity, as low as 6 to 8 per cent.

If the poor can be empowered with a 24 per cent rate of interest, how come the resourceful people in the cities/towns need a much lower interest rate to get empowered? If the poor in the villages can make a business enterprise even after paying a 20-24 per cent rate of interest, why do people in the cities find it difficult to do so? Or is it that we need a different yardstick (and in this case it happens to be the interest rate on your borrowing) to empower the poor and the not-so-poor? In other words, since the poor have no voice, some of us (and that includes banks) have joined hands to exploit the poor in the name of development.

I think these are difficult questions that we in the cities simply try to ignore or brush aside for the simple reason that we are in a way or so the real beneficiary of this criminal exploitation.

Isn't it shocking that a poorest of the poor woman in a village, who may be only surviving on the NREGA promise of 100 days assured employment (not getting more than Rs 60 a day), has to pay a 24 per cent rate of interest if she borrows money to buy a goat, and the rich in the cities can get interest-free loans or loans with a minimal rate of interest for buying a BMW car?

I am sure if that poorest of the poor woman were to get a loan for buying a goat at a minimal rate of interest (say 4 per cent or even 7 per cent that we give to farmers) she would also be driving a car, at least a Tata Nano, at the end of the year. Also, I don't understand the logic of providing micro-finance to the poorest of the poor women with a high rate of interest of 20 to 24 per cent (on an average) whereas her husband (if he happens to be a farmer) gets crop loan at 7 per cent.

If the farmers cannot survive (and there are 600 million farmers in India, including their families) with a higher rate of interest, I wonder how do we expect his wife (who is part of the self-help groups) to pay out at the rate of 24 per cent?

Nevertheless, the micro-finance business has grown manifold. India Microfinance Report 2009 tells us that the portfolio of the micro-finance institutions has grown by 97 per cent, and number of beneficiaries has also gone up by 60 per cent. More than 150 million are already borrowing from Micro-finance institutions. What the report however does not tell us, but is quite apparent, is that this organised group of money-lenders is now beginning to take over the unorganised villains of the game -- the sahukars or the traditional money lenders.

Another news report tells us that SKS Micro-finance is charging approximately 24 per cent rate of interest in Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; in southern India, Equitas Micro-finance is seeking 21-28 per cent interest rate and Basix Microfinance is providing small loans at 18-24 per cent interest rate. There are numerous other players, and they all rake in money. Sewa in Gujarat and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh too thrive on a similarly high rate of interest.

It is time we put all of them under a scanner. The society cannot turn a blind eye to this organised loot of poor and helpless.

We often hear success stories of women who borrowed and the transformation it has brought to their lives. I don't deny this. But perhaps what we don't want to know is that even when the private money lenders (the class we hate) were lending at 24 to 36 per cent or more, there were also success stories. The business of money lending wouldn't have succeeded all these decades and centuries if it was not helping those who borrowed.

People went on borrowing from the money lenders or sahukars because they needed the money (even if it came with a very high interest rate), and it must have and still is making a difference to them otherwise the entire business of moneylending would have collapsed and become unsustainable. All that micro-finance institutions are doing now is to replace that class of moneylenders. Micro-finance institutions are also extracting their pound of flesh. The sahukars were using their own capital for lending and therefore charging a very high interest of 36 per cent or above. The micro-finance institutions use the bank finances (or donors money) and therefore charge a little less at 20-24 per cent.

The sahukars or money lenders were lending individually and therefore charged a higher rate of interest to cover up the risk. The micro-finance institutions go in for group lending, and that too to women, the most vulnerable section of the society, and therefore have their risk covered, and still charge 24 per rate of interest. In the process the banks (no wonder, they find it the most lucrative business) and the micro-finance institutions literally make a killing from robbing the poorest of the poor.

If the sahukars are guilty of a crime, so are the micro-finance institutions.