PM Narendra Modi, during his recent address to the Fellows of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, made suggestions that have been upheld as the Ten Commandments for agriculture and rural transformation. However, the policy reforms required for implementation are yet to see the light of day. The sector contributes around 14% to GDP and over half the country’s population is directly dependent on it for income, livelihood and sustenance. We need PMO’s intervention on agri-policy matters pertaining to areas such as type of farming, inputs, credit, insurance, rain-fed farming, farmers’ incomes, R&D and more.

As an agricultural scientist, I would like to draw the government’s attention to a critical area that has generated misunderstanding and debate in public domain. This involves the science of recombinant DNA technology—often referred to as genetically modified or genetically engineered (GM/GE) technology—for use in crop and animal improvements. Unfortunately, the subject has been negatively projected by those who have never tilled even half an acre of land. Many of them are economists, sociologists or management experts with no background in crop breeding and scientific agriculture.

PM Modi is probably aware of the benefits of Bt cotton in his home state Gujarat and all cotton growing states. Bt cotton was the first GM crop released in 2002 in the country by the then NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Today, nearly 95% of the total cotton growing area is covered by Bt cotton as farmers find it affordable and reliable as an income generator. The country, which was a net importer of cotton before the introduction of Bt technology, is now the world’s second largest producer and largest exporter of cotton. The acceptance of this technology by farmers lies in successful management of those dreaded pests (bollworms) and elimination of the need for pesticide spraying. Those who do not understand the biological mechanism of this technology are not qualified to argue against it.

Under UPA-1, there were many vociferous debates on this topic without any specific policy on GM crops. Expenditure on biotechnology and GM research increased every year but without any thought for leveraging it for the benefit of farmers. Indian companies and even government departments—including DBT, ICAR, CSIR and DRDO—have invested heavily in creating the infrastructure for the development of GM crops. A series of research programmes have been successful in incorporating important traits in crops such as mustard, rice, potato, chickpea, brinjal, groundnut and sorghum. However, at the same time, fear-mongering tactics by certain groups seeking a ban or moratorium on the technology have accelerated. The outright rejection of GM crops by vested interests is not only unscientific but also discourages further research in the area.

The US and China have developed various GM crops that are already being used in large-scale cultivation while others can be cultivated as the need arises. For example, Bt rice is ready in China and will be commercialised in the near future. Scientific preparedness is key to averting any food crisis caused by natural disasters or biological calamities. Thus, many countries sustain their research efforts but delay commercialisation of the output until the time is right. In order to avoid lagging behind in this area, we have to allow continuous research, product development and confined field trials of ‘swadeshi’ GM crops.

Anti-GM ‘activists’ claim that the adoption of GM crops will lead to a monopoly of the seed business by MNCs. This is unfounded and ignores the fact that this can happen even with non-GM crops if we curtail research in this area. Who are the biggest sellers of non-GM corn seed today? They are MNCs Monsanto and Pioneer. Who are the largest sellers of Bt cotton? Indian companies like Nuziveedu, Kaveri, Mahyco, Ajeet, Ankur, Bioseed and a few others that have collectively built an industry valued at R5,000 crore and are creating enormous value for the farming community in the process.

The technology is Monsanto’s but the commerce is Indian, where several thousand graduates are being employed in R&D for improving cotton crop. Cotton occupies less than 8% of total cultivated area in India. Imagine the employment potential in the sector if we permit similar R&D for rice and wheat, which occupy 45 million and 27 million hectares, respectively. We are currently importing pulses and vegetable oils worth R90,000 crore. Encourage research in these crops as a policy and see what a difference it can make. The previous government did not even permit field trials of GM mustard developed by Delhi University scientists. This policy will only benefit MNCs in the long run, something the swadeshi picketers do not understand. We have to promote and commercialise our own GM products—Swarna golden rice, disease resistant banana, insect resistant chickpea and pigeon pea, GM potato, Kashi Vishwesh, GM tomato—for drought tolerance and other outputs of public sector research.

We are missing out on the benefits of some of this output. Mahyco’s Bt brinjal is being cultivated in Bangladesh but has been under moratorium in India since 2010. We are globally visible in this field but years of policy paralysis is discouraging for our scientists.

We may have passed by some opportunities in the past but the scientific community is now hoping that this government will spearhead a positive shift in this area. The current scenario of one step forward and two steps back is not adding up to progress.

So, what are the areas of policy intervention required to create a conducive and encouraging environment for research and application of modern technologies in our farms?

* Till we establish an independent regulatory authority, the current system of regulation should allow research, product development and field trials without hasty banning or moratorium. Agriculture research is incomplete until results are tested in the field.

* Commercial approval for useful technologies such as GM mustard, Bt chickpea, Roundup Ready Flex cotton and Bt brinjal should be cleared. Golden rice, which can prevent deficiency-related blindness in millions of poor, is already in the market. It is wrong to keep this technology from benefiting the poor and the undernourished.

* Introduce the subject in schools and develop mechanisms for interaction between scientists, students, farmers and the public to promote better education on biotech crops.

* The policy of permitting MNCs to bring the technologies to India should have the freedom to be used for all kinds of uses and such a policy should be cleared prior to permitting the tech provider to enter the country. Pakistan and China are doing this. We should follow suit.

* The ministry of environment, forest and climate change should give clearance for biosafety and environmental safety aspects only. Responsibility for commercial release of products should lie with the ministry of agriculture. This will enable more transparency and accountability.

* Develop one window system for permitting lab research, glass house testing and CFTs under the new and yet to be established regulatory process.

A policy guided by idealistic opinions and emotions is not likely to help the agricultural sector in the long run. It is entirely possible that, in trying to keep out GM technology, we create an environment for it to enter the market through illegal sources.

It is time to put our faith back in the scientific community and their ability to revolutionise Indian farming once again with cutting-edge research. Given the positive indicators from Modi, we feel confident that the government’s decisions will be based on science and facts, and will help boost a sector that provides employment to more than half the country’s population.

The author is former chairman, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board; agriculture commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture; director, CICR; and vice-chancellor, Marathwada Agricultural University