We recently circulated Bhaskar Save's Open Letter to M S Swaminathan - the 'father' of India's 'Green Revolution' and a key promoter of GM crops - challenging him to find a new way forward, given 'the tragic condition of our soils and our debt-burdened farmers, driven to suicide in increasing numbers every year.'
You can read the Open Letter here: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6839
The other supporting documents sent to Swaminathan with Bhaskar Save's first letter are available here: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6853
---
Open Letter 2
From: Bhaskar Save,
'Kalpavruksha', Vill. Dehri, Via Umergam,
Dist Valsad, Gujarat.
(Ph: 0260 - 2562126, 2563866)
To: Shri M.S. Swaminathan,
Chairperson, National Commission on Farmers,
Union Ministry of Agriculture,
New Delhi
16 August, 2006
Subject: Mounting Suicides and National Farm Policy:
Revitalising Indian Agriculture through Natural/Organic Farming
Reference: Your Reply dated 31-07-06 to my Open Letter dt. 29-07-06
Dear Shri Swaminathan,
1) I thank you for your prompt and concise reply dated 31 July, 2006, received by post about 6 days ago. You state:
"I have long admired your work, and I am grateful to you for the detailed suggestions you have given. You have made valuable comments and recommendations. We shall take them into consideration in our final report."
2) While your reply conveys that you are in broad agreement with my letter, I would be grateful if you let me know specifically which of my suggestions you endorse and propose to recommend in your final Report. Please also inform me of any comments or suggestions in my letter dt. 29-07-06 and this letter dt. 16-08-06 regarding which you have some reservation, questions or disagreement. I would be happy to answer your queries and clarify any doubts.
3) You have enclosed with your letter, a paper by you and Shri PC Kesavan, titled 'From Green Revolution to Evergreen Revolution: Pathways and Terminologies.' I have requested some well-wishers to translate it into Gujarati or Marathi, so that I can respond to it, hopefully within a week or two.
4) Considering that less than 5 % of Indian farmers understand English, I urge the ‘National Commission for Farmers’ to please supplement with vernacular translations, your future important communications to farmers including any Interim Draft Report for seeking our opinion. Such a gesture may significantly help your consultation with farmers become truly participatory and fruitful.
5) Special, urgent effort needs to be made in seeking out senior/old traditional/organic farmers, women and men, who will not be around too long to pass on their vital knowledge, insights and wisdom. All documentations (and translations) of interaction with such living repositories of practical knowledge of sustainable, organic farming in different regions, need to be widely disseminated. A related, similar effort, on an emergency footing, is needed to conserve in their decentralised, natural habitats our rich treasure of plant diversity, both of crops and uncultivated species. We have many thousands of these, now increasingly neglected and threatened with extinction.
6) I am encouraged that my Open Letter dated 29-7-06 has generated so much interest. While most people have been appreciative, a few have responded with specific criticisms and/or questions. I address some of these below:
(i) Honest Science and Non-invasive Technology
A few people wrote that I should not seem to denigrate all 'science' and 'scientists', especially reputed figures who have worked for the nation. I clarify that I do not devalue science or scientists per se. But I do believe it is unscientific, indeed hazardous, to uncritically trust 'scientific authorities', especially regarding wider safety considerations of commercial or patented technologies and inputs promoted by them.
The kind of technology we need, must be wedded to compassion, foresight and wisdom. It should, first and foremost, do no harm. Additionally, it should empower people to be self-reliant in all basic needs, rather than increase their dependence on and vulnerability to distant, external factors and forces. Hence, maximum emphasis must be given to local needs and rights, and to local, decentralised resources and know-how. Any dependence on external, purchased technologies and inputs especially for our most basic needs like clean water and wholesome food is fraught with grave dangers. This, I believe, is starkly self-evident.
(ii) Did not the 'Green Revolution' Avert Famine?
It may be more true to say that the 'Green Revolution', through ruining our soils and depleting our groundwater, has been progressively creating the conditions for widespread future famine. Mal-distribution, hunger and malnourishment are already with us, despite (or because of) huge, national stockpiles of grains, rotting in our warehouses and feeding rats. But other vital foods (vegetables, fruit, pulses, millets, etc.) are all in short supply. Thanks to the 'wheat and rice obsessive Green Revolution' that its initiators failed to rein in!
All the famines witnessed at certain periods in some regions of our country including the Bengal Famine were largely (if not entirely) man-made. Before Independence, it was excessive colonial exploitation, particularly during periods of war, that was the major cause. Forced cultivation of cash-crops, often for export; high extraction of taxes and levies; consequent neglect of common resources like irrigation tanks, ”¦ etc., were the key factors resulting in villagers going hungry. And even then as today it was mal-distribution, rather than overall scarcity, that was the real culprit. Our heritage of natural resources and traditional farming knowledge, was doubtless among the richest in the world. We certainly did not need any west-bedazzled 'lab and pulpit' agricultural scientists telling us how to grow our food.
It has been further pointed out to me that:
According to Government records, both the compound annual rates of growth in 'total production' as well as 'productivity' (yield per unit area) including 'all' crops for India as a whole, were higher in the decade before the 'green revolution' kicked in, compared to the decade that followed.
In the First Plan period (1951 to 1956), India's farm production increased at the compound rate of 4.1% per annum, while productivity increased at the compound rate of 1.4% per annum. In the Second Plan period (1956 to 1961), production increased at the compound rate of 3.1% per annum, while productivity increased at the compound rate of 1.8% per annum. During the Third and Fourth Plan periods combined (1961 to 1973, the first GR decade), the comparative increase in production was just 2% per annum, while the increase in productivity was 1.3% per annum. [Source: 'Handbook of Agriculture', Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), 1987, pg. 105]
(iii) Modern Biotechnology is Perilous
One or two responses pointed out that agro-chemicals are, in any case, becoming fast outdated, and widely recognized as destructive and unsustainable. Now, it is modern biotechnology, posing as the new saviour of the farmer, that promises (or threatens) to usher in a 'Second Green Revolution'. This is the latest booming avenue of agro-industry. The new biotech prescriptions (more expensive inputs and greater external dependence) retain the old mentality of trying to engineer nature to our immediate (short-term) convenience. This can have adverse effects at levels other than those considered by the narrow-focused bio-technologies.
By its very mandate, the bio-engineering approach especially genetic manipulation strives to maximise the 'performance' of certain essentially limited features, not knowing what the wider consequences may be. But nature works through the interplay of an incomprehensibly vast array of factors, far beyond the professional concerns or cognitive reach of genetic engineers. While bio-technologists may have certain economic or political interests in mind, they can't even begin to imagine trying to forge an overall balance that fosters health -- the mysterious harmony of diverse elements and forces.
Some of the mind-boggling dangers of genetic engineering have become fairly clear. More seem likely to reveal themselves. The threat too of invasive 'genetic pollution' of our natural biodiversity (both cultivated crops and uncultivated species) is no longer in the realm of science fiction. If only we see that there is nothing lacking in the genetic code of the myriad time-tested species gifted by Nature, we would realize that there is no need whatsoever to tamper with their DNA ribbon of life. And that much saner and happier paths exist to provide for the wellbeing of people.
(iv) 'Gradual Reduction' of Chemicals is not Good Strategy
Some have asked whether chemicals should not be gradually reduced, instead of totally stopping them suddenly. But while less of the chemicals may cause less damage to the soil, they are still harmful. The land will continue to worsen, though less rapidly.
The turning point, where destruction stops, and the soil begins to regain its health, can only be reached by totally stopping the use of what is poison to the organic life of the earth. The micro-organisms, earthworms, etc then gradually regenerate, rebuilding the humus of the land. This is the very basis of soil health, without which healthy plants and wholesome food cannot be grown.
Most of the farmers I have met, who use chemicals, can clearly see that they are on a downward slide. But they seem to lack the confidence of changing their way of farming. My suggestion to them is that they should at least make a start by totally stopping chemicals on a part of their land, using instead whatever organic inputs are available.
In the very first year, even if the yields fall to less than half, the big saving in costs will ensure that there is no significant loss. The yields then continue to improve, while costs further decline. By the end of the second or third year, the improvement in net gain is clear. And if the organic produce is consumed by the farmer's own family, this itself is an incalculable benefit to health. As the farmer's experience and confidence increases, additional land can be converted to the organic way in a phased manner. The more concentrated use of the available organic inputs on one new plot each year also hastens the regeneration and productivity of the soil. Hence, the farmer is not discouraged by the initial results.
(v) Is Natural/Organic Farming Spreading?
Yes! But it needs to spread much faster and more widely. Are there other farms around mine that have been inspired to follow my way of farming? Yes, but again, not enough. Among those influenced by me, within Dehri-Umergam, that are completely natural/organic, are: Sonali Farm, Sanghvi Farm, Irani Farm, Akash Farm, and Dev Farm. Both my sons, Naresh and Suresh, follow the natural-organic path, and are helping to guide others.
I would be glad to address any further questions and doubts that have remained unanswered here. I also look forward to your reply to my request at Para 2 above, so that this exchange continues, and all vital issues fundamental to this nation’s health food, water, soil, natural (genetically untampered) bio-diversity, etc. are addressed up front by all concerned.
Yours sincerely,
Bhaskar Save
Copy to:
1) The Prime Minister of India
2) The Union Minister of Agriculture
3) The National Advisory Council
4) The media
Enclosed:
Annexure 6 (Part 1), referred to in my Open Letter dated 29-07-06.
(This Annexure explains the basic principles and practice of farming in harmony with Nature. Also provided is an overview of the contents of ‘Vision of Natural Farming’ by Bharat Mansata, written largely in consultation with me.)
Post-script: This letter has been transcribed by Bharat Mansata, based on discussions with me. I have requested him to email/forward it to all concerned/interested. Comments/views on this letter, as well as my Open Letter of 29-07-06, may please be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. It may not be possible to reply all at length, but at least an acknowledgement will be sent.