Blog

Most of us have heard the saying "don't believe everything you read". Most of us are used to the Nigerian "help me, I am stranded without money in a foreign country" scam, as well as "forward this mail to ten people and be blessed forever" emails. Hopefully, most of us do not believe what we read, at least, not in such cases.

So when I read about the wonderful miracles Bt Cotton was performing for the poor farmers of Maharashtra, I was skeptical.

This "story" appeared in the Times of India (TOI) on 28 August 2011. It extolled the virtues of Bt Cotton and stated how so many farmers had benefited from it. Apparently, certain farmers were reaping its riches by earning Rs. 20,000 more per acre (emphasis not mine) thanks to savings on pesticides. After having read so much about Bt Cotton and the stories of farmer suicides in Maharashtra (note that I do not enclose the word stories within quotes; after all, these suicides really happen), I was confused. Bt Cotton (and indeed, all genetically modified products) is shrouded in controversy for a variety of reasons. And yet, here was this "consumer connect initiative" (super-suspicious terminology in my book) signing its paeans. Some excerpts from the TOI "report":

The entire country knows Yavatmal for the farmers suicides,especially cotton growers. But there are two villages in this suicideprone (sic) district of Maharashtra where the picture appears to be just the opposite.There are no suicides and people here are prospering on agriculture.The switchover from the conventional cotton to Bollgard or Bt cotton here has led to a social and economic transformation of the villages in past three-four years.

Farmers from Antargaon and Bhambraja,the two villages where no suicides have been recorded,claim that their income from Bt cotton has not just helped them get rid of the compounding loans from moneylenders,but has also fulfilled all their aspirations of sending their children to the nearest convent schools at Arni,a taluka place and get their daughters married as lavishly as people in cities do.

Mangoo Chavan,another farmer from Banjara community earns less (Rs 5,550 per acre) but is proud to have cleared his bank loan and invest in irrigation.We have thrown away the moneylender. No one needs him anymore, he said.

Turns out the "story" is propaganda, exposed by The Hindu in its 10 May 2012 edition. The expose has been written by none other than Palagummi Sainath (better known as P. Sainath), a much-respected development journalist based in India. I recommend you read Sainath's careful investigation of how the miracle numbers are nothing but a cruel joke.

The farmers from the two regions have poured open scorn on Bt Cotton. A study of the 365 farm households in Bhambraja and the nearly 150 in Antargaon by the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS) shows why. Almost all farmers with bank accounts are in critical default and 60 per cent of farmers are also in debt to private moneylenders. A data sheet from a village-wide survey signed by Nandu Raut, one of the farmers championing the cause of Bt cotton in the TOI "version" tells a very different story. Even the places seen in the images of the "original story" are not in Bhambraja or Antargaon.

As The Hindu responsibly points out, while none of the farmers reduced the issue of the suicides or the crisis to being only the outcome of Bt Cotton, the expose helped puncture many myths about its miracles. The paper also approached Mahyco-Monsanto (the company selling Bt Cotton seeds) for their take on the issue, particularly why the "story/consumer connect initiative" were run during the Parliament session when the Biotechnology and Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill was to have come up. Surprise, surprise... there were no concrete answers from the company.

There are questions as to why The Hindu chose to expose this "story" now (price wars between the papers? Nah, I doubt it). But I wonder what the reporters of the "original story" thought when they were writing it; did they seriously believe the farmers? Were the farmers "coerced" into making the statements? After all, the same farmers have debunked the "story" vociferously. Why did a paper such as the TOI take this "story" up? Why did it appear twice in the same paper? Whatever happened to accountability? Will Mahyco-Monsanto be penalized for the misleading "consumer connect initiative"? Why did TOI not produce a balanced story in the first place? I think the last question worries me the most. Perhaps TOI will get into damage control mode and come clean about it. It owes its readers that much.