Author: Vivian Fernandes
Publication: IBNLive.com
Date: June 20, 2014
URL: http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/vivianfernandes/1878/65304/greenpeace-in-the-business-of-manufacturing-dissent.html

News reports say that the non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace, will need Home Ministry approval to receive foreign funds. The Intelligence Bureau according to reports in the Indian Express has called the NGO a threat to India's economic security. These moves have been criticized as attempts to silence opposition to government policies. Are they?

Dissent is essential to democracy. It is the people's right to ventilate their discontent. A caring government is expected to address their concerns. A large number of people seeking redress for a grievance give rise to people's movements. I place organizations like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan, which organized labourers in Rajasthan to demand minimum wages through the right to information, and the National Campaign for People's Right to Information in this category. The countrywide agitation of farmers against corporates acquiring swatches of arable land on the cheap for special economic zones may have impeded industrial development but was not a threat to economic security. It was ventilation of genuine anger.

Are NGOs like Greenpeace people's movements? No. They are multinational organizations with multi-million dollar budgets, in the business of manufacturing dissent. Their agendas are imported. They are vexatiously persistent. Compromise is alien to them. They will stubbornly agitate an issue even when facts do not support their stand.

Imported agendas should not be suspect just because they are of alien origin. I certainly support the Western campaign against use of child or bonded labour in exported products, whether carpets or garments, because our own society, government and officials are not quite sensitive about such issues.

But some of the issues that NGOs like Greenpeace articulate do not stand the test of reasonableness. Evidence should be the sole criterion for judging the usefulness of a technology. Take the case of genetically-modified crops. The evidence so far says they are not unsafe. Climate change concerns make their adoption necessary. Unlike the Green Revolution, which was high-input, high output agriculture, we need to move to farming which is low in use of resources and gives high output.

Greenpeace is vehemently opposed to genetically-modified crops. It has been trying to discredit Bt cotton. Bt technology, approved for commercial use in cotton in 2002, has made India the second largest producer and exporter, from being a net importer. According to K R Kranti, head of the Nagpur-based Central Institute for Cotton Research, Bt cotton has reduced pesticide use for control of bollworm by 90 percent. 'As an entomologist who has seen bollworm larvae refusing to die even with the strongest possible concentration of pyrethoids (a nerve toxin) and insecticide cocktails I know the value of Bt cotton. I do not hesitate to express my gratitude to the technology because it came at a time when farmers needed it the most,' says Kranti in a book.

Indian farmers have taken to Bt cotton like youngsters to smart phones. It has the highest acreage under Bt cotton at 111.9 lakh ha and an adoption rate of 91.79 percent, despite the US, Mexico and Australia having a six-year head start. Are Indian farmers fools? Do they need NGOs like Greenpeace to tell them what is good for them> Bt cotton is currently grown over 161 lakh ha in thirteen countries. This is 48 percent of total global cotton area. India's cotton productivity in terms of lint per hectare has risen from 308 kg in 2001 to 554 kg in 2007 (but has declined since then for various reasons). Greenpeace latches on this to denounce Bt cotton.

Bt cotton is not supposed to increase yields. It does so tangentially by saving the crop from the bollworm weevil, which is impervious to conventional insecticide sprays (because it is a hidden feeder). We can criticize multinationals like Monsanto, which has 90 percent of the Bt cottonseeds market, for 'capturing value' by selling only Bt hybrids (whose seeds cannot be reused) and not Bt straight varieties (whose seeds can be reused). This calls into question the judgment of regulators; it is not a case against the technology.

On its website Greenpeace calls GM crops, 'a bitter harvest' and makes the assertion: 'Perhaps most worrying, we do not know if GM crops are safe to eat.' Not true. We know they are not unsafe. If they are not unsafe, they should be regarded as safe. In a report published in 2010, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research and Innovation stated after examining more than 130 research projects, covering more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups that biotechnology, and in particular genetically-modified organisms, are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies. Isn't 25 years of research long enough?

The Bt protein with which Bt cotton plants are spiked is a toxin derived from a soil bacterium, which was discovered by a Japanese scientist in 1901. Bt has been used as an insecticide since 1938 in France. In 1961 it was approved for use in the United States and thereafter in many countries including India for integrated pest management. They have a long record of selective toxicity to insect pests and of not causing harm to those not intended.

There is, therefore, a strong case for allowing commercial cultivation of Bt maize, Bt mustard and Bt rice (which uses up a third of India's agricultural pesticides - the highest for any crop). The US has 317 lakh ha under Bt maize followed by Brazil. It has a productivity of 9-11 tonnes per hectare compared to India's 2.5 tonnes. Yet NGOs and activists like Kavita Kurunganti obstructed even the introduction of non-Bt hybrid maize in Gujarat's tribal areas in the name of 'seed sovereignty' fearing it would pave the wave for genetically-modified varieties.

Vexatious opposition on the part of Greenpeace prompted columnist Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar in an article last year to accuse Greenpeace India of 'spreading green lies' and 'green McCarthyism.' Greenpeace India's Executive Director Samit Aich's 'position on bt cotton is not a mere disagreement. It is a falsehood,' Aiyar said.

Greenpeace's position on mining is as cussed. Here it is in the august company of Amnesty International. AI's concern for the rights of prisoners is very laudable. But its stand on bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills is baffling. AI says it favours responsible mining. But it opposed Vedanta group's offer to rehabilitate the Dongria Kondhs. Amnesty International India's chief executive told me in an interview last year, that he does not believe in the concept of 'greater common good.' When opinion was being sought from the Dongria Kondhs for the mining project under instructions from the Supreme Court were Greenpeace and AI activists merely helping with the process or inciting the tribals to oppose it?