AN "AUTHORITY" FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY-"STIFLING" OF DEMOCRACY

Biotechnology has made tremendous strides during the last two decades, the impact being greatest in pharmaceutical industry. Of course in the area of food also, Biotechnological approach has given rise to genetically modified products which are under consideration for adoption in many countries including India. How ever some countries like the US have gone ahead with massive adoption of all types of GM foods without adequately assessing the adverse impact associated with genetic manipulation of natural foods on long term food safety, environmental hazards and farm economy.

The recent Bt Brinjal debate in India was able to focus the attention of people on the consequences of GM foods under the Indian environment and against substantial opposition from scientific, farming and consumer communities government retreated in grace abandoning, for the time being, the earlier plans for introduction of Bt Brinjal, developed by the global GM seed giant, Monsanto, for commercial cultivation. The much discredited Genetic Engineering Clearance Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment, chaired by a bureaucrat with no knowledge about Biotechnology, and staffed by some "yes" scientists, whose credentials were questioned even by the Supreme Court in the country, gave its "approval" for regular cultivation
of Bt Brinjal. It is another story that the Environment Minister had the good sense to overturn the irresponsible action of GEAC. With such a background, what will be the future of GM crops in India, is a relevant question.

With two powerful Ministers in the Union Cabinet unabashedly canvassing for GM foods, Prime Minister also seems to be sympathetic to the GM lobby for reasons not yet clear, all under the pretext or illusion that GM technology only can "augment" food supply in future and prevent large scale starvation!. Even the perpetrators of GM food myth do not claim any genuine increase in crop yield but assert that loss due to pests could be less thereby increasing the harvest volume. Now that the much ridiculed GEAC is discredited, GOI seems to be in a hurry to replace it with an "Authority" under the statute for which necessary legislation is being drafted. Probably with the majority UPA has in the Parliament, the proposed "Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India" (BRAI) may become a reality soon, if good sense does not prevail on the MPs during discussion of the legislation. Why the opposition for the proposed BRAI?

If one goes by the experience during the setting up of "Food Standards and Safety Authority of India" earlier, BRAI is also not going to be different. There will be intense lobbying amongst retired bureaucrats with practically no exposure to Biotechnology or related areas of science, to occupy the "Chair" and the country will have to witness this "game of musical chairs" pretty soon. BRAI is a bureaucrat's dream because of the draconian power sought to be vested with it and a cursory look at some of the provisions in the draft bill will convince any one that a police bureaucrat may be more suitable to "administer" the Authority. Most disgusting provision in the bill is to provide for jail term up to one year and a fine of Rs 2 lakh for any one who without evidence or scientific record misleads public about the safety of the products and the organisms used. Adding insult to injury the information about GM products has been kept out of the purview of RTI Act, clearly showing the intention of GOI to push the GM products down the throat of the people with great secrecy. Further the sole responsibility for clearing all GM crops has been given to BRAI with no role for other ministries like those for food, agriculture, environment, health, consumer welfare etc. Is this compatible with democratic credentials of this country?

India seems to be aping the US, at least in promotion of GM crops and BRAI is a pre-requisite for repeating the US experience where GM crops are cleared with executive authority rather than through scientific and democratic route. Unless major changes are made in the proposed Bill, Parliament should not accord approval to this devious strategy of GOI.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

AUTHOR, AUTHORITY AND AUTHORITARIAN!

English is a wonderful language with excellent expressive power, though it can be non-sensical in terms of spelling and pronunciations. Its ability to assimilate words and ideas from other cultures and languages has made it still more expressive and loved by people in all the continents. No wonder parents rush to English medium schools to get their children admitted and this desire is widespread even amongst low income groups. Probably their preference for such schools is more driven by the hope that higher quality education is imparted only in such schools with a better chance for a better quality of life for their children after growing up. Vernacular fanatics are forgetting that if the country and its people have to be benefited from knowledge developments around the world, familiarity in English is a prerequisite while proficiency in native languages can go side by side.

The word 'author' refers to one who is a writer of an article or book but it can also apply to a person who creates or begins an idea or a plan. Either way an author has to be a creative person with brains, experience and vision. An 'authority', on the other hand, need not be an author though reverse could be true some times. The power to give orders confers on a person the authority and these orders are meant to be obeyed. Delegated responsibilities for specific function to specific people also come under the expression 'authority'. Authority can also mean a learned person with special knowledge gained over years of learning and experience and at times of doubts and indecision, people generally turn to wiser peers who can be the 'authority' on the subject. It is a different matter that so called 'authority' misuses the power some time for considerations other than what is intended for.

'Authoritarian' is an adjective word used to persons who demand absolute obedience to his orders or commands. In the common parlor it is also used to reflect the good intention of a well meaning parent or a teacher who has the well being of those ordered about while being authoritarian. Of course authoritarian streak is anathema in a democracy where decisions are made by the majority, not by one person or a coterie of persons. In contrast 'authoritative' persons derive their strength from the power enjoyed by them by virtue of their strength in skills or knowledge. A person can also be designated as an authoritative spokesman by a body or group of persons vested with authority.

Indians seem to be fond of the expression 'authority' which is often a prerogative of the government which rules the country. The power of an authority can be executive, financial, judicial or management. All government 'babus' have power in one form or the other that enables them to have extra ordinary influence on the citizens as their decisions can affect their lives to varying extent. Power in any form can be the drive engine for corruption as is being witnessed in the country and more the power, higher will be the temptation to be corrupt. It is said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Country's bureaucratic system is so structured that, with power and pelm distributed amongst the 'babus' beginning at the bottom to the top with few exceptions, corruption is in-built and probably nothing can come in the way of the ever growing corruption faced by the citizens whose daily lives are intertwined with the actions (or non-actions?) of the administrative lords of the country.

It is not a coincidence that government culture in India, inherited from the Britishers, continues to use the word 'Authority' to designate administrative bodies affixing the word after the functions assigned to them. We have "Authority" set ups, for food safety and standards (FSSTA), food exports (APEDA) and marine products exports (MPEDA) in the food area but there are several such bodies conferred with the coveted affix 'authority', We have separate 'authority' for airports, high ways, steel. inland waterways, gas, insurance regulation, sports, zoo development, urban development, telecom regulation, electricity, coastal aquaculture etc most of them with umbilical chords to the government at Delhi. While UK has practically replaced these authorities with boards, directorates, agencies, commissions etc, India revels in creating more authorities, many of them toothless tigers with very little independence from the government ministries, lorded over by politicians and bureaucrats. Citizens of this country are, by now, familiar with the 'authority' syndrome and probably have taken them as another aberration in our democratic society.


V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/