Hard times ahead? Fertilizer, famine and the future of our farms

Is the sun setting on the "green revolution"?

In which I explain what my father-in-law and Karl Marx forgot to tell us about the source of wealth and food...

Last week The Hindu ran two pieces which, when taken together, serve to remind us how very vulnerable our whole system of food production is to forces beyond our control. First, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh takes on the whole issue of fertilizer subsidy, explaining that our reliance on chemical fertilizers is really a reliance on foreign petrochemical companies and fertilizer producers:

There have been concerns raised by several policy experts and others that the fertilizer policy of the country is only helping to move out the Indian tax payers' money to foreign petroleum companies and fertilizer producers. It is to be noted here that fertilizer production is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and that most fertilizers are imported.

Even more interesting, is the whole question of what the farmers think about soil degradation. What farmers know--and don't know--about that topic is striking. Here's Singh again:

In the mad rush to balance the chemical fertilizer kitty with global prices, policy makers are forgetting a huge problem that is staring us in the face — the deteriorating soil in the country and the resultant threat to food security. However farmers are aware of the crisis, but are helpless in the absence of support systems from the government. A recent Greenpeace India report, “Of Soils, Subsidies and Survival,” based on social audits conducted in five Indian States, has revealed that 96 per cent out of the 1,000 farmers surveyed were of the opinion that the use of chemical fertilisers led to soil degradation but they continue to use them as there was no other option. Ninety-four per cent of the surveyed farmers believed that only organic fertilisers can maintain soil health. However, only one per cent of the farmers received any kind of support for production and the use of organic fertilisers. Ninety-eight per cent of the surveyed farmers were ready to use organic fertilisers if they are subsidised and made easily available...Further, only 34 per cent of them knew that chemical fertilisers are subsidised. Of those who knew, only seven per cent knew that a new subsidy system (NBS) was introduced by the government for chemical fertilizers. Even at the subsidised rate, 94 per cent of them thought that chemical fertilisers are unaffordable and not economical.

Later in the week, Andrew Simms gave us "Our addiction to oil is draining every drop." Simms reminds of two sobering facts: first, most of our economy depends on cheap fossil fuel, and second, we are running out of that cheap fossil fuel. Here's a taste:

We all became, and remain, hooked on its convenience. Today's energy supplies provide the equivalent of the work of 22 billion slaves, according to former oil industry man Colin Campbell. But now the wave of oil looks set to leave us high and dry. At well over $100 per barrel, prices are climbing again to the level last reached in 2008. Since then, however, the tone of commentary has changed.

That comment about slavery, by the way, reminded me of my university days, when many of my red friends were fond of announcing, "labour creates all wealth, comrade!" Come to think of it, I think I even announced that a few times. Today, I don't really feel up to a full discussion of c+L=W or other aspects of the Labour Theory of Value... or the opening paragraph of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Progamme...or even my father-in-law's take on all that in an Indian context: FARMS+ the Labour of Farmers=Wealth. 


Anyway, if I really did go and try to write a full on critique of Marxist economics, I'm sure someone from SARAI would take me to task for lack of intellectual rigour and the rest of you would stop reading. 


But permit me this much at least: wealth cannot be generated and food cannot be grown over the long run if it is not done so sustainably. And our current systems of industrial and agricultural production depend on us using fossil fuels (which is really ancient solar energy) and what is left of the organic content of the soil (which is more recent solar energy) in a way that is unsustainable. See, that's the thing neither Marx, nor my father-in-law ever completely got their large minds around.


And if that was too confusing, I think these three simple statements may be a bit more clear:
1) Over-farmed Indian soil increasingly requires fertilizer in order to give food.
2) Fertilizer requires a lot of fossil fuel to produce.
3) Oil supplies are falling and prices are rising--in the short and long term.


Add those up, and you can see we are in trouble, even without taking into account falling water tables and climate change. The problems are easy to understand, but the solutions are much more complex. And the price of failure is high indeed: lacking a real solution to these problems, the best we can hope for is that hunger will continue to stalk the land; at worse, we will see famine and the widespread breakdown of social order. 

***

For more on food, check out our Food Security page. Also, Mira Kamdar's series in Slate: On the front lines of the global food crisis.

Saving seeds: Natabar Sarangi goes against the grain

This week we are focusing on food. On Tuesday, Kabir Arora shared a photo report from last month's Millet Festival, organized by the Deccan Development Society and the Millets Network. He also sent us a link to this interesting video about Natabar Sarangi, who is working to save indigenous seeds in an era where Monsanto would like us to believe that genetically modified, copyrighted seeds are our only option.

But Monsanto is wrong: we can't afford to lose the knowledge of the past because it may hold the key to our survival in the future. Here's a bit of the intro that's posted with this video on Youtube:

Natabar Sarangi is just one of a growing number of farmers throughout the world who realise that if we do not begin to repair the damage taking place to our agricultural systems and our environment, we will lose not just our cultural identity but our fundamental right to a truly sustainable system of food security...Natabar continues to find, save and share his indigenous rice seed with local farmers.  To date he has managed to re-introduce over 350 varieties.

Now here's the video. 

For more about related topics, check our the dhaba's food security page.

Photo Report: Millet Festival organized by Deccan Development Society and Millets Network of India

A week or two back, I wrote about the green side of peanuts. Kabir Arora read the post and sent in this report about another aspect of green agriculture: millets. Millets matter not just because they are good for you, but because they use less water and are more resistant to the affects of climate change: heat, drought, flooding, etc. For that reason, it's good to have Kabir's report, and I would love to run more on the subject by people who know more than me.

 *****

Here are some photographs from the Millet festival organized by Deccan Development Society and Millets Network of India in Medak Andhra Pradesh recently.

Millets are considered to be the most nutritious cereals which can be grown in any climatic condition. They are drought resistant and at many places flood resistant, need minimum investment. With the spread of Green Revolution, millet cultivation was discouraged both by the government and society. But still Indian population is largest producer and consumer of millets. All over India millets are grown in rain fed areas with minimum use of chemicals-in other words they are a part of Organic Sustainable Agriculture. Mostly, millets are grown by Dalits, Adivasis and women. So they are the key for their empowerment. 

 
The Millets Network of India and the Deccan Development Society are working for the promotion of Millet Farming. Because of  their constant lobbying with the government, millets are going to be included in "Food Security Bill", that is the only positive thing of the bill. A couple of weeks back, they they organized the festival to celebrate the heritage of millets. People from all over India participated. Views like Medak for Millets, Organic agriculture is just a tool, food security is the goal were put forth.

For more in formation information about organizing for millets, go to the website of the Deccan Development Society.
For more on food security, check out the dhaba's food security page.

Peepli [Live]: Brilliant!

Peepli [Live]

Directed by Anusha Rizvi

Co-Directed by Mahmood Farooqui

Produced by Aamir Khan

Five Green Stars (Extraordinary)

I won't give away the punchline to Peepli [Live], Anusha Rizvi's brilliant political  and social satire which opened Friday across India.  But I will say this: ending the film, as she does, with the jarring transition out of Mukhya Pradesh and the final scene which follows that journey, is one of the bravest things I have seen a filmmaker do in a long time.  The film did not end the way I wanted it to end.  It ended the way it needed to end. And because of that, I can't stop thinking about it.

Peepli [Live] is the story of two men, Natha Das Manikpuri and his elder brother Budhia, who are faced with an absurdly horrifying dilemma: the only way they can save their farm is for one of them to commit suicide.  There are government schemes to help the families of farmers who kill themselves, but there are no schemes to help help desperate farmers before they kill themselves.

Natha tells his brother that he'll take the final step in order to save the family's land.  Word spreads.  Before you know it, a media circus descends on the village and all kinds of cynical political machinations ensue.  Though this is an Aamir Khan Production, it breaks from the Aamir Khan formula in some important ways.  For one, the protagonists of this film are not superheros, as they have been in Aamir Khan's previous hits (superhero peasant-cricketer; superhero teacher; superhero idiot-genius).  Rizvi's protagonists are complex, human, and very funny.  But they are not....Aamir Khan.  And that makes all the difference.

This film is full of all kinds of humour.  Rizvi's portrayal of Natha, his family and the village is comedic, but sympathetic.  When the camera turns toward the bureaucrats, the politicians and the press, on the other hand, the word ruthless comes to mind.

Rizvi reminds us of the difference between satire and comedy.  Both make us laugh, but satire requires one more thing: it requires us to think. And that is what makes this makes this film so powerful: it not only lays bare hypocrisy, cynicism and rot, but it makes us laugh at these things.  This kind of laughter is not always nice, but it is, and always has been, an important kind of political act.

This is Rizvi's first commercial film and the film depends on actors with more experience in theatre than on the big screen.  But in spite of this--or perhaps because of it--Peepli [Live] looks nothing like an amateur production.  The reviews that I've seen so far have been positive.  (See this one by Suparna Sharma in the Asian Age, for example.) In the end, though, one is left with the impression that this film deserves a deeper reading than it is likely to get initially.  Like most good art, it works on many levels;  and there references and iconic figures that need to be decoded. There is no doubt in my mind that Peepli [Live] will be taught in universities for years to come--it deserves that level of analysis.

A film like this is bound to come under fire from all corners. Peepli [Live] will not please politicians of any party and certain members of the media will no doubt squirm.  At least one farmer organisation has already objected to it for not being "realistic" enough. Next thing you know, the media will be calling on Aamir Khan to set up a foundation to solve the farmer suicide problem.  But let's be clear about this: it is not the job of socially conscious artists to solve the problems of the world.  It is not even their job to report on those problems "realistically"--unless they choose to be documentary film makers.  It is enough that they honestly and seriously engage with those problems--and help us to engage with them.

Which brings me back to the last shot in this film.  When we watch any film--even a film like this-- we are trained to expect a conventionally satisfying ending.   Rizvi could have given us this. She could have cued the right music, tweaked the plot just so, and let us leave the cinema hall laughing or crying or just feeling uplifted.  But here again, Rizvi has refused to follow the typical script.  

Instead, of satisfying, she has given us unsettling.  I saw this film last night, and all day today, that last scene has been working at me. It's a little like the feeling you get when you have a stone stuck in your shoe and can't stop to take it out.  But it's the feeling is not in my feet, it's somewhere behind one of the middle buttons of my shirt.  

This is a film you must see.

A Green Defense of Oil Subsidies: thoughts on the Bharat Bandh

There are few things more complicated than fuel price policy, which is mostly why I've avoided writing about it up until now. But few things are as important in the day-to-day lives of most people.  Fuel helps move us and the goods we need.  It powers the stoves that cook our food.  Farmers need fuel for their tractors, and much of  the fertilizers and pesticides used in modern agriculture are made through energy-intensive processes--processes that require fuel.   It is all very well and good to say we should move toward methods of agriculture that require less fossil fuel.  We should do that, but that shift will take time and a political commitment that doesn't seem to exist at the moment.  In the meantime, it is easy to see that fuel price hikes affect the entire economy from food prices to auto fares.

I wish I could say I've got the answers to the problem of rising fuel prices all figured out and ready to serve up in an easily digestible form.  I don't, but the Bharat Bandh, which aimed to shut down as much of the country as possible in protest of fuel price hikes and the decontrol of petrol prices, left me feeling compelled to take a stand: I support the stated goals of the bandh as far as they go--but I don't think they go nearly far enough.

As much as I hate to say this, in order to understand this issue, you have to understand a few simple things about how fuel prices work in India. I'll promise to make this as painless as possible, if you promise not to click the back button. 

First, about 70% of our oil is imported, so that oil is purchased at prices set by the international market.  Then, various government bodies levy a variety of taxes, which all add up to a large share of the final price charged for fuel in the domestic market.     However, the government has always sought to cushion the economy from the ups and downs of the international market by controlling domestic oil prices and by partly subsidising state oil firms for the losses they incur when international market prices are higher than the government-mandated domestic prices.  So the government gains by taxing oil; but it also loses to the extent that it has to subsidize the losses of state run oil companies for the money they lose due to domestic price controls.

The government has decontrolled the price of petrol because it no longer wants to pay these subsidies--and it's only a matter of time before it tries to decontrol the price of diesel as well. I think these moves, on the whole, are a bad idea. 

Now many of you may ask, why should we subsidize oil, of all things?  Haven't you always said that we should make people pay the full cost of the products they consume? Doesn't subsidized oil lead to more unsustainable use of cars and other problems?

Let me be clear; I think that, as a rule, public subsidies should be designed to help move us toward a move sustainable future--or to help insure access to basic rights, such as food or education. While it is true that cuts in oil subsidies may solve some problems, in the long run, unless they are accompanied by a comprehensive, justice-based program of sustainable development, these cuts will simply result in a massive transfer of wealth upward. That's because a good bit of those subsidies benefit poor people in this country, either directly or indirectly.  Given that fuel is already heavily taxed, I don't think price controls designed to help keep food and cooking costs low are unreasonable--in fact, in the current context, I think they are necessary. In a country where more than 800 million people live on less than Rs. 20 per day, policies that lead to food inflation are not just mean spirited, they are murderous.

Let's put this subsidy issue in proper context.  The current budget offers direct cuts in income tax for the upper middle class and rich, while it's spending on poverty reduction, social services and educaton remains largely stagnant.   And of course, as P. Sainath pointed out in his speech at IIC last week, the government continues to grant massive giveaways to the wealthy in this country through tax write offs and other subsidies. (If you missed the speech, you can read this or this as consolation.)  

Given that the government is drastically increasing the support it gives to the richest in this country, it seems hard to believe that the removal of oil subsidies is motivated solely by a desire to lower the fiscal deficit; rather it is motivated by a desire to cut subsidies to poor people in order to pay for subsidies already promised to rich people. The market is just a useful smokescreen. My, that sounds a bit extreme, doesn't it?  Sorry, but extreme policies tend to sound... extreme, when demystified.

Having said that, there is a lot that is very, very wrong with our current energy policy, and these things need to be fixed.  

Most obviously, a good deal of the current fuel subsidies do not do what they should be doing. Diesel fuel is taxed at a much lower rate than petrol, because it is used extensively in transportation and agriculture; lower diesel prices, we are told, are necessary to keep down food inflation.  Fair enough.  But in reality, a good deal of diesel goes into private cars. In fact, according to the CSE, the government's own Kirit Parikh panel conceded that "cars use up 15 per cent of the total diesel in the country – compared to 12 per cent by buses and agriculture, 10 per cent by industry, and 6 per cent by the railways."  The explosion of private diesel cars in Delhi and elsewhere has been driven by the low price of diesel fuel. This has nothing to do with food; but it has a great deal to do with the rise in pollution we are seeing.

A comprehensive fuel policy needs to figure a way around this.  In an ideal world, we would have a tax and subsidy structure that supported sustainable uses of fuel over unsustainable ones. Public transportation would be expanded and ticket prices kept low for all.  Fuel for shared taxis and three wheelers would be kept low, especially in areas where buses and trains are not available or adequate. 

Fuel for tractors, trucks and freight trains would be inexpensive, but animal powered farming and transportation would also be encouraged where practical. And we'd encourage local food production whenever possible: why subsidize the transportation of Punjabi rice to Kerala, if the same money could encourage southern farmers to plant more rice? All private cars would pay full price at the petrol pump since they pollute the most and take up the most room on our roads, per person. And diesel for private cars would be more, not less, expensive, since it causes more pollution. 

The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world, and so efforts to price the same fuels differently depending on how they are used invite fraud and corruption.  For example, if these policies were implemented, farmers all over the country would be tempted to resell their subsidized diesel to corrupt middlemen who would resell it for use in private cars. 

So what kind of fuel policies might a practical government implement if it wanted to be both environmentally friendly and fair?  After a lot of thought, two general approaches suggest themselves:

Approach I: Maintain fuel subsidies, but...

First, there are a host of things the government could do to encourage a more sustainable economy within a framework of fuel subsidies. We could start by encouraging good things directly. For example, public transportation could be further expanded and subsidized. Delhi buses are too crowded, and most Indian cities lack any viable system of public transportation at all.  There's a lot of room for growth in this sector! 

We could also do things to discourage unsustainable behavior. If we can't figure out how to tax private cars adequately at the pump (especially those that use super-polluting diesel fuel), then we could do other things to make them more expensive--increased fees at the point of purchase, parking taxes, etc. I'm not an expert here, but you can read this piece from CSE for a taste of how this might work in one context.

And there is a lot of good we could do simply by not investing public money in stupid places. As P. Sainath rightly said last week, it is pointless to subsidize "sunset industries" like automobiles. I'd add "World Class" airports to that list, by the way.  Mark my words, within a decade, rising oil prices--subsidized or not--are going to make the public money we've spent on encouraging the manufacture and use of cars and airplanes look silly, if not criminal!

 Approach II: Cut fuel subsidies, but...

There is another road, of course.  The government could cut fuel subsidies, while at the same time vastly expanding the support it gives to the people who actually need it. I'm not going to go into a lot of details here, because the list is long;  a few examples will have to do.  Instead of trying to keep food inflation down by subsidizing oil prices, the government could do things that would reduce hunger directly.  A universal public food distribution system would not be nearly as expensive as many people assume and it's favoured by some very bright people.  In transportation, many of the measures mentioned above, would work, with or without subsidies.  Expanding access to work under the NREGA--and increasing the wages offered under that scheme--would help, as would increasing the access of small farmers to credit at reasonable rates.

Those who complain that subsidies distort markets and should be done away with either fail to see--or fail to admit--that all economies and societies rely on some kind of subsidies.  India is no exception.  The only question is, who subsidizes who?  The problem with the current cuts in fuel subsidies is simple: at root, they are all about getting poor people to pay for subsidies to wealthy people and wealthy companies.  From where I sit, that just doesn't add up!

Two Stupid Ideas: "The BRAI Bill" and "The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009"

On Sunday, when I wrote about the High Court's wrong-headed attack on Delhi's informal plastic recycling industry, I promised I'd soon tell you about two more stupid ideas. If you've been up at night worrying about what could be as bad as trying to shut down the industry that makes Delhi the de facto Recycling Capital of the World, never fear--your wait is over, because today I will explain it all to you simply.  And I will provide you with two simple things you can do to say no to stupidity! 

(By the way, if you are reading this from outside of India, I would remind you that these very stupid ideas are in large part being pushed by international industries and governments who are trying to do things in India that they would not be able to get away with doing in their home countries...not yet, at least. So take notice--it could be you next!)

1.  Stupid Idea Number 1: "The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009."

This is a really stupid bill because it provides huge subsidies to big corporations and it encourages irresponsible, unsafe behavior.

First, this bill limits the overall amount of liability for each nuclear accident in India to US $450 million or Rs 2100 crore.  This happens to be less than the courts awarded in the Bhopal disaster way back in 1989!  (For some perspective on how much damage large scale industrial accidents can cause in terms of lives and money, see our "Bhopal by the Numbers" post, which compares Bhopal with Chernobyl, Exxon-Valdez, Hiroshima and other horrible human-made disasters.)

But that's not all; the proposed nuclear bill limits the liability of the private companies who would operate nuclear plants in India to mere 500 crores--(about $110 million). In the case of a big accident, the Government of India would generously make up the difference between the 500 crore that the responsible company would be liable to pay and the 2100 crore overall limit--a very nice gift to the operators of faulty nuclear power plants. (The damage that exceeded the 2100 crore limit would be born, interest free, by the people and the environment of India for thousands of years).

But as hard as it might be to believe this, the bill gets better in terms of generosity--I mean stupidity!  This bill shields private foreign companies from any liability for selling us equipment that breaks or leaks.   US companies demanded this clause in the US-India nuclear deal, which isn't surprising because they seem to have a fair amount of trouble with leaky reactors back home.  The US government won't go forward without it.  HELLO!  Protecting irresponsible Indian companies is bad enough, but why would we agree to protect US companies like this?   Any company that makes something that breaks should be liable in a court of law for the damage caused.  By limiting liability so much, this bill effectively provides a massive state subsidy to foreign nuclear companies--and a slightly smaller one to local nuclear companies .  If we want to provide subsidies, let's subsidize our farmers-- or our own solar power industry!

Of course limiting liability is not just stupid because it's a give away huge corporations.  The real danger is that these subsidies shield nuclear power companies from risk--and by so doing, they encourage risk taking.  And when it comes to nuclear power, encouraging risky behavior is a colossally stupid idea.

This bill will probably pass, simply because the Americans want it to pass and we all know how badly the current government wants the nuclear deal to take affect. But that doesn't mean we have to like it. Protest stupidity!  Sign this on-line petition today.

Stupid Idea Number 2: Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, AKA "The BRAI Bill"

This is a really stupid bill because it is aims to shut down public debate on GM foods in India in a stupid and repressive way.  Most terrifying is Section 63, which proposes imprisonment and fines for anyone who “without evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GM crops."  (For more on this bill and GM foods in general, see Tehelka's recent cover story on Bt Brinjal.)

Now this Section 63 got me pretty upset, so I went and looked for an expert opinion on the legal aspects of it. I decided to talk to my 9 year old son, because he's been studying for his end-of-year Fourth Standard SST exam, and he knows a lot about our "Rights and Responsibilities."  When I asked him, he said that "our right to express our opinions is definitely one of our Fundamental Rights."  Regarding the BRAI Bill, he replied that this bill sounds "unconstitutional...and stupid!" I have to agree. 

If the legal opinion of a 9 year old doesn't convince you, consider this: Monsanto officials will certainly not be prosecuted for admitting that their Bt Cotton is no longer effective against pests  in parts of Gujarat. After all, their study was conducted by trained scientists. But a Gujarati farm worker who questions the safety of Bt Cotton based on the fact that he has a rash from picking it could face stiff penalties if he doesn't commission a scientific study first.  THAT, my friends, is a TRULY STUPID IDEA, as I'm sure you will agree!

Say no to this stupid (and repressive) bill!  Sign this Greenpeace petition now!

Good News Bad News: Farmers, Freedom, and the Dhaba's first Used-Book Give-away!

First, if you listen to the politicians in power (or to much of the media), you've been hearing a lot about the "pro-farmer budget" just released by Pranab Mukherjee.  Writing in The Hindu, the venerable P. Sainath (or should we just call him a super-hero?) explains that all this talk is almost true:

Maybe the pro-farmer claim was merely a typo or proofing error. They just dropped the word “corporate” before “farmer.” Reinstate that and all is true. This is a budget crafted for, and perhaps by, the corporate farmer and agribusiness.

Sainath goes on to explain what's missing in the "higher-prices-benefit-farmers" mantra.  Among other things, he writes:

Further, over 70 per cent of Indian farmers are net purchasers of foodgrain. (Between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the average Indian farm household's monthly per capita expenditure goes on food.) Huge rises in food prices crush them.

Sainath also suggests that efforts to replace the subzi walla with corporate middle men are likely to do more harm than good. 

Agricultural and food policy is incredibly complex--but it also happens to be incredibly important.  Simply dreaming up  new slogans and printing photos of farmers with mobile phones will not, I regret to say, lead to food security, nor is it likely to address the desperation that leads so many farmers end their own lives every year.  I doubt that offering huge giveaways to the "big fish" will help much either. I hear a lot of complaints about The Hindu. Some of them are true.  But columns like this one by Sainath are why I still read it. You can see it on-line, for free, here. 

Speaking of good journalism, Tehelka's done a nice job this week with their cover story on Bt Brinjal--what happened, why it matters, and what we can expect next.  The article takes an extensive look at the issue from all kinds of angles.  After reading it, I feel even more strongly that environmentalists all over India should feel proud that we were able to slow down the biotech steamroller, at least for the time being.

But don't rest easy.  The forces backing genetically modified foods are not giving up.  Having suffered this setback in the fight to get Bt Brinjal into India, they have a new strategy; they are pushing legislation that will fast track the process by which the government approves genetically modified foods. According to Tehelka:

Apart from many other disturbing provisions (see box: Wrong Bill for Wrong Reasons), most shockingly, Section 63 of the NBRAI Bill proposes imprisonment and fine for anyone who “without evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GM crops”. That could put all activists and journalists in jail for merely asking questions.

Hmm, I guess Monsanto and it's friends in government have decided to take a new approach: if you can't beat 'em...beat 'em--or at least lock them up so they can't cause you any further problems! Repressive, un-democratic corporate-government alliances have happened in many parts of the world, many times before, of course.  (If you want to read a whole book about it, try reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.) But that doesn't mean we should sit by and let it happen here.

****

Enough of the bad news!  A couple of weeks ago, at the bottom of this review of Kaveri Gill's Of Poverty and Plastic, we offered a well-worn copy of the book to the person who wrote the most compelling email explaining why she or he just has to read it.  The deadline for the contest has passed, and today the Green Light Dhaba is pleased to announce the winner: Space Bar!

Space Bar won because she wrote not just one, but three reasons why she should have the book!  And in case you think she was just following the old "more is better" strategy, please think again.  All three of her three reasons qualify as compelling, as required by the contest rules.

Briefly summarized, they are, as follows:

1. Space Bar wrote a book for very small children called Kabadiwala (the publisher changed it to Cheenu's Gift but the story remains the same).  You can buy it here. I confess I haven't read it yet, but I am surely going to do so soon.

2: Space Bar is deeply concerned about bathrooms and sewage. To prove it, she sent some links on the subject, which I put up at the Dhaba on Saturday.

3.  Space Bar is interested in traditional methods of recycling, which she wrote about in her contest entry.

With reasons like that, I hope you can see why our panel of judges was unanimous!  Congratulations, Space Bar! We'll be sending the book your way soon.

 ******

Finally, March 22nd is World Water Day, and the Indian Youth Climate Network is organizing events in several places on that day.  Find out more here.

India Shining, the Sequel: can a new slogan save us?

Nandan M. Nilekani, noted Indian IT business man and Chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India, has determined that we need new new slogans for the new century. The old ones like bijli, sadak, pani (power, roads and water)  and roti, kapada, makaan (food, clothing, shelter) are out of date, he says.

"We have gone from … physical things to abstract things (UID number, bank account, mobile phone)," says Nilekani in remarks that have been widely published this week.  "If we can get everyone to have UID number, if we can get everyone to have bank account and if we can get everyone to have mobile phone, then we are giving them tools of opportunity. With that, they can access services, benefits and their rights."

Don’t get me wrong; new technology and new ways of doing things, can have a real impact in the real world.  Increased access to bank accounts and micro-credit programs is making a difference in many areas.  Some markets, especially those dealing with perishable goods, are operating more efficiently in recent years thanks to mobile phones--there's nothing "abstract" about a reduction in rotting fish, or the increase in income generated when the fellow selling the fish finds his way straight to a village that wants to buy it.  And in a country with so much migrant labour, who can deny the importance of being able to speak with far-away loved ones?  (As for the many advantages of the UID number, someone else will have to explain those to you--I surely can't.)

But when you get right down to it, we can’t change reality by introducing new slogans--even really catchy ones like "UID number, bank account, mobile phone!" And does it really make sense to say our old slogans are out of date? Talk to a Bihari taxi driver about this: sure, he may show off his mobile phone; but more likely than not he’ll also tell you his family in the village gets power for only a few hours a day.  And water? Can we really say it is “passé” to demand clean water in a country where 1250 people die every day from diarrhea?

Nilekani’s remarks reminded me of a piece that ran  this Sunday in The Hindu.  In it, Sevanti Ninan praised a recent cover story in India Today: 

In the same week that Binayak Sen talked on television about famine and genocide, India Today came out with a cover story whose cover photo was designed to cock a snook at nay-sayers. Composed like an ad for a mobile phone company, it had turbaned rural gentry with mobiles to their ears, riding in a roofless red limousine against a backdrop of lush green fields. The story's opening sentences proclaimed that “islands of poverty still exist but most of rural India is transformed beyond imagination thanks to a host of factors.” I can almost hear all those human rights activists who regularly post grim stories on Internet mailing lists gag. Whatever happened to the earlier stock stories of farmers' suicides, and the current ones about why Maoists are spreading their tentacles everywhere?

Ninan goes on to address the fact that seventy seven per cent of Indians live on under Rs. 20 a day:

This 77 per cent figure has become a favourite statistic (a variation of it says 77 per cent of India lives below the poverty line) but surely it caricatures even inequity when the discussion does not go beyond that?

Of course it is true that the discussion of this statistic needs to go deeper than it typically does.  And I think it is terribly important to discuss things that are working as well as things that are not; we can learn from our successes as well as from our mistakes.   To be fair, there are places where the India Today piece does a nice job of this.  For instance, they highlight some of the areas where micro-finance programs and the National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) scheme are working wonders.

But in being so selective in the kinds of trees it looks at, India Today misses some important things about the forest.  For example, although it concedes that, “The single biggest reason for the kind of money visible in rural India is the skyrocketing price of land,” it does not ask the next obvious question: what does this means for those who have no land?  That’s just one example, but it’s indicative of a larger pattern.

The real problem in this piece is not the positive examples it offers; it is the fact that it urges us, right from its very first sentence, to do something unconscionable: “Forget those images of ravaged villagers, kids with distended bellies and ragged clothes and a future as grim as the cracked, sun-baked earth.”

It would be one thing if those images were just... images.  The problem is, those images are part of the reality lived by millions of rural Indians every day--how can we forget them?  Yes, statistics like 77% of the population living on less than Rs 20 a day and 2,00,000 farmer suicides in 12 years are blunt and depressing.  Far nicer to see photos of farmers in front of Land Rovers and computers.

I’m all for thinking positive.  But as we discussed last week, the ways in which we frame the stories we tell matters. I agree that a variety of perspectives, a variety of frames, is the only way we can hope to understand the complex world we live in…but when someone tries to sell me a frame that hides 77% of the picture, I think it’s time to visit another frame shop.

Smoke in the Air: Farmer Suicides Continue

The other day I read a comment on another blog complaining that too many bloggers seem to focus only on "bad news."  Well, I, for one, like good news every-bit-as-much as the next fellow.  And my mother taught me early on about the dangers of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  However (and I've always agreed with her on this point), she also made it clear that in the event that one observes that the theatre is actually on fire, then the correct course of action is to inform someone who has access to a large supply of water! 

Now there are plenty of people who argue that one should first be sure to say something nice about the theatre's decor and the film currently being screened before politely suggesting that some experts somewhere set up a committee to study the problem of fire as it relates to public buildings (no need to single out the theatres, after all).  I suspect these are the people who tend to sit in the PVR Gold Class seats, but what do I know?

Still, like I said, I am not someone who will shy away from good news.  In fact, I had planned to write a breezy Saturday Special today, full of good news like this story that shows Dilli wallas can treat homeless dogs humanely.  And this one, that shows we can even treat homeless human beings humanely, though it may take an order from the Supreme Court to make us do it!

But I canceled that post when I opened Friday's edition of The Hindu to find this story on farmer suicides by the legendary P. Sainath.  Old news,  you say, but the problem is, it only seems to be getting worse. So here it is in a nutshell: according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 199,132 Indian farmers killed themselves in the 12 years from 1997 to 2008. When one considers how often "crimes" like this go unreported, one has to assume the numbers could be much higher. 

An autowalla with whom I frequently ride is fond of saying, "behind every man, there are so many others who depend on him." When you think about what 2,00,000 farmer suicides means in terms of the family members affected, the numbers become very large indeed.

The lion's share of the deaths continue to take place in the five states that comprise the "suicide belt":  Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh.   In Maharashtra alone from 2003-2008, an average of 11 farmers killed themselves every day. In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, more than 16,000 farmers committed suicide, in spite of loan waivers and other government aid programs.  One can only imagine what the 2009 numbers will look like, given the extreme weather we've suffered this year. 

There are many reasons why this news is deeply disturbing.  The first, most obvious, and most important is that the people who are growing the food we eat and the cotton we wear, are, quite literally, dying of desperation.  That should be enough to convince anyone with any sense of human solidarity or  compassion that something serious should have been done a long time ago.

But for those people who need reasons that have something more directly to do with their narrow self interests, here are two additional things to consider.  First, when farmers kill themselves in these numbers, it should be obvious that there are deep problems in our country's system of food production.  In a recent guest post at Youth ki Awaaz, I argued that the food inflation we are suffering is a symptom of an agricultural crisis in this country that is likely to get much worse in coming years.  Farmer suicides are another symptom of that crisis.  And since we all depend on food, we should all be concerned: food security must come first in any country's list of priorities.

Second, it should be clear that suicide in such large numbers is not just an act of desperation; it is also a desperate act of protest. Of course there are many other ways that desperate men and women might choose to protest instead.   The sons of farmers who drink poison may grow up angry enough to pick up a gun when they get a little older.

In Red Sun: Travels in Naxalite Country,  Sudeep Chakravarti argues that most of urban India is ignorant--in many cases willfully so--of the extent to which people are already taking up arms against the Indian state. Urban India may be content to let farmers kill themselves--or even to let them kill police in rural areas.  But violence, like any disease, has a way of spreading, doesn't it?

In an essay like this, it is customary to close with a simple solution.  I don't have one; it's a big, complex problem.  But let me say this: India is capable of achieving great things. We could solve this problem if we chose to.  P. Sainath argues we should expand the NREGS  and cut "the dessert from the menu of the unending corporate free lunch in this country." He points out that the "huge" loan waivers given to farmers in 2008 were dwarfed by tax breaks given to large corporations.  We could also scale back some of our big-budget, high-tech bomber, bomb and space programs. If you want more specific ideas about what to do on the farms, there is no shortage of them either. For a start,  Devinder Sharma and Vandana Shiva both have interesting things to say about how we can improve our agricultural system.

But for me, today, I think it's enough to say this: the theatre is crowded. And I smell smoke.

*****

On another front, it's not too late to sign this on-line petition against new nukes in India. It will be turned in on 30 January.

Farmers, Buses, Bookaroo: Three things that make Delhi a World Class City

OK, yesterday, was bad news Thursday--and I hope you all fired off letters to the CM like I did!   At the end of yesterday's post, I promised to give you one reason why I think Delhi is a World Class City.  And do you know what? I'm going to give you three!  How's that for a bargain?


1.  Farmers.  Last night as the auto I was in shot by Jantar Mantar, I saw the tail end of a huge mobilization of farmers who came to Delhi for the opening day of Parliament.  They were protesting sugar cane pricing, among other things.  It was a moving site. We don't see many farmers in Delhi, and sometimes it is easy to forget that there is nothing we depend on more than the millions of men and women who grow the food we eat every day.  Without them, there would be no city, World Class or no!

2.  Buses.  Last night, I caught one of the DTC's new AC buses home from CP at rush hour.  The trip took a little longer than a three wheeler would have taken, but even with the recent rate hike, it cost less than a third as much. Hey, I know there are plenty of problems with Delhi buses. (If you doubt that, just google "killer buses".  I did, and 8 of the fist 10 terms that came up were talking about our fair city.)   In addition to being dangerous, our buses are often over-crowded and uncomfortable, especially for women passengers.  But this presentation makes it clear that we need more, not fewer buses.  Bus ridership is actually declining in Delhi, but buses still carry more than 40 percent of our traffic, and they take up almost no room on the road compared to cars and two wheelers.   Imagine what the roads would be without them. Buses are part of what make Delhi a great city; more buses will make us even better.

3.  Bookaroo.   I've written at length about the weaknesses in our schools and argued that one of our problems is that our children are not asked to read enough. Reading is part of how children learn how to think, and today's children will need to do some very creative thinking to solve the problems we are leaving them.  Well, if you agree with that, and if you have a child, you really should not miss Delhi's one and only Children's Literary Festival, Bookaroo, November 28-29 at Sanskriti Anand Gram.  Like many things in Delhi, it's completely free.

Last year's festival was absolutely fantastic; I'm sure it will be this year, as well.  There are amazing authors coming, like Subhadra Sen Gupta, who we reviewed briefly at the end of this post.  Others include Anushka Ravi Shankar (Moin and the Monster), Andrew Cope (Spy Dog) and Sampurna Chatterji (The Fried Frog and Other Funny, Freaky, Feisty Poems).  Don't miss it. 

Most of the sessions do not require registration; just show up.  There are a few that do require registration; you can do that via email.  I was going to list a few "green picks."  But the two sessions I was going to recommend are two of the only ones where registration is already closed.  Too bad, but there is still great stuff going on. For more information, go here.

So there you have it folks: farmers, buses, and Bookaroo!  Three things that make Delhi a World Class City!