, “J".
1""; ‘Sn

3:1.

 

 

 

1 |\
. fl
3:; .
l,"
"T‘m‘

? 1L
‘ 1’1: ‘fi? '
l A," {g'i‘d‘é’ *3

A .r._ ..
.'— ‘_-
‘p '

J—v.»

 

.L4‘-

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE ON AGRIFOOD
BIOTECHNOLOGY CONTROVERSIES:
BT COTTON IN INDIA

presented by
' TOMIKO YAMAGUCHI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in

Mdmfié

 

Sociology

Major Professor’s Signature
Hodt’m 56:2. /6, Z 006/

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES retum-on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

,t y i.
i'fi’v'

‘LL

FEB 2 4 2014

 

 

04311 12".
AUGZ7 2034
it}; 014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

 

A DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE ON AGRIFOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
CONTROVERSIES: BT COTTON IN INDIA

By

Tomiko Yamaguchi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

2004

 

ABSTRACT

A DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE ON AGRIFOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
CONTROVERSIES: BT COTTON IN INDIA

By

Tomiko Yamaguchi

Over the past decade, agricultural biotechnology has become a
contentious issue in India, as seen in a wide range of newspaper articles focused
on farmers’ protests against field trials of genetically modified cotton (GM cotton),
farmers’ suicides in cotton growing regions, and the spread of unauthorized GM
cotton. When compared to other agricultural technologies, agrifood
biotechnology generates much more controversy involving government agencies,
industries, NGOs, scientists and farmers. It is in this context that this study
examines controversies surrounding the commercial introduction of Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in India. This study attempts to examine social conflict
and compromise involving actors holding divergent views toward the commercial
introduction of genetically modified crops by analyzing contested issues and the
group dynamics between interested parties.

This dissertation deploys a discourse perspective in examining the
controversy. A discourse perspective - consisting of actors, claims, strategies

and outcomes — serves as an analytical framework. Framing literature and social

identity theories serve as the grounds for interpreting data.

This dissertation uses 390 English-language Indian newspapers articles,
77 articles from two Gujarati dailies and one farm newspaper, and 95 interviews
with actors in government, civil society, industry, mass media, scientists, and
farmers conducted in New Delhi, Mumbai, and Gujarat. For the analysis and
interpretation of data, ethnographic content analysis was used to highlight
emergent themes and patterns significant in Indian agrifood biotechnology
debates.

The analysis suggests that the controversies surrounding Bt cotton in
India reflect 1) a multiplicity of constantly changing views towards Bt cotton that
go far beyond the simple dichotomy of support and opposition of GM cotton, 2)
constant shifts in the nature of relations between groups involved in the
controversy, and 3) a complex pattern of strategies that actors deploy in
maintaining interpretive control over the issues involving Bt cotton. The dominant
frame has shifted from governmental processes to economic needs, while power
has shifted away from government and toward farmers. Strategies include
claimsmaking activities in public fora, strategic use of framing, and anchoring
strategies in establishing the credibility of claims and claimsmakers. The
conclusion argues that seemingly passive participants in the discourse such as
farmers have tremendous influence upon the ways in which GM crops are

deployed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout my graduate career at Michigan State University, I have had
constant and thorough support from faculty members who have also been a
great source of inspiration. Without their help, this project would not have been
possible. I thank Marilyn Aronoff, Larry Busch, CraigHarris, Karim Maredia, and
Toby Ten Eyck for their valuable contributions. I am especially indebted to my
advisor, Dr. Ten Eyck, whose interpretive approach to food and agriculture
continues to greatly influence my work. My dissertation builds on work done as a
research assistant with the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards at
Michigan State University, where l have worked with Drs. Craig Harris and Larry
Busch. My period with them constituted critical juncture in my graduate training
where I began to develop the conceptual model and methodological skills that
became the foundation for this project. Dr. Aronoff helped me develop the
necessary theoretical and conceptual knowledge base. Finally, I thank Dr.
Maredia for putting me in touch with many people in India. Thanks to his help,
my fieldwork in India began smoothly.

I also wish to express my graduate to the Institute of Rural Management
(IRMA) for their support while I was in India in 2002 and 2003. I am especially
indebted to Dr. Smita Mishra Panda at IRMA, a former colleague of mine at the
United Nations Centre for Regional Development, and a longtime friend, for her
ongoing emotional support throughout my time in India. I also would like to

express my gratitude to Ms. Lina Vyas and Dr. Eph Tunkle for their steady and

iv

professional language support.

My husband Tetsuya and my sister Masane Kuroda have played an
integral role in my graduate training through their generous understanding. I
would also like to mention the significant roles that my friends played, including
Chien-Juh Gu, Brooke Kelly, Magane Koshimura, Bettie Menchik, Gerad
Middendorf, Elizabeth Ransom, Manashi Ray, Patricia Shropshire, and Teri
Swezey.

I thank the Fulbright-HE graduate study program for their financial support
during the first two years of my graduate studies. Funding for this dissertation
project was given by the US. National Science Foundation under Doctoral
Dissertation Research Improvement Grant SES 0135563. Additional support
was given by the Ford Foundation, and the Agricultural Biotechnology Support
Project, at Michigan State University. Chapter 2 contains a slight revised version
of an article that appeared in Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 8, No. 1 in
2003; an earlier version of Chapter 3 was published in Discourse and Society,
Vol. 15, No. 2. in 2004. These have been reprinted by the permission of Sage
Publications.

Finally, I feel sincerely indebted to those people I met in India, who

showed their support by willingly sharing their thoughts with me. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Study .................................................................................. 1
Agrifood Biotechnology Controversies: A Discourse Perspective ................... 2
Theoretical Basis for a Discourse Perspective .......................................... 2
Understanding the Bt Cotton Controversy in India: Sociological Insights ..6
Unequal Economic Relations ............................................................ 7
Implications of Advances in Agricultural Sciences ........................... 9
Science in Policy-Making ................................................................ 12
Strengths of a Discourse Perspective ....................................................... 14
The Significance of Studying in India ............................................................. 17
Background to Fieldwork ............................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study .............................................................................. 24
References ..................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2
AGRIFOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY DISCOURSE IN INDIA
Introduction .................................................................................................... 29
Cotton and Science-based Agriculture in India ......................................... 29
The Bt Cotton Controversy ....................................................................... 30
Conceptual Model .......................................................................................... 34
Discourse Perspective .............................................................................. 34
Actors ....................................................................................................... 35
Frames ..................................................................................................... 37
Methods ......................................................................................................... 39
Findings ......................................................................................................... 41
Bt Cotton in the Mass Media ................................................................... 41
Claims and Frames .................................................................................. 43
Government .............................................................................................. 48
Civil Society .............................................................................................. 51
Industries .................................................................................................. 55
Scientists .................................................................................................. 57
Disengagement of Discussion .................................................................. 58
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 63

vi

References ..................................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 3

THE ECONOMIC HEGENMONIZATION OF BT COTTON DISCOURSE
IN INDIA

Introduction .................................................................................................... 67
Conceptual Model .......................................................................................... 69
Interpretations .......................................................................................... 7O
Actors ....................................................................................................... 71
Discourse Process .................................................................................... 73
Methods ......................................................................................................... 75
Findings ......................................................................................................... 77
Bt Cotton Discourse in the National Arena ............................................... 77
Governance Frame ........................................................................... 78
Actors ............................................................................................... 84
Fragmentation of Government Voices .............................................. 85
The Emergence of Local Actors in the National Discourse ............... 87
Bt Cotton Discourse in the Local Arena .................................................... 90
Frames ............................................................................................. 90
Content of the Local Discourse ....................................................... 92
Maintaining Interpretive Control ....................................................... 96
Economy Frame .............................................................................. 98
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 102
References .................................................................................................. 104
CHAPTER 4
THE BT COTTON CONTROVERSY: INTERGROUP RELATIONS
Introduction .................................................................................................. 108
Background ........................................................................................... 108
The Notion of Farmers ........................................................................... 110
Concepts and Methods .......................................................................... 113
Social Identity Theory .................................................................... 1 13
Methods ........................................................................................ 1 15
Findings ...................................................................................................... 1 18
Talking About Bt Cotton: A Sketch ........................................................ 118
Discussion in the National Arena ........................................................... 119
Social Identities of Farmers ........................................................... 120
Relating to Farmers ...................................................................... 125
Outcomes ..................................................................................... 129
Discussion in the Local Arena ............................................................... 130
Social Identities of Farmers: Presenting the Self .......................... 130
Relating to Other Actors .............................................................. 133
Decoupling ................................................................................... 139

vii

Conclusions ................................................................................................. 143

References ................................................................................................... 146
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 149
Contributions ................................................................................................ 155
Limitations and Future Work ........................................................................ 160
References ................................................................................................... 163
APPENDICES
Appendix A A Preliminary Guide for Understanding Semi-structured
Interviews with Gujarati Farmers ............................................................ 165
Appendix B Memo for Translation: For a Group Session ........................... 174
Appendix C Relative Word Frequency List by Actors (high to low) ............. 178

viii

2-1

2-2

2-3

3-1

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Claims by Frames ...................................................................... 46
Correlation of Frames ................................................................................. 47
Proportion of Claims within the Five Frames by Social Actors (°/o) .............. 48
Number of Claims by Frames in Gujarati Newspapers .............................. 91
Comparison of Proportion of Claims by Frames .......................................... 92

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Number of Relevant Articles Appearing in the Newspapers ...................... 42

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Study

Over the past decade, agricultural biotechnology has become a
contentious issue in India, as seen in a wide range of newspaper articles on
farmers’ protests against field trials of genetically modified cotton and against
government regulations, farmers” suicides in cotton growing regions, and the
spread of unauthorized genetically modified cotton (GM cotton). It has also
caught the attention of farmers, a major consuming sector, with rumors in various
villages about the effects of GM cotton on soil quality, livestock mortality, and
allergenicity of cotton fibers, none of which have been substantiated. Further,
farmers’ unions and non-governmental organizations, regardless of whether they
support or oppose the technology of genetically modified crops (GM crops), have
engaged in public relations campaigns, creating additional confusion about GM
crops and inspiring public mistrust of government. It is in this context that this
study examines the dynamics of discourse surrounding the commercial
introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton1 in India.

This research attempts to explore the processes of arriving at social

understandings and collective decisions about newly available science-based

 

' Bt cotton has been genetically engineered to produce a toxin that protects the plants from the
larva of Lepidoptera and related forms. The inserted genetic material has been taken from
Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that occurs naturally in the soil and is widely used to control
insect pests.

agricultural technologies by examining processes of social conflict, resonance,
and compromise involving actors holding divergent views toward the commercial
introduction of transgenic crops. The study will especially focus on Bt cotton
disputes in public fora by identifying contested issues and the interaction of
stakeholders. The study will also examine strategies actors use to maintain
interpretive control of Bt cotton so as to argue that group dynamics drive the

processes by which GM crops are deployed when conflicting views exist.

Agrifood Biotechnology Controversies:
A Discourse Perspective

Theoretical Basis for a Discourse Perspective

While studies using a discourse analysis share the assumption that
discourse influences the ways in which meaning is brought to a situation, analytic
approaches vary from discipline to discipline, involving studies of the forms and
functions of language, social and cultural influences on language use, and
institutionalized ways of thinking. Within the sociological literature, approaches
are primarily derived from the work of Foucault (e.g., Foucault 1982). Discourse
analysis in sociology essentially relates discourse to concepts such as power, the
state, and knowledge to explain how discourses define social reality, and how
social reality in turn influences what can be said about a specific issue or object.
This project’s analytic emphasis is on how social dynamics created by claims,
claimsmaking activities, and intergroup relations of interested actors define social
reality when there are visible conflicts among interested parties. Emphasis is

also placed on understanding how actors negotiate among themselves to control

interpretations about an object by raising the issue of GM crops in the social,
economic, political and environmental milieu.

To this end, this project’s discourse perspective deals with the concepts of
actors, claims, and strategies. It is useful to view social reality as an ongoing
dynamic produced and re-produced by actors (Berger 1966), involving actors,
interpretations of a specific issue or object, and claims about an object. Social
reality also involves strategies that actors use to influence the interpretations of
others. Social phenomena involving the adoption of Bt cotton are defined in
ongoing social processes generated by actors, their actions, and their
interactions with others. Each of these key concepts is described further in
subsequent sections; here I will set out the theoretical foundations for a
discourse perspective and enumerate its conceptual analytical strengths in
providing an account of the agrifood biotechnology controversy in India.

Key theories underlying the discourse perspective here are drawn
primarily from three sets of literature: literature on the social constructionist
approach to social problems, framing, and social identity. The social
constructionist approach to social problems provides a theoretical foundation for
an overarching framework leading to a phenomena where a particular cOndition
is defined as problematic (Best 1995; Kitsuse and Spector, 1973). What these
studies share is the idea that numerous realities form a society, so that a
seemingly objective condition is actually only one of many perceived realities.
These studies suggest that perceived social problems are social constructs of

actors with distinct goals and aspirations. Therefore, the emphasis is on how

actors interpret and define problems, rather than describing the conditions of a
problem. What matters is understanding the discourse created by and for an
interpretive community and the ways is in which discourse around a particular
issue is developed and maintained. Thus, the focus of this study is on the
actions and interactions of an interpretive community (Blumer 1971; Gusfleld
1984).

Such interpretive processes leading to a particular understanding of a
social condition involve frames. Drawing on Goffman (1986), I will employ the
notion of frames as a foundation for analyzing the content of interpretations of Bt
cotton, at the same time using it as the basis for examining strategies and
interactions among actors. Frames are principles of organization of the objects
and events around us. People compartmentalize their everyday experiences via
frames. Thus by exploring the frame of reference actors use, I will be able to
learn how actors are involved subjectively in social phenomena that take place
around an object which they must define, act upon, and seek consensus among
fellow actors.

Frames can be used to examine interactions among actors as well. As
demonstrated by Snow and Benford (1988), some actors use frames to mobilize
other actors. This concept will allow me to characterize interactions and
negotiations in the race to define key issues in the deployment of GE crops. For
instance, a purposeful selection of frames results in two different interpretations
of modern biotechnologies. On the one hand, by applying a technology-oriented

frame to agricultural development, agrifood biotechnology becomes a useful tool

for solving the problems of production and cultivation of crops; on the other hand,
when emphasizing the importance of sustainable agriculture, agrifood
biotechnology becomes a hindrance to such efforts. As an example, some argue
that the scientific approach to agriculture is the best one for an arid region of
India, where crops are vulnerable to natural calamities related to weather and
pests. Others argue that Western science will compete with traditional
knowledge for the cultural and ecological resource base, subverting indigenous
agricultural knowledge and adversely affecting biodiversity. Moreover, actors
could adopt a strategy of influencing mass media frames to reach out to a larger
number of people. Recognizing that lay interpretations of controversial
technology tend to closely relate to how the story is framed in the newspapers
(Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers 1999; Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Mazur
1981), actors could use mass media to influence and manipulate public opinions.
In short, the underlying message of framing literature is that by using frames in a
strategic manner, actors may be able to manipulate the perception of others to
achieve their goals and aspirations.

Finally, in order to grasp the nuances of the Bt cotton controversy
dynamics, I draw on social identity theory, which provides deeper insights into the
nature of interaction between groups involved in the Bt cotton controversy and
into how such interactions influence the course of the controversy over time. In
particular, it can shed light on the social processes wherein actors establish their
identity in their relations with other groups as they strive to maintain a coherent

explanation of social phenomena involving the Bt cotton controversy. In this

dissertation, social identity refers to the label that individuals use to present
themselves as eligible and credible actors supporting a particular claim about Bt
cotton, and refers also to labels applied to others to present coherent narratives.
A synthesis of framing, social identity theories, and the social
constructionist perspective of social problems, into a discourse perspective will
enable me to characterize the dynamics of the Bt cotton controversy. Instead of
limiting the analysis to the content of debates, a discourse perspective can
illuminate actions and interactions of interested parties as well as reveal
processes leading to a particular framing of a problem. Further, a discourse

perspective will capture changing patterns of perception towards GM crops.

Understanding the Bt Cotton Controversy in India:
Sociological Insights

Actors in India have made claims regarding a range of issues pertaining to
the commercial introduction of Bt cotton, and have engagedin a range of
claimsmaking activities supporting or opposing its adoption. Their key arguments
and concerns parallel research questions investigated by sociologists interested
in agriculture, science and technology, and international development. On this
basis, it is useful to review the literature, primarily from the sociology of
agricultural development and from science and technology studies, to gain

insights into the content of claims involving Bt cotton in India.

Unequal Economic Relations

Based on the assumption that agricultural development is fundamentally
capitalist in character, some emphasize the unequal relations between the First
and Third Worlds, arguing that the agricultural development path for the Third
World is structurally determined. In discussions related to the consequences of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India, some actors emphasize the
hierarchical economic relations created between India and the US. through the
activities of multinational agrichemical companies selling seeds and pesticides to
farmers in India. The overwhelming dominance of these multinational
corporations in the global transgenic seed and agrichemical markets is seen to
systematically generate an unfair distribution of benefits. In addition, the
international division of labor, combined with unequal terms of trade, are found to
provide more profits to a privileged few and less to the marginalized (Friedmann
1991). Indeed, the history of how India produced cotton for textile industries in
Britain and how textiles were sold back to India to the profits of British
industrialists is a familiar one. Kloppenburg’s (1990) study suggests that
developing countries have experienced similar dynamics during the Green
Revolution, through having germplasm extracted and transferred to developed
countries without due compensation.

These historical experiences explain why some actors in India feel that the
nation needs to be cautious about introducing Bt cotton and should be concerned
with integration into the global agrifood system. Further, global mergers and

acquisitions of agribusinesses raise additional concerns about the current

concentration of economic power into the hands of a few corporations (Marsden
and Whatmore 1994). The observation made by an opponent of agrifood
biotechnology that seven agrichemical companies presently dominate 80% of the
agricultural inputs market (ETC Group 2001) leads some actors to believe the
adoption of agrifood biotechnology will have a negative influence on people in
India.

A common thread among these studies is the assumption that agricultural
development in India is taking place in the context of increasing
interconnectedness with other nations across social, economic, and political
realms. Regardless of resentments expressed by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) about India’s integration into the global economy,
phenomena taking place in India can no longer be understood in isolation from
transformations taking place in the global arena. Global forces shape the role of
government, reorganize social, economic, and political conditions that surround
Indian farmers, and facilitate or limit the activities of scientists, industries and
NGOs. This suggests that every step taken by the Indian government is
inevitably influenced by forces such as the global biosafety regime, the biosafety
regimes of other nations, and international bodies. Indian companies need to
compete with multinational corporations for a share of their own market. Indian
scientists and farmers are expected to abide by guidelines set forth in the global
biosafety regime in carrying out their work. Activities of Indian NGOs need to be

fine-tuned to the politics of GM crops taking place outside India.

Implications of Advances in Agricultural Sciences

Advances in agricultural sciences are commonly understood as
responding to the need for improved productivity, and the need to remove or
alleviate conditions that impede enhanced productivity, such as adverse biotic
and abiotic conditions. Rather than taking these assumptions for granted, some
actors have questioned whether agricultural technology such as transgenic crops
are truly an advance in agricultural sciences and are beneficial to Indian
agriculture.

Faith in the benefits of transgenic crops assumes that humans can
manipulate, control, and conquer the natural environment by suppressing or
removing undesired conditions of the natural environment. Some view modern
biotechnological techniques as based on objective and universal scientific
knowledge, superior to other forms of knowledge. Such an idea was the basis of
the Indian government’s announcement of technology transfer from Monsanto (a
multinational agrichemical corporation) in 1992. For some actors, such as
government officials working for biotechnology promotion agencies, obtaining the
results of scientific research from abroad for the development of Indian
agriculture is the most efficient approach for jump-starting a stagnated cotton
industry. Assuming technological change will benefit Indian agriculture, some
actors in Indian government are most concerned with the effective diffusion of

technologies. This diffusion model (Rogers 1995) has also been influential in

international agricultural development efforts, as evidenced by the many
international agricultural development projects of a wide range of agencies.2
These projects address the effective utilization of agrifood biotechnology for the
social, economic and ecological well-being of people in developing countries,
emphasizing the processes of adoption and diffusion of technology, the speed of
diffusion, and rate of adoption while continuously ignoring the question of
whether the use of agrifood biotechnology is the best way to address issues
facing developing countries at present.

Some actors predict that the introduction of agrifood biotechnology will
negatively impact local knowledge systems (Bebbington 1994; Richards 1985;
Sharma 2001 ). They argue that such technology will compete with traditional
knowledge for the cultural resource base, and will subvert local agricultural
knowledge (Boef et al. 1993; Perlas 1994; Shiva 1993). The key idea is that
indigenous knowledge can play a far better role in “advancing” Indian agriculture
because local knowledge is generated through years of peasant research and
development, and adapted to local social, cultural and environmental conditions
(Dahlberg 1994).

Even accepting that there are many historical examples that show
Western scientific technique has had a positive impact on agriculture, agricultural

achievements of developed countries have been closely linked to the

 

2 Including multilateral and bilateral development agencies, international research centers,
agricultural universities, philanthropic organizations, and agribusinesses.

IO

underdevelopment of less-advantaged nations (Frank 1967). For instance,
biotechnological processes can create crops with new plant characteristics that
can substitute for existing crops. The same processes can also produce
synthetic substitutes of plants or their components. These techniques might offer
more or even better choices to the consumers and farmers in developed
countries; however, these technologies can potentially harm farmers in
developing countries by displacing the need for some plants previously grown in
these areas (Goodman et al. 1987). When we consider aspects of modern seed
technology such as genetic use restriction technology (sterile seeds popularly
known as “terminator technology”), it may be that benefits will accrue to
industries, while the users in developing countries may be put at a disadvantage
for having been interlocked with a system built to serve the interests of
businesses (Goeschl and Swanson 2003; Van Wijk 2004).

Studies on US. farms (Flora and Rodefeld 1978; Hightower 1973) and of
the Green Revolution (Dahlberg 1990; Harriss 1982; Pearse 1980) attest to the
fact that mindless adoption of agricultural science and technology works against
farm laborers and small farmers to the benefit of larger growers, and against
developing countries to the benefit of developed countries. Although we cannot
completely ignore that some parts of the world benefited from high yield varieties
during the Green Revolution, if the benefits are defined in terms of productivity
(Rigg 1989), the concerns raised by opponents of GM crops have been based on

historical evidence which indicates the detrimental effects of technological

transfer.

11

Science in Policy-Making

Literature that examines science in policy-making provides insights into
why some actors view Bt cotton as a controversial technology. First, studies
suggest that science has become a subject for public scrutiny (Nelkin 1992),
reflecting the public’s ambivalence toward science and its perception that science
is unable to give determinate answers regarding their concerns. Decisions
based on scientific evidence are therefore seen as inevitably social and political.
Further, public policy debates about agrifood biotechnology reveal a breakdown
in the purported boundary between science and politics. Such debates reveal
that seemingly objective scientific facts may reflect the political interests of some
actors. Consequently, Western science is losing its power as a tool for
Iegitimation in public fora such as public hearings and courts (Cambrosio,
Keating and Mackenzie 1990; Garrety 1998; Jasanoff 1995). At the same time,
public policy debates reveal that scientists are losing their autonomy through
being asked to assume the role of Iegitimators of a particular public policy
(Jasanoff 1990; Kendall 2000). Actors have realized that scientists are often
commissioned by government agencies to conduct research that will lead to a
particular public policy or government regulation (Salter et al. 1988). The public
has also become aware that scientists’ activities are constrained by the politics of
funding, such as the priorities of funding agencies and interests of scientific
organizations (Mukerji 1989).

Second, transgenic crops are viewed as controversial because it is

extremely difficult to identify where the risks lie, or even to determine appropriate

12

methods of risk assessment and management, especially given the relatively
short period of time the technology has been in open field use (The Royal
Society 2001). With specific reference to India, transgenic cotton has been in
open field use only since 2002 and only in selected cotton growing regions, thus
making it extremely difficult to explain the likely ecological, social and economic
consequences. Under these circumstances, scientists have a great potential to
influence discourse. For instance, Indian scientists could use data from the US.
transgenic cotton situation to argue that the scientific data prove that Bt cotton is
a promising tool to alleviate pesticide stress on soil. Without mentioning possible
methodological problems arising from the application of US. data to the Indian
situation, they can make a strong case by saying that particularly in India, where
much of the problem with cotton relates to excessive use of pesticides, Bt cotton
with its built-in pest resistant traits will be a promising crop management solution
to these problems.

Other scientists may argue that the introduction of such crops should not
be allowed in India on the grounds that there are no science-based protocols and
techniques to identify and assess their risk in the Indian context. These two
statements demonstrate how the same conditions are interpreted differently,
leading to different positions towards Bt cotton. Under these circumstances,
where science cannot substantiate risks or where a scientific community is not in
complete agreement over the ecological impacts of transgenic crops, social

factors such as culture, individual beliefs and values play a significant role in the

13

ways in which risks are defined (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Krimsky and
Golding 1992; Sjoberg 2000).

Strengths of a Discourse Perspective

While these studies deriving from the sociology of agricultural
development and science and technology studies lend insight into the issues
debated in the 81‘ cotton controversy in India and also shed some light on the root
of the controversy, there are some areas that are important for understanding the
Bt cotton controversy that this literature is unable to explain. It is useful to
delineate the areas unexplored by these studies and to outline how a discourse
perspective might illuminate these neglected areas. Studies that view
agricultural development in developing countries structurally, particularly with
reference to political and economic relations, tend to ignore the diversity of
people across developing countries. A discourse perspective, instead, employs
a methodological and theoretical orientation to illuminate the multiplicity of views
toward Bt cotton deriving from the heterogeneity of Indian society, views that go
far beyond the simple dichotomy of support and opposition of GM crops. Using
empirical data and pursuing an inductive mode of inquiry, this perspective
surveys the diverse claims raised by actors involved in the 81‘ cotton controversy.

The multiplicity of views emerging from the heterogeneity of Indian society
can best be understood by avoiding essentializing concepts and surveying claims.
Triangulation, or using multiple types of data, including newspapers articles,

interviews, and other printed materials, will enable me to uncover perspectives

14

which might otherwise be neglected or unnoticed. Interview data, in particular,
will allow me to focus on natural language and the meanings that actors assign to
their experiences. In this way one can uncover the subjective aspects
associated with the life experience of those in the fields and elsewhere in Indian
society and their relation to a newly available technology. Indeed, heterogeneity
is an accepted fact in India, home to hundreds of dialects and diverse religious
groups including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. In addition, social
heterogeneity deriving from caste, ethnicity, gender, and educational background
adds yet another layer. Such heterogeneity that exists in Indian society will not fit
into a rigid typology nor can it be reduced to some aggregate level.

The concept of frame is particularly useful in exploring the interpretations
of Bt cotton in India. It serves as the prism through which actors organize issues
involving Bt cotton in light of their needs and interests, through which the rank I
ordering of issues as seen by actors in India might be empirically identified,
instead of imposing an outside perspective of the “real” issues. For instance, this
research may uncover a greater perceived irrelevance of long-term ecological
concerns raised by some of the environmentalists due to pressing economic
issues among farmers.

Another strength of the discourse perspective derives from its triangulation
of theories. The discourse perspective presented here brings together a diversity
of literature, and combines these to address the intersection of agricultural
development and science and technology. Efforts to synthesize literature

consisting of multiple perspectives will enable me to describe not only actors’

15

views towards Bt cotton but also actors’ life-worlds consisting of tensions and
emotions they feel in their relation to the social structures that impinge upon their
lives.

By conceptualizing the Bt cotton controversy in terms of actors’ claims and
strategies, one may better understand actors’ ability to resist and change the
environment in which they are embedded. Seemingly powerless actors at the
local level become active creators of their social reality by accommodating or
rejecting the influences of social structure. Actors may negotiate with a social
structure that surrounds them (Long 1992), and actors may participate in
networks of people to alter their milieu (Latour 1993). Peasant movements might
not be the only means by which farmers resist the constraints placed on them.
They might engage in alternative forms of resistance to change the structure
(Scott 1985: 32).

Finally, the use of multiple methods such as in-depth interviews and direct
observations of actors will shed light on social dynamics before and during the
deployment of biotechnology. Using an empirical framework to uncover what has
been said about putative consequences of the adoption of agrifood biotechnology,
who has said it and in what context, will help us see the likely threats and
opportunities related to the introduction of transgenic crops. Thompson
(19972163) writes, “Perhaps the nature and impact of biotechnology in
developing countries was so speculative in the 1980s and early 1990s that useful
empirical and theoretical work was impossible, and perhaps studies are currently

underway that will rectify the situation.” As he accurately points out, given the

16

early stage of deployment of agrifood biotechnology in India, there are numerous
challenges in conducting a study, especially one situated at the field and village
level. However, a discourse perspective which brings together a range of
sociological literature, methods, and data will help us gain insights into social
processes that take place prior to the actual adoption of a technology. Looking
directly into actors, claims, actions and outcomes involved in the introduction,
control, and implementation of Bt cotton seems to be an effective means of

accounting for complex ongoing processes preceding technology adoption.

The Significance of Studying in India

India presents some unique opportunities for researching the Bt cotton
controversy. It is an open society based on the principles of democracy; it has a
fast-growing economy, yet with a huge economic disparity between states and at
the same time, significant social and economic disparities within a range of
communities and groups (i.e., caste, ethnic groups, and gender). Cotton reflects
various contrasts for India as well. Though it constitutes the core of the Indian
economy, the cotton industry faces various problems ranging from productivity to
quality. Cotton growers face economic, and consequently social problems, some
having committed suicide after accumulating a large amount of debt. Further,
agricultural laborers are said to have experienced health problems after applying
pesticides without proper protection.

Gujarat, located on the western coast of India, is indicative of these many

paradoxes. Gujarat is one of the most developed industrial states in India,

17

enjoying a higher per capita income than other states; however, there are some
areas left behind — areas prone to drought, flooding, and other natural calamities.
It is an open society having in and out migration of people, and is the largest
earner of foreign exchange from expatriates. It is a society whose members
value a sense of equality, in a state which never had a feudal system in the past.
It is the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi, who left his mark there, a place where
people value cooperation and tolerance. However, mounting communal tensions
in Gujarat are characterized by communal carnage between the Hindu majority
and the Muslim minority. The core value of equality has never been realized by
some sectors of the population, who barely survive the strife and are exposed to
unpotable drinking water.

The cotton industry in Gujarat faces contradictions as well. Having a long
history of cotton cultivation and being known as India’s cotton capital, Gujarat has
seen the cotton industry play a prominent role in its economy. The advent of
hybrid cotton in Gujarat has made some farmers wealthier, but not all. During the
Green Revolution, government subsidies to farmers led to indiscriminate
pumping of groundwater for farming. Such exploitation of groundwater has
caused salinity problems in many areas, reducing land for farming and water
sources. Excessive use of pesticides for cotton cultivation has harmed laborers,
contaminated ground and surface water, and harmed wildlife. In short, these
great challenges facing India and Gujarat beg for the help that Bt cotton might
bring to Gujarat, but many may also be unsolvable, and the introduction Bt cotton

may not bring all the beneficial consequences promised. Many of these social

18

realities in India and Gujarat have intensified the Bt cotton debate, and brought in
a range of actors including Indian government, industries, scientists, NGOs, and

farmers.

Background to Fieldwork

I conducted fieldwork from July through September 2000 and from August
2002 through May 2003 in India. During the three months in 2000, my focus was
to gain an understanding of issues of significance related to Bt cotton in India
while observing the ways in which people engaged in discussion. My activities
were primarily collecting policy documents and attending seminars, conferences,
and workshops to locate interested and key actors. I conducted interviews with a
few individuals whom I had met at the seminars and conferences who were
prominent opinion-makers in agrifood biotechnology to gain insights into their
interpretations of the commercial introduction of Bt cotton. In addition, I paid
several visits to villages in Gujarat to explore the extent of their awareness of
debates over Bt cotton. To my disappointment, during my first visit, none of the
farmers indicated that they were aware of such seeds, much less did they know
about the debates taking place in New Delhi.

On my second visit to India, I spent seven months in Gujarat and three
months in New Delhi. The time in Gujarat was devoted to interviewing a range of
actors in the cotton commodity chain, and to collecting and analyzing Gujarati
language newspapers. The situation surrounding Bt cotton controversies had

changed dramatically in 2002 since my last visit to Gujarat, as evidenced by

19

numerous seminars and workshops on Bt cotton organized by the state
government, NGOs, and farmers’ unions. I interviewed people in state
government offices, cooperatives, local seed companies, a state seed
corporation, scientists in universities, local NGOs, farmers’ union leaders, and
farmers, most of whom were eager to talk about controversial episodes that
surrounded Bt cotton. For seven months, I was based in Anand, Gujarat as a
visiting fellow at the Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), where I received
academic and logistical support. I commuted from Anand to cities in Gujarat
such as Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, and Vadodara, which
are important commercial centers in the region, to interview non-farmers. I also
commuted to a village in south Gujarat to talk to farmers about the situation. I
chose to stay at a facility offered by IRMA rather than in a village because its
central location gave me relatively easy access to sites for fieldwork. It was
particularly important to stay at the facility to avoid any chance of being subjected
to communal tensions, which were volatile at the time. Further, I gradually came
to realize that identifying myself as a visiting fellow at a well-respected
educational institute in Gujarat was central to demonstrating the neutrality of my
position with respect to the commercial introduction of Bt cotton. In some cases,
non-farmer actors declined interviews out of their discomfort concerning research
findings which would be submitted to a U .8. educational institute through which
US. industries could potentially benefit. However, I was generally viewed as a
neutral and passive observer of Indian discourse, which was key in accessing all

sides of the debate.

20

My initial entry point to farmers’ discourse was in north Gujarat. I quickly
realized that many of the cotton growers I met drew their incomes from crops
other than cotton (e.g., chilies and groundnuts), or from other income sources
such as remittances from family members who had immigrated to the US.
These farmers did not have much to say about Bt cotton, nor did they participate
in public debates over it. It was after visiting villages in several cotton districts in
Gujarat that I came to learn about a farmer leader whose name had been
mentioned in Gujarati newspapers in connection with Bt cotton. We (a research
assistant and myself) were invited into his village and taken to his house, his
neighbors’ houses, and their fields. Thereafter, I commuted to the village for a
period of six months, approximately twice a week, for interviews.

My identity did not seem to matter so much to farmers in the village when
requests for interviews were made because of the initial introduction by a farmer
union leader of the village. On the one hand, having been introduced to a village
through a farmer leader played a significant role in putting me in touch with a
range of actors in the local arena in a relatively short period of time. On the other
hand, this limited my access to other types of farmers who were not necessarily
in agreement with the opinions and positions of the farmer leader. For instance,
he put me in touch with employees of co-operatives, seed dealers and farmers in
the south of Gujarat who broadly shared his perspective, but we had to make
extensive efforts to find individuals and organizations in Gujarat who may not
necessarily have favored the adoption of GM crops. Even when we succeeded

in contacting such people, they tended to be reluctant to be interviewed. Further,

21

we could not get access to women. In most occasions, it was men who met us
and reacted to our requests and never women. As a result, the interview data we
collected inevitably reflect biases arising from the attributes of people we
managed to get to know.

During my three months in New Delhi, I revisited and interviewed people
that I had interviewed in 2000 and also conducted interviews with people across
categories of actors. While I admit that conducting interviews in cross-cultural
settings imposed analytical challenges, such as not being able to understand
subtle nuances and messages that interviewers were communicating to me,
extensive efforts were made prior to the interviews to build both the academic
and practical foundations required for subtle understanding in intercultural
settings. In addition to researching the characteristics of organizations and
institutions that interviewees belonged to, efforts were made to participate in
public and social events should invitations be given so as to observe actors in
action and to learn more about Indian cultures. In fact, being seen as “a
foreigner” and “a guest from abroad” did help expand my activities rather than
limiting them in some sense. There were several instances in which I was able
to interview people such as high-ranking government officials, a parliament
member, and managing directors of seed companies, whereas Indian
researchers who wanted to conduct interviews with a similar range of people
were unable to do so. The explanation given to me was that in some cases
people in India can be more accepting of foreigners than other Indians belonging

to different regional, religious, and/or caste backgrounds. This is not to say that

22

access to people is more important than the cultural sensitivity; however, the
analytical challenges were at least partially compensated by such norms.
Throughout the time of my fieldwork in Gujarat, I had two female research
assistants who spoke Gujarati, Hindi and English. They helped me to interview
non-English speakers and to translate Gujarati newspapers and other printed
materials. Interviews with farmers were divided into three separate phases. At
the outset, I conducted a series of group farmer interviews with the help of a
research assistant who translated my questions and the farmers’ responses.
This was to investigate the perceived major issues and opportunities associated
with the advent of Bt cotton. These group sessions were later used to design
and develop an interview guide for semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with
farmers. During the second phase, one of two research assistants conducted the
interviews in Gujarati using the interview guide (Appendix A), as I did not want to
interrupt the flow of the interviews. The other person took notes so that I was
able to broadly follow their conversations. During the third phase, I again
conducted a series of group interviews to follow up on issues we had not
understood in the one-on-one interviews (Appendix B). This final round of
interviews explored what farmers had to say about their experience with Bt cotton,
as well as their interpretation of what others had said about this new technology,
because the third phase coincided with the months during which growers

harvested cotton.

23

Organization of the Study

This dissertation consists of three independent manuscripts, written at
various stages of this project: Chapter 2 was written between my first and second
visits to India, Chapter 3 at the end of fieldwork, and Chapter 4 after returning
from the field. Thus reflecting stages of the work, the overall focus of the
dissertation will move from concept, to analysis, to interpretation, while
underlying materials for each chapter will move from secondary (literature and
newspaper articles) to primary data (interviews and field notes from non-
participant observations). An earlier version of Chapter 2 appeared in Science,
Technology & Society in 2003 and Chapter 3 is forthcoming in Discourse and
Society. The second chapter sets out a conceptual model for this research and
maps the contours of the Bt cotton debate in India. The thirdchapter compares
and contrasts discourse on the national and local levels to examine the types of
frames used for interpretations of Bt cotton and the kinds of strategies actors
deployed in advancing their interpretations. I will focus in particular on contested
issues and the ways in which actors engaged in debates. Chapter 4 analyzes
group relations In the Bt cotton controversy by exploring non-farmer and farmer
discourses. The chapter will illuminate two different interpretive processes in
non-farmer and farmer discourses and resultant social phenomena. In Chapter 5,
l summarize findings from each chapter and suggest theoretical contributions to
the sociology of agricultural development and science and technology studies, as
well as empirical contributions to policy makers. I close this dissertation by

presenting areas for future research based on these findings.

24

References

Bebbington, Anthony. 1994. "Theory and Relevance in Indigenous Agriculture:
Knowledge, Agency and Organisation." In Rethinking Social Development,
edited by D. Booth. Harlow Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality.
NY: Doubleday.

Best, Joel. 1995. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems.
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Blumer, Herbert. 1971. "Social Problems as Collective Behavior." Social
Problems 18: 298-306.

Boef, Walter de, Kojo Amanor, Kate Wellard, and Anthony Bebbington. 1993.
Cultivating Knowledge: Genetic Diversity, Farmer Experimentation and
Crop Research. London: lnterrnediate Technology Publications.

Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, and Michael Mackenzie. 1990. "Scientific
Practice in the Courtroom: The Consturction of Sociotechnical Identities in
a Biotechnology Patent Dispute." Social Problems 37: 275-293.

Dahlberg, Kenneth A. 1990. "The Industrial Model and its Impacts on Small
Farmers: The Green Revolution as a Case." In Agroecology and Small
Farm Development, edited by M. Altieri and S. Hecht. Boston: CRC Press.

—. 1994. "A Transition from Agriculture to Regenerative Food Systems." Futures
26: 1 70-1 79.

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on
the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

ETC Group. 2001. "Globalization, lnc.: Concentration in Corporate Power," ETC
Communique. September 5. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.etcgroup.orgl. Accessed June 1, 2004.

Flora, Jan, and Richard. D. Rodefeld. 1978. "The Nature, Magnitude, and
Consequences of Changes in Agricultural Technology." In Change in
Rural America: Causes, Consequences, and Alternatives, edited by R. D.
Rodefeld, J. Flora, D. Voth, l. Fujimoto, and J. Coverse. Saint Louis: The
CV. Mosby Company.

25

Foucault, Michel. 1982. The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on
Language. NY: Pantheon Books.

Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America:
Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Friedman, Sharon M., Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L. Rogers. 1999.
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial
Science. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Friedmann, Harriet. 1991. "Changes in the International Division of Labor: Agri-
Food Complexes and Export Agriculture." In Towards a New Political
Economy of Agriculture, edited by W. Friedland, L. Busch, F. Buttel, and A.
Rudy. Boulder: Westview Press.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public
Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." American
Joumal of Sociology 95: 1-37.

Garrety, Karin. 1998. "Science, Policy, and Controversy in the Cholesterol
Arena." Symbolic Interaction 21: 401-424.

Goeschl, T., and T. Swanson. 2003. "The Development Impact of Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies: A Forecast based on the Hybrid Crop
Experience." Environment and Development Economics 8: 149-165.

Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Goodman, David, Bernardo Sorj, and John Wilkinson. 1987. From Farming to
Biotechnology: A Theory of Agra-Industrial Development. NY: Basil
Blackwell.

Gusfield, Joseph R. 1984. ”On the Side: Practical Action and Social
Constructivism in Social Problems Theory." In Studies in the Sociology of
Social Problems, edited by J. W. Schneider and J. l. Kitsuse. Norvvood:
Ablex Pub. Corp.

Harriss, John. 1982. Capitalism and Peasant Farming: Agrarian Structure and
Ideology in Northern Tamil Nadu. Bombay: Oxford University Press.

Hightower, Jim. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: A Report of the Agribusiness

Accountability Project on the Failure of America ’8 Land Grant College
Complex. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

26

Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

—. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kendall, Henry Way. 2000. A Distant Light: Scientists and Public Policy. NY:
AIP Press.

Kitsuse, John, and Malcolm Spector. 1973, "Toward a Sociology of Social
Problems." Social Problems 20: 407-441.

Kloppenburg, Jack Ralph. 1990. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant
Biotechnology, 1492-2000. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Krimsky, Sheldon, and Dominic Golding. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport:
Praeger.

Latour, Bruno, and Catherine Porter. 1993. We Have Never Been Modem.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Long, Norman, and Ann Long (Eds). 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The
Interiocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development.
London: Routledge.

Marsden, Terry, and Sarah Whatmore. 1994. ”Finance Capital and Food System
Restructuring: National Incorporation of Global Dynamics." In The Global
Restructuring of Agra-food Systems, edited by P. McMichael. NY: Cornell
University Press.

Mazur, Allan. 1981. "Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific
Controversies." Journal of Communication 31: 106—115.

Mukerji, Chandra. 1989. A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1992. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Pearse, Andrew. 1980. Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want: Social and Economic
Implications of the Green Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon.

Perlas, Nicanor. 1994. Overcoming Illusions about Biotechnology. Penang,
Malaysia: Third World Network.

27

Richards, Paul. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food
Production in West Africa. Boulder: Westview Press.

Rigg, Jonathan. 1989. "The New Rice Technology and Agrarian Change: Guilt
by Association." Progress in Human Geography 13: 374-400.

Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. NY: The Free Press.

Royal Society. 2001. "Call for Evidence: Royal Society to Update 1988
Statement on GM plants." London: The Royal Society.

Salter, Liora, Edwin Levy, and William Leiss. 1988. Mandated Science: Science
and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant
Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sharma, Devinder. 2001. "The Introduction of Transgenic Cotton in India."
Biotechnology and Development Monitor 44/45: 1 0-1 3.

Shiva, Vandana. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity
and Biotechnology. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.

Shrum, Wesley, and Yehouda Shenhav. 1995. "Science and Technology in Less
Developed Countries." In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies,
edited by S. Jasanoff. London: Sage.

Sjbberg, Lennart. 2000. "The Methodology of Risk Perception Research.” Quality
and Quantity 34: 407-418.

Snow, David A, and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and
Participant Mobilization." In From Structure to Action: Social Movement
Participation across Culture. edited by B. Klandermas, et al. Greenwich:
JAI.

Thompson, Paul B. 1997. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. London:
Blackie Academic & Professional.

Van Wijk, J. 2004. "Terminating Piracy or Legitimate Seed Savings? The Use of

Copy-Protection Technology in Seeds." Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management 16: 121-141.

28

CHAPTER 2

AGRIFOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY DISCOURSE IN INDIA1

Introduction
Cotton and Science-based Agriculture in India

Cotton has been an important crop for Indian society since prehistoric
times. India is where it was first domesticated, and India was the first civilization
to develop spinning and weaving techniques. Cotton still plays an important role
in Indian economy, society, and culture. The cotton textile industry is the largest
organized industry in India; it provides enormous employment opportunities, is
the largest contributor to GDP, and earns significant foreign exchange. Cotton is
also an important cash crop for small farmers. In addition, cotton carries strong
,cultural meaning, as seen in Mahatma Gandhi’s use of the spinning wheel as a
symbol for the independence movement.

Despite its economic and social importance, the Indian cotton industry is
currently facing problems with regards to quality, productivity, and production cost.
According to the Cotton Corporation of India (2000), the quality of India’s cotton
is far from satisfactory for the world market because of its large number of
contaminants and inconsistent thickness and length. Although India ranks third
globally in cotton production, following China and the US, cotton yield per
hectare is one of the lowest in the world. Furthermore, the cotton crop consumes

approximately half of all the pesticides used for agricultural purposes in India

 

' This chapter is a revision of a manuscript co-authored with Craig K. Harris and Lawrence Busch,
which appeared in Science, Technology & Society: An International Journal Devoted to the
Developing World, 2003, 8(1): 47-72. Sage Publications.

29

even though it occupies only some five percent of the total cultivated area in the
country (CCI 2000; ISCI 1999).

Against this backdrop, the dominant view is that science-based plant
research will enable growers to better manage crops against pest attacks and
adverse climatic conditions. It is further believed that agrifood biotechnology will
produce new varieties that will allow growers to make better use of inputs and
their natural resource base, especially compared to traditional varieties. As one
part of this dominant science-based approach, there has been a proposal to
introduce Bt cotton in India. Science-based plant technologies such as Bt cotton
are seen by some in India as having great potential to solve the problems of
quality, productivity, and production costs. However, not everyone agrees with
this perspective, and debates over agrifood biotechnology have become hotly

contested. These debates are discussed in the next section.

The Bt cotton Controversy

While the Indian government approved the commercialization of Bt cotton
in 2002, debates concerning genetically engineered cotton continue. In 1998,
when newspapers began to cover stories on Bt cotton, the issue was about the
procedures for carrying out the open field testing of Bt cotton (one step before
the commercialization of the new variety). Over the years, however, issues have
expanded beyond narrowly focused governmental processes and broadened to
impinge upon Indian ethics and values - whether and how the benefits of

biotechnology will reach a developing country like India, how the prospective

3O

benefits would manifest themselves among growers in different social and
economic strata, and how the environmental and/or health risks should be
distributed and mitigated. The Indian government and agrifood and
pharmaceutical industries have begun to meet strong social opposition from
NGOs addressing issues related to the global agrifood system, environment,
food and population. Debates have arisen both in the national arena, involving
people affiliated with government agencies, international and Indian NGOs,
farmers’ unions, and industries, and in the local arena, involving people in state
government agencies, local seed industries, local NGOs, and farmers.

I will first present a brief overview of the events in the controversy that
have been reported in the English-Indian newspapers, and then proceed with the
body of the study. Towards the end of 1998, a farmers’ group — Karnataka Rajya
Raitha Sangha (KRRS) - began protesting field trials conducted by a joint
venture firm. They uprooted the crops, set fire to the trial fields, and popularized
the slogan “Cremation Monsanto” (The Hindu, November 29, 1998).
Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh (AP) government halted the field trials of Bt
cotton undertaken by the joint venture firm. The AP government claimed that the
decision was made because farmers were agitated over the activity of the
company, which was said to have been testing the “terminator gene” under the
guise of Bt cotton seed trials (Business Line, December 5, 1998)? The leader of

KRRS, MD Nanjundaswamy, claimed that the gene incorporated in Bt cotton had

 

2 Monsanto was part owner of the company that had acquired a concept patent for terminator
technology, a genetic way of producing second-generation sterile seeds. While a concept patent
implies no seeds using the genes have been produced, groups in India nevertheless claimed that
Monsanto was testing the terminator technology in India.

31

contaminated all crops in the vicinity of the field trial plots and was jeopardizing
the biodiversity of the area. He also claimed that the company had undertaken
trials without obtaining government permission and that they had been carried
out secretly (Business Line, January 11, 1999). Parallel with KRRS’ actions and
the AP government’s decision, various claims surfaced in the newspapers. An
editorial in Business Line (December 3, 1999) strongly criticized such vandalism
and condemned KRRS’ activities as “anathema to civilized society.” It pointed
out that such activities and the government’s inability to control them would send
a negative signal to prospective investors in India.

In response, the Ministry of Agriculture imposed a ban on the import of
terminator seeds into India. At the same time, the Director General of the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), an agency with tremendous influence
upon the course of agricultural development in India and upon public opinion
about matters related to agriculture, announced that the government would be
“gearing up for a single-point entry for all imports of seeds” (Business Line,
January 14,1999). This was the first time the public was informed that the Indian
government would take careful steps for introducing genetically modified crops
commercially.

In July of 2000, the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) was
granted permission for large scale trials to generate environmental safety data on
genetically modified cotton (GM cotton) by the Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee (GEAC), the interrninisterial committee evaluating biosafety aspects

of transgenic crops. Although the Indian government expected the open field

32

trials to be completed by mid-2001, the Committee decided to require an
additional year for the open field trials under the supervision of the ICAR (Hindu
Business Line, June 21, 2001). Supervision by ICAR meant a significant shift in
the culture governing the field trial by transferring the responsibility from the
technology promotion agency, Department of Biotechnology (DBT), to the
agricultural research agency, which is viewed as representing the interests of
farmers. Meanwhile, some ten thousand hectares of unauthorized GM cotton
were found in the state of Gujarat. Farmers had purchased the seeds from a
local seed company in Gujarat, who had allegedly sold GM cotton seeds as a
new variety resistant to bollworrn (Times of India, October 8, 2001).

Subsequently the GEAC ordered the destruction of GM cotton grown in
Gujarat (Times of India, October 19, 2002). In March of 2002, the GEAC
approved the commercial cultivation of Bt cotton (Economic Times, March 27,
2002). Since the Bollgard varieties had become available to cotton growers,
farmers in cotton growing regions such as Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra
Pradesh began to use them.

Against this background, the central themes of this paper are to identify
the actors whose voices were heard in public discourse about agrifood
biotechnology, and to explore framing used by actors to interpret social
phenomena surrounding Bt cotton. The following subsection will outline the
conceptual model and then describe the methods used in this study. After the

presentation of the results, I briefly discuss implications for future work.

33

Conceptual Model

Discourse Perspective

The discourse perspective here consists of actors, claims, strategies and
outcomes. Underlying this approach is the idea that language, meanings and
interpretations held by actors play a significant role in driving social processes
involving Bt cotton controversy. Thus, analysis of discourse provides an
analytical framework for examining a social reality consisting of diverse meanings
and perspectives. It has been used inter alia in the study of environmental
problems (Dryzek 1997; Hajer 1995; Litfin 1994) and in the study of the social
construction of scientific knowledge (Latour 1987; Latour and Woolgar 1979;
Yearley 1981), as well as in analyzing social movements in developed (Gamson
1993; Williams 1995) and developing countries (Nanda 1999). While these
studies share the assumption that the language used and the meanings held
towards an object or an issue are instrumental in producing and reproducing
social structure and institutions, the analytic emphasis varies from researcher to
researcher. Some emphasize interpretations of an issue or an object, while
others shed light on ongoing social processes that lead to a particular social
phenomenon. Preliminary to examining social processes leading to collective
decisions, this chapter emphasizes identifying interested parties and
understanding their claims and claimsmaking activities using the concept of
actors and frames.

The second assumption of this dissertation is the idea that the eruption of

controversy in public fora reflects social processes where people come to define

34

the rapid introduction of Bt cotton as problematic. Drawing on the theoretical
framework of the social constructionist approach to social problems (Best 1995;
Kitsuse and Spector 1973), the chapter will demonstrate the processes whereby
Indian people came to learn that the commercial introduction of Bt cotton would
entail a range of consequences, both positive and negative. People came to
learn there were social, economic, and political consequences which might run
counter to what government officials and industry employees had claimed. Thus,
the chapter emphasizes how people define problems for themselves or others

through actions and interactions.

Actors

India is characterized by enormous societal diversity, i.e., the coexistence
of modern and traditional social structures and social values, rich and poor, elite
and non-elite, urbanites and rural residents. India’s historical diversity was
reinforced by the Mogul period, British colonialism, and more recently by the
impact of emerging capitalism, industrialization and globalization. The diverse
norms, values, and cultures of contemporary India, a democratic political system,
combined with a newly-emergent partly-Westem biological technology, have
created social spaces where actors, both as individuals and as groups, can put
forth and debate various issues of agrifood biotechnology. Rather than remaining
passive and accepting scientific explanations given by experts, actors construct
situational meanings through processes of interpretation and interactions with

others (von Glasersfeld 1991). Actors are capable of reworking and revising

35

societal values, norms, and cultural orientations in accordance with values,
norms and cultures of their own, and then of disseminating these revised
understandings through their actions and social interactions with other actors
(Touraine 2000). Debates surrounding the consequences of agrifood
biotechnology in India and the resistance to its commercial application (e.g., the
demonstrations of farmers’ groups, public relations campaigns by NGOs) reflect
actors’ capabilities, efforts, and struggles both to apply their own values, norms
and cultures when making societal decisions about Bt cotton, and to bring about
revisions in societal values and norms different from their own.

The conceptual scheme used for this dissertation encompasses four major
groups of social actors:
social actors in civil society (e.g., NGOs, farmers’ groups)
industries and commercial organizations
government

scientists (whether situated in the public research system, the private
sector or civil society)

99).”?

For the present chapter, I did not include mass media as an active
participant in the discourse. I acknowledge that the media are hardly neutral
observers. Journalists decide both what to report and how to report it (Nelkin
1987). They have to decide which points of view will be presented and which
ignored (Stocking 1999). However, for the purposes of this chapter, I only
examine reports on various actors as presented by the press to the exclusion of
opinions of the journalists writing the articles. I assume that although a particular

mass media actor may support a particular stance on an issue, the press as a

36

whole is broad enough in scope that no particular view is likely to be

systematically unreported (Gamson 1992).

Frames

The processes of interpretation involve “frames” that give meaning to
issues and provide bases for making sense of complex issues involving agrifood
biotechnology. Interpretive processes of an issue or an object involve a cognitive
schema that helps actors understand complex and ongoing events unfolding in
front of them. Through such organization of complex and dynamic social
phenomena, actors generate ideas and opinions about an object. What is
important and relevant for this dissertation is the idea that framing processes
involve the subjective engagement of individuals, and that individuals have the
ability to gain or maintain interpretive control over an issue or object through the
strategic use of frames. In some cases, a frame embracing certain values and
norms becomes a basis for identifying allies and opponents in the disputes. In
other cases, it serves as a template for collective actions of allies (Gamson and
Modigliani 1989). Frames, therefore, can be strategically used by activists to
mobilize potential allies or to demobilize opponents (Snow and Benford 1988).

For example, some scientists, journalists, and actors in civil society
portray Bt cotton as the Gene Revolution, trying to associate the new technology
with the alleged success of the Green Revolution. Some of the farmers’ groups
and NGOs, on the other hand, deny this characterization and suggest that the

new technology will lead to domination by foreign corporations through the loss

37

of indigenous agriculture and a return to colonialism. Broadly stated, there are
two kinds of strategies actors use involving frames. First, while staying within the
same frame an actor tries to counter the claims of other actors. This can be
done in two different ways. First, one may simply challenge the facts claimed by
other actors; for example, within the environmental benefit frame there is
disagreement about whether or not the application of Bt cotton in the US. has
led to reduced pesticide use. Second, actors may put fonrvard alternative claims;
for example, still within the environmental benefit frame, actors may respond to
the claims of reduced pesticide use with the claim that the integrated pest
management approach will be better for the environment than using transgenic
plants. Alternatively, one may try to shift the discourse from the initial frame to a
completely different one; for example, one may respond to the claim which
suggests economic benefits of Bt cotton with the claim that the application of Bt
cotton is contrary to the laws of nature.

To influence policy processes, to set the policy agenda (Dearing and
Rogers 1996), or to steer the situation in the direction that they envision (Benford
and Snow 2000), actors resort to purposeful action. Actors enroll or enlist other
actors to gain support for their interpretations (Callon 1986). Once claims are
supported by other actors, these claims become recognized as facts - shared
understandings of reality (Latour 1987). Actors then forge alliances with others
to mobilize larger pools of resources so as to have the power to bring about
particular social, political and economic outcomes (Long and Long 1992; Zald

1996)

38

Methods

The methods to be used for this project stem from the theoretical
perspective that social life consists of processes of communication and
interpretation (Blumer 1969; Schutz 1972). This perspective views social
scientific analysis and understanding as grounded in the empirical observation of
social processes of communication and interpretation by actors. Using an
ethnographic content analysis approach (Altheide 1996), data were coded and
analytic categories generated from the data in an attempt to represent actors’
interpretations.

Data used for this paper came primarily from English-language Indian
newspapers collected through Lexis-Nexis, an online database of leading
newspapers and other information sources from around the world. I selected Bt
cotton and India as key concepts to examine and added field trials and terminator
technology3 because these two themes have played significant roles in the
agribiotechnology discourse in India. Keyword searches for those terms yielded
390 articles from 1992 through December 2002. I supplemented these data with
exploratory interviews (Douglas 1985) with actors whose names appeared in the
newspaper articles so as to draw out more stories about their publicized claims.

Newspaper articles do not reflect the perceptions of the entire population
of India. Rather, they indicate what the educated strata have been exposed to,

what they have been expressing and experiencing, and their interpretations of

 

3 When inserted in plants, the terminator gene blocks the production of fertile seed. Use of the
gene provides seed producers security against unauthorized use of new plant varieties. Critics
say the terminator gene would compel farmers to purchase seed from patent holders who own
the rights to new crop varieties.

39

how other social groups might perceive transgenic seeds. At the same time, as
noted above, the educated strata are not unitary and homogeneous but are
characterized by great diversity in ideology, class position, material conditions,
and interests. In some cases, the diversity among the intelligentsia is based
upon the diversity in other groups in society; for example, urban professionals
may be hired spokespersons for peasant farmers or may claim to be
spokespersons for rural women. Thus, I expect to see ranges of interpretations
within the “elite” discourse, which is significant in understanding the totality of
Indian agrifood biotechnology discourse and in carrying out comparative studies.

There are other types of sources which could have been used for analysis,
e.g., Hindi-language national newspapers, local-language newspapers, national
news magazines, local-language news magazines, specialized science
magazines, or farm magazines. In addition, other types of analysis could have
been conducted, for instance, focusing on the ways in which issues are selected,
or focusing on sections where articles have appeared. No matter how
comprehensive the sources of data or the selected methods, the narrative in any
analysis is selective in some way. Therefore, I contend that the English-
language Indian national newspapers provide legitimate data as long as we are
aware that the story appearing in our account is not the only narrative. There are
other stories which have been told.

Since this paper uses dynamically changing records from documentary
analysis, interviews, and observations, software for qualitative research (NWvo)

was used for keeping records and systematic retrieval of stored data. This

40

allowed linking one part of the data with any other part to identify the logic actors

used to interpret observed social phenomena.

Findings

Bt cotton in the Mass Media

I will first present an overview of the mass media discourse on Bt cotton
and then discuss actors and their claims in more detail. English-language Indian
newspapers began to cover issues surrounding Bt cotton in 1992. As shown in
Figure 2-1, a database search found two articles published in 1992 but no
articles for several years after that. The first transgenic plant experiments in
India, noted in the figure, used transgenic rape seed containing the gene
constructs Bamase and Barstar‘4 in a contained field and controlled environment
in 1995 (Rai et al. 2000). However, there were no occasions for any major
discussion in the mass media for several years. In 1998, 25 articles appeared,

and since then the number of articles has risen steadily.

 

‘ These genes were inserted into the vector construct for the purpose of pollination control.

41

Figure 2-1. Number of Relevant Articles Appearing in the Newspapers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the early years, the Indian government was the only actor whose
comments on Bt technology were reported in the newspaper articles. Bt cotton
was portrayed as a harmless agricultural technology which would contribute to
the agricultural sector and have a positive impact on cotton farming. Genetic
engineering was framed as a tool to better manage the production processes:

India will have to pay about 4m dollars to Monsanto to get the gene

transfer knowhow, which will be India’s first import of technology for

genetic engineering to create improved plant species. Incorporation of the

Bt genes into major varieties of cotton will help cut down by half the use of

insecticides and save cotton worth 5-10bn rupees [approximately 100m to

200m U. S. dollars] annually, the DBT [Department of Biotechnology] said

in a report. (BBC Summary of Worid Broadcasts, October 14,1992)

By the end of 1998, uncritical acceptance of Bt technology had

disappeared and the issue had become highly controversial and contentious.

42

Many of the claims appearing in the newspapers were not related to technical or
scientific aspects of Bt cotton. They were about the social impact upon the
everyday life of farmers, concerns about the increasing presence of multinational
corporations, and concerns deriving from the public’s mistrust of public
authorities and government agencies. Claims also emanated from concerns
about the stagnating cotton yields, loss of competitiveness in the global cotton
market, lagging behind in the agricultural revolution, and concerns about the
future food supply. These morally, politically and economically-charged concerns

became a significant element in news stories reporting Bt cotton.

Claims and Frames

Broadly stated, actors anchored their claims in five frames: ( 1) science
and technology, (2) the social, (3) governance, (4) economy, and (5) ecology.
The scientific and technological frame includes claims such as those related to
the latest scientific breakthrough, methods used for introducing Bt genes into
local varieties, explanations about traits, and the impact of Bt on the environment
and human health. The frame of the social encompasses wide-ranging aspects
of biotechnology, and includes issues related to decision-making processes, the
public’s participation in rule-making and enforcing processes, the compatibility of
Bt technology with Indian farming, the food security of India, the domination of
Indian agriculture by multinational corporations, and the widening gaps between

large and small land holding farmers.

43

Governance refers to any kind of regime which governs the Bt cotton
commodity chain. This could include claims related to guidelines for field trials of
GMOs, policies governing the agricultural sector, national or international laws
governing technology transfer, an international regime for biosafety, or
institutional arrangements for monitoring varying stages of research,
development and application of transgenic seeds.

The frames of economy and ecology are more self-explanatory. The
economy frame is related to such statistical information as the acreage of land
planted with GMOs, yield increase after the introduction of Bt cotton, a decrease
in production costs, the retail prices of transgenic cotton seed, and projected
demand for transgenic seeds. Frames regarding ecology are mostly related to
the environmental impacts of Bt cotton such as the possibility of the development
of insect pest resistance to Bt, a reduction of environmental stress following
reduced use of pesticides, the possibility of gene flow from transgenic to other
plants, and the long-term impact of Bt on soil processes and biota.

A review of the 390 articles indicates that the discourse concerning
agrifood biotechnology in India revolved mostly around issues within the frames
of governance and society instead of issues hinging on the economic and
ecological implications of agrifood biotechnology. Though these numbers alone
do not tell the whole story, they give some picture of what occupied the minds of
the people who were evaluating this new agricultural technology. As Table 2-1
shows, claims concerning governance constituted 33 percent of all claims, while

those concerning society accounted for 23 percent. Claims concerning economy

44

and ecology were much lower, constituting 14 percent and 11 percent,
respectively. Claims on science and technology accounted for 19 percent of the
claims. These data suggest that actors whose claims were reported in English-
language Indian newspapers were less concerned with the material implications
of technology, such as how the technology would facilitate the development of
the agricultural sector (economy) and the ecological impacts of Bt technology
(ecology), and more concerned with either specific working of guidelines
(governance) or generalized moral concerns (society). Unlike the discourse of
social problems, for which much of its rhetoric derives solely from moral concerns
(Best 1990), the discourse of agrifood biotechnology base its arguments on

political, as well as moral, aspects of society.

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2-1. Number of Claims by Frames5

uarter Governance Society S&T Economy Ecology
1 st 1992 0 0 1 0 0
4’“ 0 0 0 1 0
1st 1998 0 0 2 0 0
4th 29 19 13 3 7
1st 1999 22 15 9 5 10

nd 6 0 7 5 0
3rd 0 8 6 3 0
4‘h 7 0 0 6 0
1st 2000 8 7 7 3 4
2nd 20 12 8 5 8
3rd 22 16 23 7 4
4th 7 8 5 7 0
1st 2001 1 3 14 1 3 5 7
End 13 8 8 6 7
3’d 24 20 7 10 8
4‘h 0 5 O 0 0
1st 2002 25 10 5 3 11
2nd 8 15 5 3 4
3’d 42 29 23 42 15
4’“ 15 2 8 2 0
Total (n) 261 188 150 116 85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An analysis of Table 2-2 suggests that while the correlation of claims

among all of the frames are high, the correlation of claims between the frames of

governance and ecology, and that between governance and society, are

relatively higher than the others. This indicates that mass media tend to include

discussion about ecological issues when covering issues concerning

governance, and that they also tend to discuss moral aspects of Bt cotton in

relation to issues of governance.

 

5 Times not reported did not have any articles.

46

Table 2-2. Correlation of Frames

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governance Society S&T Economy Ecology
Governance 1
Society 0.85 1
S&T 0.72 0.75 1
Economy 0.66 0.65 0.61 1
Ecology 0.89 0.78 0.56 0.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focusing on the period from 1998 to 2002, the remaining section of this
chapter elaborates on actors participating in the discourse and the issues
addressed in their claims. The data indicate that the four conceptually-identified
actors are by no means mutually exclusive. On the contrary, these categories
overlap. For instance, there were cases in which a scientist was an advocate for
a NGO as well as cases in which a scientist worked for a government agency or
for an industry. There were other instances in which representatives of NGOs,
farmers’ unions and industry employees served as members of government
committees. Even though these are not absolute boundaries, the four categories
do represent distinct coordinates of actors useful for exploring discourse about Bt
cotton in India.

I will analyze these data by first briefly describing the number of claims
made by each group. Using these categories, we see tremendous differences in
the frequencies of claims made by each group. Actors in government made the
most claims (276), followed by industrialists (197), and then scientists (127). The
voices of actors in civil society were quieter (95). Finally, I will link actors with

issues within each frame.

47

Table 2-3 shows the proportion of claims in each of the five frames made
by each of the four groups of actors. The data indicate that actors in government
and industries were more concerned with issues in the frame of governance than
with issues in other frames, while actors in civil society were more concerned
with issues concerning society than with other frames. The claims of scientists
tended to be relatively equally divided among the five frames. Actors in
government have a higher proportion of claims in the frame of science and
technology than actors in civil society and industries. I will now discuss the
claimsmaking of each actor group in more detail.

Table 2-3. Proportion of Claims within the Five Frames by Social Actors (°/o)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Govern Society S&T Econ Ecology (n)
Civil Society 32.0 54.7 1.9 5.7 5.7 95
Government 40.8 25.2 14.6 12.6 5.0 276
Industries 61.7 28.0 6.3 4.0 0.0 197
Scientists 22.5 25.4 22.5 15.5 14.1 127
Government

Actors in government predominated in agrifood biotechnology discourse
appearing in newspaper articles. As described in the previous section,
government officials made more than three times as many claims in newspapers
as did actors in civil society (261 as opposed to 95). The preponderance of
claims by government actors could be simply due to the overwhelming number of
such actors representing government ministries involved in research and
development on transgenics (i.e., the Department of Biotechnology, the Ministry
of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Ministry

of Agriculture, Indian Council of Agricultural Research), public research institutes

48

specializing in research and development of cotton (i.e., Central Institute for
Research on Cotton Technology, Technology Mission on Cotton Cell), the parts
of government involved in processing applications for permission for trials and
commercialization of transgenics (i.e., Genetically Engineered Approval
Committee, the state governments), people in judicial organizations, and
parliament members. At the same time, two other factors may be involved. First,
government actors took on roles as innovators with respect to agrifood
biotechnology; in these roles, they were proactive in generating favorable
publicity for the new technology. Actors such as spokespersons representing the
Department of Biotechnology, the Ministry of Agriculture and state government
officials sought interpretive control over the public’s views of Bt cotton through a
range of public relations activities including holding press conferences,
organizing seminars and workshops across metropolitan areas, and issuing
reports on transgenic crops to disseminate their views on the benefits of adopting
transgenic crops. They sought to build public confidence in the technology by
presenting themselves as credible speakers and as competent authorities to deal
with controversial events, should such problems arise.

Second, government agencies and officials might have used the Bt cotton
controversy as a vehicle for advancing their organizational and personal interests
(Gunter and Harris 1998). For instance, actors working for the Department of
Biotechnology would be expected to promote modern biotechnologies to fulfill
their role within an organization. Since a favorable newspaper report about Bt

cotton would help build the credibility of an organization, that might lead to a

49

future promotion or might at least lead to a situation where that particular person
would be viewed as a competent individual. This is not to argue that civil society
organizations do not do the same, but I would suggest that, in the case of
agribiotechnology in India, earlier and greater awareness of the new technology
enabled government actors to be more proactive in instigating and stimulating
discourse for their own benefit. Two articles appearing in 1992, covering the
press announcement by the DBT, demonstrate such attempts by government
actors to take a proactive role in shaping the image of Bt cotton so as to steer the
discourse in ways which enabled them to advance their own agenda.

Despite the larger number of claims, and the large number of claimants,
overall claims by social actors in government tended to concentrate on issues of
governance; more than 40 percent of the claims by government actors were
about the governance frame related to the field trial methods, the laws that
regulate research and development of transgenics, the institutional arrangements
for monitoring processes of field trials and the screening of results, or the policies
that govern issues pertaining to agriculture (cf. Table 2-2). The majority of these
claims portray agrifood biotechnology issues as factual and easily identifiable,
explained either by science, statistics or a description of the content of laws and
regulations. The example below is part of an article written by the state
government official of Andhra Pradesh that appeared in The Hindu, about how
the politics and bureaucracy of the central government will mislead India. The

official grounds his discussion in the Bt cotton controversy involving terminator

50

technology. As the example below shows, the article is analytical, though never
going beyond the themes within the frame of governance:

In India, ministerial responsibility is clearly truncated as the field trials have

been authorised under the Environment Protection Act by the Department

of Biotechnology (DBT) which is concerned with the biosafety, not the
agronomy, of the crop. Both these aspects are integrally related and, after

all, the farmer, the seed and the crop are one. (The Hindu, February 28,

1999)

Societal issues in the claims of actors in government constituted the
second largest among all the claims that they made. For example, a government
actor emphasized the ethical aspects of the protracted decision-making by
saying, "I cannot understand why farmers in this country have so far been denied
legal access to Bt cotton" (Inter Press Service, March 18, 2002). Other claims
attached to this frame include critiques of how media had sensationalized the

issue, leading to negative images of Bt cotton (Business Line, December 24,

1998).

Civil Society

In other analyses, the voices of civil society tend to constitute a small
fraction of the total discourse (Dryzek 1997). However, claims by actors in civil
society regarding the Bt cotton controversy, have appeared constantly since the
beginning of 1998, indicating their significant role in the birth of the controversy
surrounding Indian agrifood biotechnology, despite the appearance of only a few
people in newspapers. The majority of the civil society actors who have made
comments on biotechnology have been vocal in other, past protests in India such

as those against the globalization of agriculture or against the launching of

51

American food franchises. Through their experience they have built up the
expertise to deal with the mass media and equipped themselves with strategies
to advance their ideas using these tools (Nelkin 1987).

For example, by saying, “[Monsanto] is evolving technologies which
ecologically threaten agriculture and make farmers totally dependent on
Monsanto. This is not just the case with Terminator. It is also the case with
’Bollgard’ cotton and Roundup Ready Crops” (The Hindu, December 26, 1998), a
claimsmaker seemed to have succeeded in creating the impression that
Monsanto is actually undertaking field trials of terminator technology. Indeed, in
my preliminary fieldwork locating cotton growers, some farmers expressed
concern whether Bt cotton seeds would incorporate terminator genes. The claim
does not state that Monsanto is undertaking field trials of the terminator gene;
however, using the words Monsanto, Terminator, and Bollgard in one statement
creates the impression that the terminator technology is related to Bt cotton field
trials.

Another reason civil society actors, particularly farmer groups, have been
influential in the debates is that they have resorted to dramatic actions which
were considered newsworthy. Though their claims did not appear in the news as
much as the claims of policy makers and industrialists, their protests and
demonstrations were covered in the news. In addition to indirect strategies such
as electing members of the parliament to represent their interests, farmers’
groups have chosen to resort to direct action as a means of informing the public

about their views and of influencing public opinion and government decisions.

52

Some groups have engaged in acts of sabotage at the Bt cotton field trial sites in
expressing their objections to the government’s decision to allow open field trials
of Bt cotton. One group has practiced civil disobedience, encouraging cotton
growers to deliberately break the law by not obeying India’s biosafety regulations.

In fact, the concept of civil disobedience connotes actions liberating India
from colonialist rule, a tactic used by Mahatma Gandhi. This implies that
individuals or groups resorting to such acts are going through great suffering for
the well-being of the masses. Thus, if this strategy is used with the right timing
and context, it creates solidarity and draws support from the public.

For actors in civil society, it was important to manage and manipulate the
thinking of the public while Bt cotton was still being tested, when the public was
not informed so much about GE crops and lacked clear views and positions
toward Bt cotton.

For actors in civil society who opposed the technology, Bt cotton was
associated with food and biosafety concerns, concerns about the Indian market
being dominated by multinational corporations, lack of public participation in the
decision-making processes, the erosion of farmers’ right to choose, and the
effectiveness of the regulatory framework. By contrast, for actors who supported
the commercialization of Bt cotton, the major concerns were the right of the
farmers to get access to the latest technology and the misrepresentation of
farmers’ needs by other actors in civil society.

Further, until the middle of 2001, when the Indian government (a

representative of the GEAC) announced their decision to require Mahyco-

53

Monsanto to conduct another year of the open field trial, the claims of actors in
civil society that appeared in newspaper articles were almost always against the
commercial introduction of the technology. Up to that point, these actors had
been successful in fostering an image of Bt cotton as having socioeconomic and
ecological risks harmful to Indian society. However, after the announcement,
these voices began to fragment. Some, who had been vocal from the outset of
the controversy, maintained strong opposition against the commercial
introduction of the new technology, while new voices supportive of the new
technology began to be heard. When a negative portrayal of Bt cotton did not
succeed in influencing government’s plans, some actors in civil society attempted
to appeal to the emotions of the public. An emotive comment by an anti—genetic
engineering campaigner for Greenpeace India appeared in The Hindu after the
government’s announcement of their intention to continue field trials:
“Lack of transparency has been the fundamental issue right from the start
of the Monsanto Bt Cotton issue. The non-transparent processes have
increased suspicion and misgivings. We appreciated the holding of today’s
dialogue but were shocked to see the sure introduction of Bt Cotton...”
Ms. Michelle Chawla of Greenpeace told The Hindu after the meeting.
(The Hindu, June 19, 2001)
Voices of supporters, representing farmers became more prominent in
newspapers.
According to Mr P. Chengal Reddy, President of the Andhra Pradesh-
based Federation of Farmers Associations, farmers were being denied
their rights to experiment with new crops and seeds as the bureaucracy
and advocacy groups prevented research from petering down to the
farmers. He told Business Line that farmers should be allowed to decide

what is good for them, rather than have ’urbanized’ advocacy groups and
lobbies to decide on what is good for them. (Business Line, 21 July 2001)

54

Along with these short comments supporting the introduction of GM crops,
commentaries on GMOs, written by the leader of the Kisan Coordination
Committee, Sharad Joshi, appeared in Business Line (May 22, 2002; June 19,
2002; December 4, 2002). He made a strong case by not only couching GMO
issues within the ideology of a free market economy but by re-establishing
himself as a real voice of farmers.

As Bt cotton came closer to being introduced, multiple voices began to be
heard in various public spheres, with a wave of oppositional perspectives giving

way to more pragmatic interpretations of technology.

Industries

Until Bt cotton was approved by the government, social actors in industry
were a monolithic group both in the sense that they represented only three firms
in India, and in that industry actors who appeared in the articles tended to make
similar points using similar types of reasoning. Spokespersons for these three
firms together made 162 claims. As noted above, actors in industries seemed to
have been most concerned with issues of governance. It is interesting to note
that these actors, the primary promoters of the technology, appeared less willing
to promote the technology by discussing substantive issues of Bt cotton such as
its economic benefits or its ecological benefits (of. Table 2-3). Rather, they
based their position on issues of governance, stressing the legitimacy of their
actions. However, since March of 2002, spokespersons representing other firms,

such as those involved in research on other GM crops such as GM mustard and

55

those firms planning to develop other varieties of Bt cotton, have begun to make
explicit comments promoting the technology. Earlier emphasis on issues such as
how scientific the methods of their field trials were and how they had not violated
government rules, and how they had met all the statutory requirements, shifted
towards specifics such as how Bt seeds would be marketed in various cotton
growing states and the volume of seeds distributed for the 2002 cotton growing
season.

In considering why the majority of industry claims were narrowly focused
on points within governance rather than on promoting Bt cotton until it was
approved, it may be helpful to contexualize the development of Bt cotton. Indian
experiences of agricultural development such as the Green Revolution (Leaf
1983) and of developments in science and technology such as in the computer
industry (Grieco 1974) suggest that it has always been the state which
determined and negotiated the type of science and technology to be imported,
and the type of research and development to be undertaken in India. Given
these prominent roles that the state has played in introducing technologies in the
past, for industries it makes sense to work closely with the government in
promoting technologies rather than engaging in independent public relations
programs.

Another reason for industrialists portraying themselves as subordinate to
the government in promoting GE crops concerns the stigma placed on Bt cotton
by farmers’ demonstrations in the state of Karnataka. Once the crop is

stigmatized as a controversial technology, it becomes wise to stay away from

56

claims which will relate industries directly to a technology, and let the government
take the leading role in managing, negotiating and resolving problems arising

from Bt cotton, to avoid having their corporate image stigmatized.

Scientists

Social actors coded as scientists differ from the other groups described
above. This group includes scientists working for public organizations, for the
private sector, and people with science backgrounds who represent the NGOs.

In situations where officials representing the government (e.g., the Department of
Biotechnology) made comments citing their science backgrounds, they were
coded as both scientist and government. Together, these three groups of
scientists made 127 claims. Because of the range of positions held and
organizations worked for, scientists’ views vary across the GMO debate. This
diversity may also account for the fairly equal distribution of claims across the
five frames, with issues linked to the economy and ecology appearing slightly
less frequently than others (cf. Table 2-3).

This also points to the phenomenon of scientific uncertainties of Bt cotton
opening up broader social debates. As a result, the conventional division of labor
between scientists and policymakers is no longer valid. Instead, individuals are
expected to play multiple roles. Studies of scientists and policy-making in the
US. suggest that science is becoming more and more integrated with society
through scientists being asked to act as Iegitimators of government policies and

regulations (Jasanoff 1990; Salter etal. 1988). Claims appearing in Indian

57

newspapers also suggest that scientists are being asked to participate in policy
processes and politics involved in such processes.

A further point is that many vocal actors in the Indian public sphere, in
government, and in the non-government sector have science degrees. A major
difference between the US. and Indian situations is that while in the US. there is
a clear division of labor between policy makers and scientists, where separate
individuals make claims on policy and science, in India the same individuals
make claims in both areas. In describing and discussing government policies or
in expressing objections to government decisions, vocal actors brought in various
scientific “facts” such as gene-flow, pollen drift, and better insect control to argue
for their positions or against the positions of others. Having extensive scientific
knowledge about Bt cotton, and being well-connected to government offices or
the community of NGOs, these vocal actors, protagonists or antagonists, have
tremendous power to influence public opinion. Like scientists in other studies
(Friedman et al. 1999; Nelkin 1987), actors with science backgrounds who work
in policy-making or for NGOs stand in a unique position where they can make
use of scientific disagreements in speaking for their positions and against their

opponents.

Disengagement of Discussion
I will further examine the frame of governance so as to learn how actors in
India interacted with each other in their negotiations for interpretive control of Bt

cotton. Among various issues tied to governance, actors emphasized the issues

58

surrounding permission for the commercial introduction of the technology, and
the institutional arrangements for monitoring the biosafety and food safety
aspects of transgenic crops. On both of these fronts, the emphasis made by
actors in government was on the existence of elaborate and institutionalized
procedures that screened and regulated the various stages of research into and
application of agrifood biotechnology. Government actors also emphasized the
existence and availability of scientific and technological expertise within the
nation, cited as a reason existing institutions would function well. The quality of
current institutional arrangements and the quality of their functioning were rarely
a subject of discussion. Actors in government attempted to influence the
discourse by claiming that the existence of elaborate institutional procedures
would take care of the safety concerns surrounding GMOs:

Allaying tears on the safety aspects of transgenic testing, Dr. Manju

Sharma said a three-tier mechanism had been evolved in the country to

ensure that the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms were fully

taken care of...Dr. Sharma said the guidelines for the testing of transgenic
plants had adequate safeguards and monitoring mechanisms built into

them. (Business Line, January 14, 1999)

As noted above, claims by actors in industry echoed claims by those in
government. They too emphasized the existence of the system, not the quality of
its functioning. Industrialists frequently mentioned the clear division of labor
among concerned government ministries and departments (the Union Ministry of

Environment and Forest, the Department of Biotechnology, the Union Ministry of

Agriculture) and the presence of clearly defined procedures for getting approval

59

based on the results of field trials.6 In addition to following the lead of
government actors, industry actors also emphasized that their field trials followed
the rules, that their activities did not violate any rules or statutory requirements,
and that the processes had been transparent:

The limited field trials for BollgardTM (Bt) Cotton in India are being
conducted...with necessary statutory approval from the Indian regulatory
authorities at every stage and with total transparency...There is therefore
no question of ‘secrecy,’ as you have observed. (The Statesman,
December 31, 1998)

Along with this emphasis, another recurring theme of actors in industry
was the strong belief in modern science. Without touching upon the existence of
various scientific factions that dispute the benefits and costs of Bt cotton, actors
in industries asserted that the present governing system was trustworthy
because it relied on scientific data. These actors emphasized the authority of
science over trust in other forms of knowledge.

The problem is as long as the technology in this case is science based, in
other words, as long as everything is involved in this is science and gone
[sic] in a scientific way and the risk is assessed , and the cost benefit ratio
is established, then I think the technology can always be tried positively.
But before looking into it, there are lots of fears of unknown and many
times, they are most unscientific...lndia has a lot of competence, scientific
at the molecular level and all that. (Interview with an actor in industry)

These seeds have been fully tested for toxicity, environmental impact and
agronomic characteristics. These experiments have been conducted in
India and abroad, the results of which have been thoroughly examined by
the Indian scientific community. Never in the history of agriculture have

 

6 Transparency is often explained through the extensive description of a three-tier system (the
Institutional Biosafety Committee, the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation and the
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), whose assigned roles include reviewing ongoing
research and development of agrifood biotechnology, monitoring experimental facilities, devising
policies for research and development in rDNA research, formulating safety guidelines for
research, and tailoring the biosafety program for risk assessment and others. Numerous articles
summarize the 1989 Rules for The Manufacture, Use/ImporVExport and Storage of Hazardous
Micro Organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (Barwale 2001; Ghosh and
Ramanaiah 2000; Ghosh 2001; Rai and Prasanna 2000; Rhoe et al. 2002).

60

plants been subjected to such exhaustive testing... In the last analysis,

this is a debate about the benefits of plant biotechnology and you will

agree that this has to be decided not by a mob on petrol-soaked fields, but
by India's regulatory authorities on the basis of scientific data and
analysis. Those with reservations about plant biotechnology should be
making their point by force of evidence and argument, not by fire and

slogan-shouting. (The Statesman, December 31, 1998)

In contrast to the actors in government and industry, actors in civil society
chose to emphasize how the existing system functions. They did not disagree
that an elaborate governing system exists; the issue for them was how the
system was implemented. In the case of Bt cotton, the point contested by actors
in civil society was the claim that the permission for undertaking a large-scale
field trail was granted to Monsanto by a committee which did not have the
authority to grant that permission. Their reading of the rDNA safety guidelines
was that, “Field experiments need to be cleared by the Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee since they take place in the open environment and their
risks are not contained...the moment trials are conducted on the open
environment, the GEAC governed by the ministry of environment and forests
becomes active under the Environmental Protection Act 1986” (Shiva et al. 1999:
606). Based on this reading of the regulation, they concluded that the permission
granted to Monsanto was illegal.

Within the frame of governance, another point of contention was the
process for monitoring and controlling the field tests, and, therefore, the validity
of the results of the field tests. An interviewee pointed out that the sowing of

cotton for the field trial was done two months later than usual for traditional cotton

varieties. That means, according to an interviewee’s interpretation, that the

61

reports coming out of the field trials understated the level of insect attack. The
apparent decrease in insect damage was said to be due to the fact that the
cotton was planted two months late; therefore research results could be due to
reduced pest loads and not to the benefits brought by the Bt gene.

Last year, the data, which Monsanto provided, the department of

biotechnology is very happy. How can you have a normal data from a

crop, which was sown two months later...it is not on sound science, you

know. And I thought as a scientist myself, what we are talking today is
sound science, a debate on the scientific principles, not this kind of
maneuvering...You see, the crop has to be sown at a particular point of
time. Yah? If you sow the crop two months late, you escape the attack of
the insect first of all. Yes, and in the end result when you say that you
know, oh, the insect attack was very less, the insect was not there.

(Interview with an actor in civil society)

The content of the claims here suggest that actors talked past each other.
Social actors in government emphasized India’s elaborate existing institutional
arrangements. In contrast, actors in civil society emphasized the importance of
how the system functions. Claims made by these actors were meant to convey
their views and positions, not to deliberate consequences of Bt cotton for Indian
society. Claims were made to market their views and positions, not for the sake
of reaching an agreement. At first glance, an increase in the number of articles
over the years seems to indicate the existence of extensive and intensive
discussions about Bt cotton reflecting a democratic political system and

institutions and organizations that represent the interests of the public, when in

fact actors were avoiding meaningful exchanges.

62

Conclusions

The analysis of the discourse concerning Bt cotton points to four
conclusions. First, on a general note, actors in government and industry tend to
be optimistic about the benefits of Bt cotton, envisioning the positive impacts of
the technology while playing down its social and moral implications. Actors in
civil society, on the other hand, tend to be less tolerant of the idea of trading
possible economic or ecological benefits of Bt cotton for social risks. Second,
the number of claims put forth by civil society were far outweighed by those of
the other groups, while their participation in the discourse proved very intensive
and effective. In contrast, the large number of claims and extensive involvement
of diverse types of actors in government indicate that they have been proactive in
generating favorable publicity for the new technology. Also in contrast,
claimsmaking by actors in industry seems very passive. Third, the scientist
groups consisted of various types of social actors. In the discourse concerning
Bt cotton in India, the roles of scientists intermingled with the roles of
policymakers, industrialists, and activists.

Finally and perhaps most significantly, actors in government and
industries expressed trust in the arrangements regarding the governing of
biotechnology, while actors in civil society pointed out problems with the
functioning of the relevant governing bodies. A disagreement as to the problems
involving GMOs, and a lack of will to engage in meaningful deliberation of the
technology are undesirable if India truly would like to explore a unique approach

which does not follow developed countries but is well adapted to Indian society.

63

References

Altheide, David L. 1996. Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Benford, Robert D., and David A Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology
26: 611-639.

Best, Joel. 1990. Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern about Child-
Victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—. 1995. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. NY: Aldine
de Gruyter.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieux Bay." In
Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge ?, edited by J.
Law. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

CCI. 2000. "Indian Cotton: A Profile." Mumbai: The Cotton Corporation of India.

Dearing, James W., and Everett M. Rogers. 1996. Agenda-setting. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Douglas, Jack D. 1985. Creative Interviewing. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Friedman, Sharon M., Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L. Rogers. 1999.
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial
Science. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. NY: Cambridge University Press.

—. 1993. "Movements and Media as Interacting Systems." American Academy
of Political Social Science: 114-25.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public

Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." American
Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.

64

Grieco, Joseph M. 1974. "Between Dependency and Autonomy: India's
Experience with the International Computer Industry." In Multinational
Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile, edited by T.
H. Moran. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gunter, Valerie J, and Craig K. Harris. 1998. "Noisy Winter: The DDT
Controversy in the Years before Silent Spring." Rural Sociology 63: 179-
198.

Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological
Modemization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

ISCI. 1999. "Handbook of Cotton in India." Mumbai: Indian Society for Cotton
Improvement.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kitsuse, John, and Malcolm Spector. 1973. "Toward a Sociology of Social
Problems." Social Problems 20: 407-441.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: the Social
Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Leaf, M.J. 1983. "The Green Revolution and Cultural Change in a Punjab \fillage,
1965-1978." Economic Development and Cultural Change 31: 227-270.

Litfin, Karen T. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global
Environmental Cooperation. NY: Columbia University Press.

Long, Norman, and Ann Long (Eds). 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The
Interiocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development.
London: Routledge.

Nanda, Meera. 1999. 'Who Needs Post-development? Discourses of Difference,
Green Revolution and Agrarian Populism in India." Journal of Developing
Societies 15: 5-31.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1987. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and
Technology. NY: W.H. Freeman.

65

Rai, Mangala, and BM. Prasanna. 2000. "Transgenics in Agriculture." New Delhi:
Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

Salter, Liora, Edwin Levy, and William Leiss. 1988. Mandated Science: Science
and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Schutz, Alfred. 1972. The Phenomenology of the Social Wortd. London:
Heinemann Educational.

Shiva, Vandana, and Ashok Emani & Afsar H Jafri. 1999. "Globalisation and
Threat to Seed Security: Case of Transgenic Cotton Trials in India."
Economic and Political Weekly 34: 601 -61 3.

Snow, David A, and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance. and
Participant Mobilization." In From Structure to Action: Social Movement
Participation across Culture, edited by B. Klandermas, et al. Greenwich:
JAI.

Stocking, S. Holly. 1999. "How Journalists Deal with Scientific Uncertainty." In
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial
Science, edited by SM. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and CL. Rogers.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Touraine, Alain. 2000. "A Method for Studying Social Actors." Journal of World-
Systems Research VI: 900-918.

von Glasersfeld, E. 1991. "Knowing without Metaphysics." In Research and
Reflexibity, edited by F. Steier. Newbury Park: Sage.

Williams, RH. 1995. "Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and
Cultural Resources." Social Problems 42(1): 124-44.

Yamaguchi, Tomiko, Craig K. Harris, and Lawrence Busch. 2003. "Agrifood
Biotechnology Discourse in India." Science, Technology & Society: An
Intemational Joumal Devoted to the Developing World 8(1): 47-72.

Yearley, Steven. 1981. "Textual Persuasion: The Role of Social Accounting in the
Construction of Scientific Argument." Philosophy of the Social Sciences
11: 409-435.

Zald, Mayer N. 1996. "Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing." In Comparative
Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing
Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by D. McAdam, J. D. JcCarthy,
and M. N. Zald. NY: Cambridge University Press.

66

CHAPTER 3
THE ECONOMIC HEGEMONIZATION OF BT COTTON DISCOURSE IN INDIA1

Introduction

This chapter explores the social discourse that led up to the approval of Bt
cotton by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee in 2002 by comparing
claims and claimsmaking activities in the national and local arenas. The chapter
will demonstrate how the complexity of discourse surrounding Bt cotton led
government officials in the national arena to lose interpretive control of Bt cotton,
while actors in the local arena have succeeded in influencing others through
vigilant control of local discourse and coordinated claims and claimsmaking
activities. Consequently, actors in government have become subjected to
numerous criticisms and growing opposition to their views and activities, while
actors in the local arena, most significantly farmers, have received greater
support from other actors, without having been accused of unlawful practices
running counter to India’s biosafety regulations. After a brief historical
introduction regarding cotton in Gujarat, I will outline the conceptual and
methodological approach for the study. I then present findings and conclude with
some suggestions about the trajectory of discourse in the future.

India’s western state, Gujarat, a region of western India near the border

with Pakistan, has been a cotton growing area for hundreds of years. During the

 

1 This chapter is a revision of a manuscript co-authored with Craig K. Harris, in Discourse and
Society, 2004, 15(4): 467-491, courtesy of Sage Publications.

67

18th century, Gujarati farmers began to use American cotton introduced by the
East India Company (Patel 1994). In the early 1970s, hybrid cotton was
introduced in combination with tractorization, irrigation facilities, and credit
schemes. These components of cotton growing were part of the Green
Revolution, which in turn facilitated rapid socio-economic changes in the region.
Over the three decades since, hybrid cotton has enabled Gujarati farmers to
achieve better yields than with traditional varieties, and to receive higher prices
for their cotton by being able to pick and sell cotton earlier than with the
traditional varieties (Rajaram 1999). Recently, however, farmers in Gujarat have
been faced with numerous problems including various pest attacks
(Subramaniam et al. 2000), fluctuating prices of cotton, and increasing
agricultural input expenses (Rajaram 1999). In southern Gujarat, where the
fieldwork was conducted, cotton growers also face the problem of the flow of
seawater into the groundwater that feeds irrigation wells, several decades of
intensified agriculture having led to salinization of the soil (Bagchi 1991).

To deal with these multiple problems shared in cotton growing regions
such as Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka, the Indian
government decided to introduce Bt cotton — popularly known as Zehri Kappas
(poisonous cotton) in Gujarat. In March 2002, the interrninisterial Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) approved the commercial cultivation of
several varieties of Bt cotton, developed jointly by Mahyco, the largest seed
company in India, and Monsanto, the second largest seed company in the world.

The decision was reached after six years of continuous testing of various

68

properties and effects of the genetically modified varieties. These tests were
conducted to study concerns related to biosafety, agronomic performance, and
socio-economic impacts, in accordance with the rDNA Safety Guidelines
formulated and issued in 1990 (GOI 2002). The approval also followed six years
of fairly contentious social discourse regarding the proposed introduction of Bt
cotton. Over the years, actors with a range of agendas and interests have
offered various views toward Bt cotton by defining problems associated with its
commercialization. Some have argued that the problem the Indian cotton
industry faces is productivity of cotton cultivation and expenses deriving from
excessive use of synthetic pesticides (Barwale 2002), while others have claimed
that the problem is the high retail price of seeds, not economically viable in the
Indian context (Sahai 2002). Some argued that Bt cotton posed unacceptable
risks to human and environmental health (Shiva 1999; 2002). Others responded
that the safety guidelines in India would minimize such risks, rendering such
concerns baseless (Ghosh 2000). Despite Prime Minister Vajpayee’s advocacy
of biotechnology in his published address to the National Science Congress, the
public has come to view genetically modified organisms as a highly controversial

technology.

Conceptual Model

In order to elucidate the complex and dynamic nature of discourse

surrounding Bt cotton in two different arenas, I will look into these three elements:

69

(1) interpretations, (2) actors, and (3) the discourse process. These components
enable us to understand the claims and claimsmaking activities of actors involved
in maintaining, disseminating, and advocating a particular view of a new

technology. Each component of the model is explained in greater detail below.

Interpretations

Interpretations involve the active efforts of actors in the construction of
meanings of situations (von Glasersfeld 1991). When actors characterize an
object or an issue, they interpret its meanings so that they readily fit the actors’
needs and interests. In other words, actors have central organizing schemes
that hold together and give coherence and give meaning to a diverse array of
symbols” (Gamson et al. 1992: 384). In some cases, an organizing scheme can
reflect attributes (e.g., modern/indigenous, hard/soft) of the categories (e.g.,
technology, law), and in other cases it can reflect the cultural backgrounds of the
actors (e.g., religious, economic). It can also reflect the current local and/or
global political and economic context (urban/rural, postindustrial/developing) or
the longer-term historical context (imperial/colonial). When schemes that are
presented in public fora contradict and compete with one another, the public sees
that an object or an issue is politicized (Gamson 1992), and come to view it as
controversial (Nelkin 1992). At the same time, when multiple schemes exist at
one time, actors have choices to make from available schemes in accordance
with their needs and interests. In the case of agrifood biotechnology in

developing countries, the schemes available to actors not only pertain to the

70

socio-economic (Buttel and Barker 1985; DaSiIva et al. 1992; Qaim 1998), ethical
(De Greef 2001; Thompson 1997), and political (Woodhouse 1992) implications
of the technology in question, but also reflect the colonial and postcolonial
discourses of science and technology, agricultural development, food security,
and the biophysical environment (Grove 1995; Gupta 2000). The existence of
multiple interpretive schemes will, on the one hand, provide diverse choices to
actors who can select them to construct a particular meaning of a particular
technology in line with the actors’ interests and needs, and, on the other hand,
create ample opportunities for interested actors to devise strategies to influence

the views of others.

Actors

Indian society, characterized by “division and hierarchy” (Shah 1982),
consists of actors with diverse norms, values, and cultures. This diversity,
combined with the impacts of capitalism and industrialization, has divided actors
in India into an enormous number of sub-groups in line with their socioeconomic
and cultural backgrounds, their professions and positions, and their interests and
agendas. In order to clarify the complex divisions and alliances of actor groups
created in the discourse concerning Bt cotton, I will use five major categories of
actors for analysis: (1) actors in civil society, (2) actors in industries and
commercial organizations, (3) government officials, (4) scientists, and (5) farmers.
Actors in civil society include individuals and organizations that specialize in

advocacy activities related to such issues as the environment, agriculture,

71

population, public health and gender. These actors represent or claim to
represent civic and social organizations that act for the interests of the public.
Indeed, it is said that India’s civil society has been playing a tremendous role,
particularly since the19605, by augmenting the government’s efforts toward
poverty alleviation and environmental protection. Among a range of civic
organizations in India, farmers’ unions are notable in having been successful in
advancing farmers’ needs and interests by influencing India’s agricultural policies
and the government’s plans for rural development.

Industries and commercial organizations include seed companies and
dealers, pesticide formulators and dealers, agrichemical companies, and
associations of industrial or commercial organizations who perform economic
activities for profit. As for the agrichemical sectors in India, considerable
deregulation in foreign trade since the early 19903 has encouraged multinational
agrichemical companies to come into the Indian market. Thus, the presence of
products manufactured and formulated by multinational corporations have
increased. In the seed sector, however, public sector organizations such as the
National Seed Corporation and the State Seeds Corporation (e.g., Gujarat Seeds
Corporation) have played a major role in the production and distribution of seeds
in India, thus reducing the presence of multinational corporations.

The government category refers to elected officials and bureaucrats in
various branches of both the central and the state governments, individuals
working for organizations that maintain control of their territory in accordance with

India’s laws and regulations. As with many other developing countries, India’s

72

public sector is marked by its size and the large number of administrative offices
responsible for oversight. Particularly since the early 1990s, the government has
come under fire for its inefficiency and red tape. Scientists are those people who
are trained in biophysical science disciplines and who hold positions in the public
research system, in the private sector, or in NGOs. Farmers include actors who
engage in the cultivation of crops, and/or are members of farmers' unions and
associations. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and fieldwork
confirmed extensive overlaps between categories. For instance, the same
individual could be both a scientist and an advocate for an NGO, or both a farmer
and a government official.2 However, these concepts are useful in more firmly

examining the debates over Bt cotton.

Discourse Process

The discourse process includes various elements of discourse such as
actors, interpretations, and claimsmaking that drive discourse. It refers to the
processes through which problems associated with Bt cotton are defined. The
claimsmaking of actors may be in advocacy of a particular interpretation of a
problem and/or in opposition to a specific interpretation of an issue (Cress and

Snow 2000; Snow et al. 1986); claimsmaking may be undertaken for the purpose

 

2 For analytical purposes I wanted to separate actors into five conceptual groups. Because of the
potential overlap among the categories, it was necessary to establish a hierarchical scheme for
the allocation of social actors into groups. The assignment was in the following order:
government, industry, farming, science and civil society.

73

of the enrollment of potential allies (Callon 1986) or for the demobilization of
opponents (Snow and Benford 1988). Discourse related to introducing Bt cotton
is a dynamic process involving actions and interactions of actors who use claims
and claimsmaking activities strategically to influence others. Thus, such a
discourse process will influence public opinion, steering social change in a
particular direction. Often seemingly non-discursive processes and elements,
including regulations and policies, involve discursive processes (Black 2002; Hay
1996).

This chapter uses the concept of frame as an analytical schema to
understand both the problems defined by actors and the strategies used by
actors. As characterized in Goffman (1986), a frame enables actors to
understand an object or an issue around them; frames give different meanings to
an object or an issue and help actors to organize their thoughts about, and
experiences of, these things. Choices of frames often reflect values and norms
of individuals and groups that individuals perceive they belong to (Touraine 2000).
Therefore, people sharing similar social values and norms tend to share frames.
In some cases, actors use frames strategically to maintain interpretive control of
the public views toward an object or an issue. In other cases, actors use frames
strategically to avoid open confrontation with others. In short, frames become
not only the basis for interpreting and defining an object or an issue, but also a
basis for action and interaction in maintaining relationships with others or in
changing views and attitudes of others (Skillington 1997; Zald 1996). Frames

enable actors to arrive at a consensus, but can become a tool for displacing and

74

challenging others (Benford and Snow 2000). Put succinctly, a frame, an
embracing of values, norms, and interests, becomes a template for a range of
views, positions and actions (Gamson and Modigliani 1989). Therefore, a single
technology could be interpreted differently by using either different frames or the
same frame. As discussed in Chapter 2, actors who emphasize the society
frame tend to define the consequences of Bt cotton differently from those who
consider governmental processes more relevant in defining problems. Even if
actors share the same frame, for instance, governmental processes as a prime
frame, they can define problems differently. Some can argue that cotton
productivity is a major problem for India and view the commercial introduction of
genetically engineered crops (GE crops) optimistically basing their arguments on
the existence of elaborate governmental institutions. Others share a pessimistic
view of GE crops on the grounds that governmental institutions are inefficient and

incompetent.

Methods
In Gujarat many texts carry information about agriculture: specialized
science magazines, farm magazines, and daily newspapers in Gujarati and other
Indian languages. However, the English language dailies are the most important
mass media in terms of influence upon significant actors (Jeffrey 2000). It was
therefore decided to examine the major English language Indian newspapers
together with two Gujarati language dailies and the major Gujarati farm

newspaper as the main sources on national (India) and local (Gujarati) discourse

75

concerning 81‘ cotton. l excluded the Gujarati editions of English-language Indian
newspapers because their contents mostly duplicate the English-language
editions that were used.

Articles were collected from the major English language Indian
newspapers in the Lexis-Nexis database by searching for the words Bt cotton,
India, terminator technology,3 and field trials. Articles from the three Gujarati
newspapers were collected by visually searching for the same keywords and
translating the relevant articles into English.4 Articles were identified beginning in
1992 in the English language newspapers and coverage of Bt cotton was found
beginning in 1999 in the Gujarati newspapers.5 The keyword search in the Lexis-
Nexis database found 390 articles between 1992 and 2002 in national English
language Indian newspapers.

In addition, to obtain more information about the dynamics of the
discourse process, in-depth interviews with 15 persons identified in the mass
media coverage as significant actors, and semi-structured interviews with 15

cotton growers in south Gujarat identified by a farmer leader there as collectively

 

3 Terminator technology is a gene protection technology inserted in plants that blocks the
production of fertile seeds. Use of the gene provides seed producers with security against
unauthorized use of new plant varieties. Critics argue that the terminator gene would compel
farmers to purchase seeds from patent holders who own the rights to new crop varieties.

‘ In order to cross-check the accuracy of translation, two persons worked on the articles. One
person translated articles from Gujarati into English, and then a second person translated them
back into Gujarati.

5 No article was found in the Gujarati language newspapers before 1999. As mentioned in the text,
the article in 1999 features the speeches by the Prime Minister of India concerning India's policy
on biotechnology. The content suggests that it is the first time issues related to biotechnology
were reported in the regional language newspapers. Although no records prior to 1998 were
available at the newspaper companies, consultation with the editors confirmed that there had
been no articles in the Gujarati language newspapers prior to 1998.

76

representative of the farmers in the region were used to supplement the
newspaper data. All the newspaper articles and interview transcripts were coded
into categories representing elements of the discourse process - actors, actions
and interactions, events, claims and frames related to the commercial
introduction of Bt cotton. I then identified emergent concepts and categories for
these elements. The concepts and categories which emerged from the analyses
are discussed in detail below. A qualitative software package was used to
facilitate the systematic storage and analysis of the extensive and constantly

changing data and to facilitate the immediate retrieval of data in the form needed.

Findings

Bt Cotton Discourse in the National Arena
The analysis of this coverage reveals that several years before

government approval of commercial distribution of any variety of Bt cotton, the
idea of introducing transgenic seeds had stirred the hearts and minds of actors
close to federal agrifood biotechnology policies. Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2
indicates that the mass media also took interest in the issues surrounding the
commercial introduction of Bt cotton, as seen in the rise in the number of articles
covering this topic. During the five-year period (1998-2002) preceding GEAC’s
approval of the sale of Bt cotton seeds, the English-language Indian newspapers
covered various related episodes such as the many suicides of cotton growers in
Andhra Pradesh, the protests of farmers in Karnataka against the field trials
being conducted by a joint venture firm, the government’s decision to ban the

entry of seeds with terminator genes, and the harvesting of cotton from seeds

77

that had not been approved. The following sections will examine the discourse

trajectories of the various individuals and organizations involved in this debate.

Governance Frame

The five conceptual frames of agrifood biotechnology used in the previous
chapter have been held over to make sense of the data being used in this
chapter. The five frames6 include — (1) governance, (2) society, (3) science and
technology, (4) economy, and (5) ecology.

As shown in Chapter 2, actors who actively participated in the national
discourse and who were geographically and organizationally closer to policy-
making on GMOs were most likely to use the frame of governance to identify the
issues associated with the commercial introduction of Bt cotton; one-third of all
the claims that were made concerned governance, the most commonly used
frame. Actors seemed to have placed less emphasis on the issues in other
frames, such as the development of insect pest resistance to Bt (science), the

possibility of gene flow from transgenic plants to other plants (ecology), and the

 

6 To reiterate the dimensions of these frames, the frame of governance focuses on the regime
that governs the research, development, production and distribution of Bt cotton seeds and Bt
cotton. The frame of society includes moral and ethical concerns related to Bt cotton, as well as
claims about decision-making processes, democratic participation in rule-making, and the
compatibility of agrifood biotechnology with Indian farming. The frame of science and technology
includes such topics as the methods utilized to develop Bt cotton, the scientific description of Bt
genes, and the scientific explanation of Bt cotton’s resistance to bollworms. The frame of
economy relates to claims about the acreage of land planted with Bt cotton, the increase/
decrease of agricultural inputs and yield, and the projected areas where Bt cotton will be planted
in India. The frame of ecology refers to such issues as the long-term impact of Bt cotton on the
biophysical environment.

78

socioeconomic benefits and costs of the use of Bt cotton (economy), all of which
tended to receive more focus in academic journals. As an NGO spokesperson
noted in an interview, antagonists in the national arena make “conscious efforts
to attack against the existing system and the structure which governs the GMOs
in India” because pointing out the shortcomings of the governmental system and
policies is an effective strategy for displacing the arguments of their opponents.
Many of the interviewees of other types, such as actors in industry, also pointed
out that they view issues in the governance frame as important. In promoting
agrifood biotechnology the majority of the government and industry actors who
were interviewed reflected this view by offering elaborate and extensive
explanations of the existing guidelines, the government committees, and the
division of labor among concerned governing bodies.7

Although different types of actors held different views of Bt cotton
governance, policy is the primary frame for evaluating GMOs in the context of
India, as discussed in Chapter 2. It was the dominant frame in terms of the
number of claims and the most contentious. In the national arena, in the early
years of the Bt controversy, many of the reported claims concerned the open field

testing of Bt cotton. One of the major contested issues hinged on the question of

 

7 Actors frequently mentioned a three-tier system (the Institutional Biosafety Committee, the
Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation, and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee),
the assigned roles of which are to review ongoing research and development of agrifood
biotechnology, to monitor experimental facilities, to devise policies for research and development
in rDNA research, to formulate safety guidelines for research, to design the biosafety program for
risk assessment, and to decide whether to approve the commercial distribution of seed for crop
production.

79

who would be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of data generated
through the field testing of Bt cotton. Actors in civil society, who were very much
outside these evaluation processes, were demanding that the system for
evaluating Bt cotton not be external to their spheres of influence. An actor in civil
society argued that,
the system should become more open so that independent organizers
like us can scrutinize the real risks and benefits of GMOs...we have the
right to know what criteria have been used when it is approved. We have
been asking to share the data...[we have been asking] why the data on
gene-flow is not publicly available.

Claims such as these reflect frustrations felt by the actors who were not
given a role in the decision-making processes involving transgenic crops. The
Freedom of Information Act, enacted in January of 2003, could provide a legal
basis on which excluded actors could demand the disclosure of information
which would enable them to participate in the evaluation processes; however, it is
too soon to observe what kinds of impact the Act will have. Consequently, actors
in civil society prefer to engage in activities that would result in quicker changes
of the system such as direct actions and lobbying.

The divisions between proponents and opponents derived from two
sources. First, actors who supported the technology tended to claim that the
existing system and structure governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
in India would address the moral, scientific, economic and ecological concerns
raised by other actors. In contrast, actors who opposed the technology claimed

that the existing system was inadequate to deal with environmental and social

concerns. In other words, whereas the actors in civil society emphasized that the

80

system was loose and required improvement, the advocates in government and
industry were attempting to dismiss the claims that society had to cast a critical
eye on the existing system and structure. While some actors in civil society saw
sloppiness in the system because they perceived conflicts among actors in
government, other civil actors were of the opinion that system and structure of
any kind were generally sloppy, based on their past interaction with actors in
government.

The second element that distinguishes the positions of actors from one
another derives from three fundamentally different ways of thinking about the
ideal agricultural development model. The first model emphasizes government-
Ied agricultural development. Actors in innovating roles, such as those in
biotechnology promotion agencies, seed industries, and those scientists involved
in research on transgenics in the public agricultural system emphasized that
India was one of the first few developing countries to have recognized the
importance of biotechnology as a tool with which to advance the growth of the
agricultural sector. As exemplified in the following passage, they emphasized
India’s uniqueness in having a high-level department that specifically dealt with
biotechnology:

India is the first country in the world to establish an independent

"Department of Biotechnology" under the Ministry of Science and

Technology. . .This has helped in the promotion of biotechnology research

and the establishment of many foci in the country to do research in

modern biotechnology, medicine and rDNA technology. (Tripathi 2002:15)

' The second model emphasizes market-led agricultural development, with

little involvement by a relatively small government. Actors outside the system,

81

whether for or against the introduction of Bt cotton, tended to support this second
model because they felt that the governance suggested by the first model, and
exemplified by the Indian government, was not conducive to the kind of society
that they desired. Actors in civil society who supported Bt cotton expressed
distrust of the public authorities and government bodies. They raised concerns
about the ability of government bodies to fully reap the benefits from a potentially
useful technology, and suggested that India must therefore allow the market to
engage the financial and human resources and scientific expertise in the private
sector. On the other hand, actors in civil society who opposed Bt cotton
supported the second model because they questioned whether government
bodies should be the sole actors with authority over the deliberative procedures
concerning GMOs. Some actors questioned whether government personnel
were capable of examining the environmental and socioeconomic consequences
following from the implementation of GMOs, especially given that many of
environmental and socioeconomic impacts were unknown. They felt that civil
society should have access to the data generated through the field trials so as to
inform their decisions.

The third model emphasizes bottom-up development. Social actors who
supported this model and who opposed the implementation of Bt cotton were
against the modernization of agriculture itself, or had a different vision of how
agriculture needed to be improved. These actors emphasized such elements as
“science and technology based on local resources," “science and technology

which gives independence to farmers," and “innovation of farmers.” “There are

82

no ecologists and sociologists involved in the committee [GEAC]..." a civil society
actor pointed out. These claims embody less materialist and utilitarian thinking,
which runs counter to the agricultural development model that has prevailed in
India since the 19605. It is not a coincidence that these elements echo the
principle of swadeshr‘3 envisaged by Gandhi (1937) more than half a century ago.
These three approaches to agricultural development prevailed in many
other types of claims. For instance, some pointed out that, because financial,
human, and other types of capital were limited in India, the country ought to use
market mechanisms to reap the benefits of cutting-edge technology. These
actors claimed that the Chinese government had swiftly reaped the economic
benefits of Bt cotton by tapping resources from the private sector and becoming
a major player in the global cotton market. Other actors in civil society raised
concerns about opening the door to multinational corporations (MNCs) in the
agricultural sector; historically, India had a policy of national self-sufficiency in
agricultural science and technology. These actors went on to claim that the state
could lose control over the national agricultural research system to the powerful
MNCs, when instead the Indian government should maintain the power to steer
agricultural development in a direction that serves the well-being of the people. If
the research and application of transgenic crops are left to market mechanisms,
the development and realization of the crops that could truly benefit the majority

of Indian society could lag behind. According to these claimants, for instance,

 

8 This is a doctrine that envisages every village of India as self-sufficient, using local resources.

83

rather than introduce a cash crop like Bt cotton, the public research system
should use available resources to research and develop such areas as yield

improvements of legumes.

Actors

In the early years of the controversy, the Department of Biotechnology
(DBT) in the Ministry of Science and Technology was the only visible actor in the
national public fora. Government optimism surrounding Bt technology is reflected
in various comments appearing in the newspapers. Then, from the end of 1998
onward, a variety of actors concerned with research, development, and
implementation of agrifood biotechnology — from both within and outside the
government — brought various competing interpretations of issues associated
with Bt cotton into the national public fora. These new voices included people
representing various parts of the government, scientists working within the
national agricultural research system, industry and NGOs, cotton growers, and
spokesperson of NGOs. Speaking for the government, for example, officials from
the DBT were joined by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of
Textiles, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. At the same time, the
representatives of environmental and food policy-related NGOs, as well as
spokespersons of various farmers’ unions, made visible declarations related to Bt
cotton. Scientists making claims about Bt cotton included plant breeders and

geneticists, as well as persons trained in physics or engineering.

84

Fragmentation of Government Voices

The emergence of a range of actors in the discourse and resulting
continual change in the discourse on GE crops made it increasingly difficult for
the national actors to follow who said what and in what context, and for actors to
be consistent and coherent with claims and claimsmaking activities of their allies.
In addition, the discourse of individuals representing various branches of the
same organization revealed that perceived monolithic groups such as the
government actually consist of numerous sub-groups with a diversity of values
and norms.

Particularly for actors in government who had taken the role of innovator
of agrifood biotechnology more so than industries, effective claimsmaking
activities became increasingly difficult due to the increasing complexity of the
discourse. As demonstrated by many instances in which both the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and DBT jointly worked on various agrifood
biotechnology related projects, ranging from constructing safety testing facilities
for large scale transgenic seed production to participation in the International
Rice Genome Sequence Project (IRGSP), the ICAR and DBT have typically been
viewed as allies in promoting the application of science to agriculture:

Another important contribution that GM can make is enhancing the
nutritional value of crops and India is soon going to try the development
of Vitamin-A rich rice. DBT along with the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR) is negotiating with the Swiss-German scientists and
their governments for transfer of this technology. Dr. Manju Shanna said.
‘We plan to introduce the golden rice as the vitamin-A injected rice is
called technology into common Indian rice varieties and not Basmati. We
hope, in another 5-6 years, seeds of popular Indian cultivars capable of

producing beta-carotene would be made available to the farmers,’ she
added. (Business Line, March 30, 2001)

85

In some cases, ICAR and DBP were criticized for being allies in promoting
agrifood biotechnology for multinational corporations.

It has now become apparent that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
and Indian Council of Agricultural Research were in league with the
multinationals in pushing in a faulty technology into the country, Shanna
alleged. (Business Line, June 5, 2000)

However, the following comment made by the Director of ICAR demonstrates
that ICAR would excise caution in considering the adoption of transgenic crops:

At the recent Science Congress, the ICAR Director General, Dr. R. S.
Paroda, cautioned that the country could play into the hands of the
developed countries, unless it has a strong intellectual property rights
regime. (Business Line, January 29 1999)

Subsequently, a newspaper article covered a story about how ICAR and DBT
became adversaries in the Bt cotton controversy, revealing fragmentation of
government voices:

The quarantine department of the Ministry of Agriculture, alerted by the
Indian Council of Agriculture Research, has already banned the
Terminator gene in foreign seeds. However, it is the DBT and not the
ICAR which has been made the nodal department for dealing with field
trials. Given the compartmental administration and the recent history of
turf war between the ICAR and the DBT, the public may not hope for an
easy resolution of inter-ministerial wrangles which, in this case, could be
fraught with dangerous consequences. Could one hope for a response,
even at this late stage, from the DBT clarifying its position in regard to
the ongoing controversy? (The Hindu, February 28, 1999)

Government officials representing different parts of the government began to
voice their thoughts on issues related to Bt cotton.
Bt cotton could not be the panacea for total pest control in cotton, but
definitely could be one of the effective integrated pest management tools
in minimising pesticide use in cotton eco-system, according to scientists

at the Central Institute for Cotton Research. (The Economic Times, June
6,2000)

86

The eight-day study in 11 villages undertaken by Abdul Qayoom, former
Joint Director in the Andhra Pradesh Government's agriculture
department, and Sakkhari Kiran, an agriculture scientist, estimated that
the farmers growing Bt cotton would earn 40 per cent less than non-Bt
farmers. It found that the pesticide sprays have not come down and
safety protocols have been ignored. ‘In view of these findings, we
wonder if Bt cotton is worth it at all, given the environmental and
ecological costs’, P. V. Satheesh, convener of the Coalition, said,
demanding action against the multinational company for its ‘reckless
promises and absolute lack of concern for safety aspects of Bt farming.’
The study observed the performance of Bt cotton and documented the
experiences of the farmers. The Bt yields appeared to be less than that
by hybrids currently grown by farmers, the study showed. Current yields
from both Bt and non-Bt have recorded 4-5 quintals per acre, which
meant no difference between them. In fact, as non-Bt has a life of 2-3
months more than Bt, it is expected to yield another 3-4 quintals or 30
per cent more. (The Hindu, December 8, 2002)

Hearing of several different approaches to GMOs, it would be understandable if
the public came to doubt the optimistic outlook expressed by an official of the
DBT when the technology was publicly introduced for the first time. The entrance
into the discursive process of diverse actors and their equally diverse
interpretations and positions suggest that government voices have fragmented,
leaving space for other actors to offer their interpretations of an issue and to

displace the government’s influences in discourse.

The Emergence of Local Actors in the National Discourse

Recent (2001-2002) discourse in the national arena has been
characterized by the emergence of new claims advocated by actors closely
associated with the state of Gujarat. In the early years of the Bt cotton
controversy in India, national actors did not associate issues of Bt cotton with the

state of Gujarat, nor Gujarati farmers. Neither news reports in English-language

87

Indian newspapers from those years nor informants interviewed in New Delhi in
2000 grounded Bt cotton controversies in the context of Gujarati farmers. Rather,
actors associated issues with three other places - New Delhi, where most of the
policy-making concerning Bt cotton was taking place, the state of Andhra
Pradesh, where many suicides of cotton growers had occurred, and the state of
Karnataka, where farmers had damaged private property to demonstrate their
opposition to the commercial introduction of Bt cotton.

It was only towards the end of 2001 that the coverage in the national
newspapers began to associate Bt cotton with the state of Gujarat, when large-
scale cultivation of an unapproved variety of Bt cotton occurred. Various types of
actors in Gujarat became visible in the national discourse. For instance, the
headline of the Economic Times (October 13, 2001) began, “Gujarat government
in the dark on Bt cotton issue;” the accompanying article reported claims by two
officials from the Gujarat state government. Similarly, other types of actors -
people representing the Gujarat State Seeds Producers' Association,
representatives of the Gujarat Pesticides Forrnulators' Association, scientists in
the state agricultural universities, and farmer leaders of Gujarat, inter alia - have
all surfaced in the English- language mass media.

The emergence of new actors from Gujarat has been accompanied by a
range of new issues. One of the significant issues that has emerged as a
problem in recent discourse relates to concerns over what will actually happen on
the ground once various genetically engineered crops — not only Bt cotton but

also food crops - enter the Indian market commercially. The discourse is

88

frequently framed in terms of who would, and who should, be accountable for any
social, ecological and/or ethical consequences of the implementation of Bt cotton.
The question of accountability has been raised in various contexts: who would be
accountable if negative environmental effects occurred (Financial Express,
October 25, 2001)?; who should be accountable for the compensation of farmers
if and when the government uproots standing crops of unapproved GMO
varieties (Financial Express, October 25, 2001)?; and who should be held
accountable for the mass cultivation of unapproved GMO varieties (Hindu
Business Line, October 20, 2001; Economic Times, October 29, 2001; Business
India, November 23, 2001)? These and other concerns related to the
implementation of GMOs have led actors in civil society to convincingly argue
their positions by criticizing public policies related to GM crops, the functioning of
government institutions, and the capabilities of government officials involved in
decision-making involving Bt cotton:
From our point of view, we feel that India is [not] yet ready to adopt
GMOs. We have no clear policy, and no particular legislation.
Everything is carried out in the ad hoc basis. You know that GEAC is
headed by the IAS [Indian Administrative Services] officer, who does not
know about science. He will not know how to address contradicting
claims and so forth. Mahyco has pointed out that Bt has 30% higher
yield than the conventional hybrid but who can address and validate
these claims. (Interview with a civil society actor)
Although the problems related to an unauthorized variety of Bt cotton arose from
a combination of factors that existed outside governmental processes, the central
government has been subjected to numerous criticisms ranging from its inability

to devise a plan for monitoring compliance with biosafety regulations to the

inability of government on all levels to undertake damage control following the

89

controversy which erupted over the wide-spread use of unapproved GMO
varieties. Much of the criticism appeared in local newspapers, as set forth in the

following section.

Bt Cotton Discourse in the Local Arena

A keyword search of the Gujarati language newspapers found 77 articles
between 1999 and 2002. The issues surrounding Bt cotton became more visible
in the local public fora beginning late in 2001; 96 percent of the articles over the
four years were concentrated in 2001 and 2002. Not only the frequency of
claims, but also the content and emphasis of discourse have changed since 2001,
when the issues of Bt cotton began to enter into the local discourse of Gujarat. I
will first show the frequency of claims and describe the content of the local
discourse. Finally, I will examine issues raised by farmers in connection to the

economy frame.

Frames

Table 3-1 shows the quarterly number of claims by frames appearing in
the three Gujarati newspapers between 1998 and 2002. As shown, local
discourse emphasized three frames — governance, society and economy. Issues
in the frame of governance include the state government’s refusal to support the
central government’s decision to uproot standing crops of Nb151, unauthorized
Bt cotton, and politics within the membership of GEAC. Issues within the frame

of society include Gujarati farmers’ disappointment with the central government’s

90

decision to approve only the variety connected with Monsanto and not that of a
local seed company, and the social injustice and inequity leading to the suicides
of cotton growers. Issues in the frame of economy include how the yield of
Nb151 has been far better than Bollgard, and how Bt cotton offered greater
production volume and benefits than conventional varieties. The two frames of
ecology and of science and technology arose relatively less frequently. Issues in
the frame of ecology were mostly related to the use of GM seeds in connection
with soil fertility.9 Issues related to scientific and technological aspects of Bt

cotton have constituted only a small fraction of the Gujarati discourse.

Table 3-1. Number of Claims by Frames in Gujarati Newspapers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarter Governance Society S & T Economy Ecology
1st1999 1 0 1 0 0
1st2000 0 2 0 0 0
4th 28 20 2 7 4
1st2002 12 15 0 10 3
2"d 5 5 o 2 0
3rd 0 0 0 0 0
4th 5 3 1 1 0
Total (n) 51 45 4 20 7

 

Table 3-2 compares the proportion of claims by frames between English-

Ianguage Indian newspapers and Gujarati newspapers. The claims appearing in

 

9 Although social actors did not relate the use of GM seeds to soil fertility in the national discourse,
the impact on the soil from the use of GM seeds was the most salient issue raised in the local
discourse. The view most commonly shared among cotton growers is that the continuous use of
GM seeds on the same plot will diminish the levels of nutrients in the soil thus resulting in harder
and dryer land. Although the growers express this view, no growers report that they have actually
experienced such phenomena yet.

91

the English-language newspapers and the Gujarati newspapers reveal a similar
pattern — governance was the most frequent followed by society; economy was
mentioned roughly 15 percent of the time in both the national and Gujarat

newspapers.

Table 3-2. Comparison of Proportion of Claims by Frames

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governance Society 8 8 T Economy Ecology N
National 32.6% 23.5% 18.8% 14.5% 10.6% 800
Gujarat 40.2% 35.4% 3.1% 15.7% 5.5% 127

 

Content of the Local Discourse

The mass media's association of Bt cotton with the state of Gujarat
resulted from a coincidence of several rather unlikely circumstances. A variety
called Navbharat 151 (Nb151) had been marketed in the state of Gujarat since
1998. Initially the seeds were marketed as a new hybrid variety which was later
found to contain Cry1Ac,10 a microbial gene construct for which Monsanto
controlled the usage rights. Not many growers or other actors in the downstream
segments of the cotton commodity chain had noticed the nature of Nb151 until
2001, when climatic conditions caused a massive bollworm eruption all across

Gujarat. In interviews in Bhadharpur,11 the majority of the farmers said that they

 

1° Cry1Ac is a particular form of the Bt gene.
1‘ A pseudonym is used here to maintain the anonymity of the village where fieldwork was
conducted.

92

had never experienced such heavy bollworm attacks in their lifetimes. Despite
the efforts to control the pests by the frequent spraying of pesticides, those who
did not plant Nb151 in 2001 were unable to control what was happening. Some
farmers spent Rs.4,000 to 5,600 (approximately US $90 to US $125) per acre on
synthetic insecticides, a sum three to four times greater than what they spent
during normal seasons, and yet they reported that pests had not been controlled.
Other farmers simply stopped spraying and uprooted the plants in the middle of
the season, since keeping the plants did not make any economic sense and the
plants would provide habitat for future generations of the pests.

After such a bad experience, a farmer who owned fifty acres of land (a
large farm in the context of south Gujarat) and who had twenty years of
experience in growing cotton decided not to continue cotton cultivation. The
cultivation of cotton on 80 acres of land (50 acres of his own and 30 acres of
rented land) in 2001 brought him a financial loss of Rs.800,000 (approximately
US. $18,000). His loss was so tremendous that he remains convinced that
discontinuing cotton cultivation was the right decision. In the village, virtually all
of the hybrid cotton, except Nb151, was wiped out. At that time, no one,
including the growers themselves, was fully aware of what Nb151 was and how
and why Nb151 had survived the heavy pest attacks; but the stark contrast
between the productivity of Nb151 and that of other hybrid varieties revealed that
Nb151 had similar traits to Bollgard, the Bt variety developed by Mahyco-

Monsanto. It was only a matter of time until both fellow farmers in the vicinity and

93

other actors such as seed dealers, pesticide dealers and extension agents
learned about the seeds that produced the “miracle.”

The central government stepped in following a complaint by Mahyco and
ordered the surviving plants to be destroyed after it had been proven that Nb151
had the Cry1Ac gene.12 Strong objections to the central government’s directive
were raised by various actors involved in the cotton commodity chain of Gujarat,
such as cotton growers,13 a farmer leader,14 a cotton cooperative,15 the Union
Textiles Minister from the central government,16 and the Chief Minister of
Gujarat,17 all of whom claimed that the order was impractical and unethical.
Parallel to these claims, the Gujarat state government indicated that the
destruction of the plants should take place only after farmers were compensated
(Business Standard, October 24, 2001), which essentially meant that no
interventions would be made before the lint from Nb151 would get to the
market.18 Farmers continued to pick cotton and to sell it to the cotton traders and
cooperatives. The extent of the area where Nb151 was planted within the state

of Gujarat is said to have involved between 60 and 80 percent of the hybrid

 

‘2 Deccan Herald, October 12, 2002; Economic Times, October 12, 2001; Gujarat Samachar,

October 25, 2001; Times of India, October 9, 2001.

‘3 Asian Age, October 23, 2001; Western Times, October 25, 2001.

“ Economic Times, October 25, 2001; Gujarat Samachar, November 13, 2001; Times of India,
October 25, 2001.

'5 Business Standard, October 24, 2001.

'6 Asian Age, October 26, 2001; Gujarat Samachar, October 27, 2001.

'7 Sandesh, October 27, 2001.

‘8 The cotton season in south Gujarat begins around May and June and farmers begin to pick
cotton and sell it from October onwards until January and February of the subsequent year.
Nb151 is said to be an early variety, which means that farmers pick it and sell it earlier than
they do other hybrid varieties.

94

cotton growing area, and the number of farmers who used Bt cotton seeds was
somewhere around 13,000; however, there are no official figures available
concerning the extent to which Nb151 was used. In Bhadharpur, some farmers
had been using Nb151 for the past four seasons, whereas others only began
using it during the 2002 season. Babubhai Patel19 - a large farmer in
Bhadharpur who is an economically, socially, and politically influential person in
the village — indicated that more than 80 percent of the cotton growers in the
village had used various generations of Nb151. Despite the central government’s
directive, none of the standing plants were destroyed in Bhadharpur. According
to the farmers in the region, the state government did not even come to any of
the villages in their vicinity to implement the directive of the central government.
Parallel to the reports in the national English-language Indian newspapers,
Gujarati newspapers began to report on Bt cotton in October 2001, when
controversies erupted in Gujarat. Various types of actors in national fora began
to appear in the local discourse. Social actors whose claims were previously
mentioned only in the English-language newspapers, such as the chairman of
GEAC (Sahakar Saurabh, April 2, 2002) and the Union Minister of Textiles
(Sandesh, October 27, 2002), began to appear in the local newspapers.
Because Gujarati language newspapers began to cover the issues of Bt cotton, a
wider group of actors in Gujarat came to learn about national actors who were

involved in controversies but who were previously known only to English-

 

‘9 A pseudonym.

95

language newspaper readers. At the same time, cotton growers emerged in the
discourse stating their support of Bt cotton (Gujarat Samachar, November 28,

2001; Sahakar Saurabh, November 19, 2002).

Maintaining Interpretive Control

The discourse in the local arena is characterized by claims concerning the
central government’s directive to uproot the standing crops of Nb151 and by
claims deriving from the use, misuse and abuse of Nb151. Parallel to these
claims were those that growers made concerning yield improvement, a decrease
in the use of synthetic insecticides, and an increase in profits. Based on their
positive experiences with Nb151 and newspaper articles reporting the positive
experiences of other cotton growers, farmers became determined that they would
obtain seeds. Not surprisingly, growers attempted to make their voices heard
through various means so as to achieve their goals of central government
approval of Nb151 and of obtaining support of their efforts from other actors.
Cotton growers who were interviewed in Bhadharpur very happily shared their
“success” stories of the current cotton season - “success” was often defined as
economic profits. A farmer leader in a position to carry out a public relations
campaign was most willingly invited by news reporters and researchers for
interviews. According to these stories, both Hindu and Muslim farmers, as well

as small, medium, and large farmers,20 all had positive experiences with Bt

 

96

cotton, and the majority of them said they would plant it again next season.
These types of claims appeared in both English-language Indian newspapers
and Gujarati newspapers. Except for a few claims made by vocal farmer leaders
and their supporters in opposition to the field trials of multinational corporations
(The Hindu, November 29, 1998; Business Line, January 11, 1998), there were
virtually no claims by cotton growers reported in the newspapers between 1998
and 2000. However, more articles about cotton growers have appeared since
those years, with most of these reporting that farmers have had positive
economic experiences with Bt cotton (Gujarat Samachar, October 16, 2001; The
Hindu Business Line, October 21, 2001; The Indian Express, October, 21 2001;
Sandesh, November 1, 2001; Gujarat Samachar, November 30, 2001; Deccan
Herald, October 22, 2002).

By combining and synthesizing these issues raised in the Gujarati
newspapers, one can see the underlying story line in Gujarati discourse of how
farmers have been pushed to the unjust situation where they are denied legal
access to the very seeds that have enabled them to profit economically, and all
this despite the apparent absence of negative consequences for the biophysical
environment. Gujarati farmers have succeeded in obtaining consent across a

range of actors in the local arena by dominating the media coverage of Bt cotton,

 

2° According to India’s census of agriculture, farmers are categorized into four groups: small and
marginal (below 5 acres); semi-medium (5-10 acres); medium (10-25 acres); and large (above 25
acres). For the purpose of examining the variations of discourse among different land-holding
groups, I made use of three categories: small (below 5 acres); medium (5 to 25 acres); and large
(above 25 acres). Farmers who were either landless or laborers were excluded from the analysis,
because two pretests conducted in west Gujarat and south Gujarat suggested that they have less
say than the other groups in determining which kinds of seeds are used and are less aware of Bt
cotton.

97

steering and manipulating the local public opinion of the Nb151 controversy. A
person occupying a high-ranking policy-making position in the state government
at the height of the Nb151 controversy pointed out to me that, “If Bt cotton is
harmful, block the production of Bt cotton itself. Why do we punish farmers by
uprooting the standing crops of Nb151?” He was most proud of the fact that he
did not give in to pressure from the central government and that his decision has
protected cotton growers in Gujarat; many other local actors echoed his
comments.

Contrary to the arguments made by Herman and Chomsky (2002), who
suggest that mass media, government and businesses depend on each other in
their activities for their own survival so that it is rare for harsh criticism about the
government and big corporations who sponsor mass media to appear in the
newspapers, in the Indian context farmers seemed to attract mass media
attention. Sympathies were always with the farmers and harsh criticisms was
generally directed toward the government. Thus, cotton growers were relatively
better off than other actors in the controversy for having been able to utilize

opportunities offered by news reporters.

Economy Frame

Economic issues have begun to hegemonize the Indian discourse,
particularly since 2002. In the national newspapers, for instance, 43 percent of
all claims in 2002 were framed as pertaining to economic issues while the ratio in

other years ranged from nine to 19 percent. Similarly, 65 percent of the total

98

economy claims appeared in 2002 in the Gujarati newspapers. These numbers
show that it is not only in Gujarati newspapers but also in national newspapers
that economic issues became prominent over time. This is not only because
news reporters took an interest in reporting the claims of farmers, but also
because farmers themselves began to be proactive in keeping their issues in
both national and local public fora. The activities of the farmers’ association
based in southern Gujarat constitute just one example of how farmers enhanced
their presence and maintained their issues in local and national discourse. Ever
since the Bt cotton controversy in the state of Gujarat erupted, this group has
been making deliberate efforts to voice its claims. To this end, group members
have organized various types of activities such as farm visits, seminars, and
consultations with policy-makers. Information about these activities is generally
sent to the newspaper companies via fax and telephone calls.

In coordination with such efforts by farmers in Gujarat, an article by the
leader of the national network of farmers appeared in newspapers, showing
support for Gujarati farmers’ demands for the approval of Nb151:

Most of them sowed at least five months before the KCC [Kisan
Coordination Committee] offered its protection to the Bt varieties frowned
upon by the GEAC and the Union Government. The print and the
electronic media maintained a strict and deafening silence about the
marvellous results of the impugned seed. This latter is not available in
the normal agro service centres and seed shops. Somehow, the word
went round that it was good and the largely illiterate tribals managed to
get the seed from a virtually underground circuit. (Business Line,
December 4, 2002)

When a seminar on the performance of varieties of Bt cotton was held in

southern Gujarat, the group sponsored several news reporters from New Delhi,

99

as well as news reporters from Gujarati newspapers, to attend the seminar.
Aftenrvards, these newspapers published several articles on the proceedings,
generally showing sympathy to the plight of cotton growers. Moreover, the
articles reported the excellent performance of Nb151 in comparison to varieties
supplied by Mahyco-Monsanto, without reproaching Navbharat Seeds for selling
unauthorized seeds:
Reports have already come in citing some success stories of Bt cotton
cultivation at some places. There are reports of cases where Bt cotton
has not fared well in terms of the expected yield and returns to the
farmers due to high cost of seeds and more application of fertilisers and
water. Some reports say that the seeds 'illegally' distributed by Navbharat
have given more promising results in terms of yield and more returns
than the legally approved seeds of Mahyco. (Financial Express,
December 8, 2002)

Both farmers whose views appeared in the newspapers and those whom I
interviewed emphasized issues in the frame of economy first and foremost — less
expense for pesticides, less expense for labor costs for applying pesticides, more
yield with Bt cotton, and lower prices for purchasing Nb151 in comparison to
Bollgard — in describing how they interpreted the commercialization of Bt cotton.
Farmers, and farmer leaders in particular, muted the moral aspects of the use of
an unapproved variety. They attempted to black-box (Latour 1987) the ethical
issues involved in the marketing of Nb151 and made conscious efforts to gain the
support and sympathy of other actors by emphasizing how Bt cotton had
contributed to agronomy. While actors in government and in civil society whose
voices appeared in the national newspaper saw the moral aspects involved in

Nb151 as a major issue, farmers claimed that the distinctions between the legal

and illegal varieties were relatively minor. Some argued that there was no such

100

thing as illegal seeds and felt that they were completely free to choose the seeds
that they wanted to use. They argued that the two varieties did not differ in their
environmental impacts and that because the government had already given
approval to the Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton, the biosafety aspects of Nb151 had
already been tested. They even argued that by giving approval only to Mahyco-
Monsanto, the government was fostering a monopoly and thus putting the
growers who buy the seeds at an economic disadvantage.

Claims concerning issues in the economy frame are much more
empirically credible and salient (Benford and Snow 2000) than claims in other
frames such as governance (e.g., evaluative procedures governing Bt cotton,
democratic representativeness of the evaluating committee), or ecology (e.g.,
gene-flow, pollen drift). Claims made by cotton growers tended to resonate with
the real life situations of farmers and farming in the society, while claims such as
gene-flow and pollen drift, or claims about procedures, were salient only to a
much smaller segment of Indian society, such as those with specialized
knowledge and who hold professional, academic, or technical positions.

A large farmer who owns 80 acres of land in Bhadharpur said that he does
not understand why people in Delhi were cautious in introducing Bt cotton:

People in government point out that Bt cotton is potentially harmful to the
environment. Most of the farmers in the village have used pesticides so
much during past decade or two that all the earthworms are gone from
our soil. So why all of a sudden does the government wake up and
make a big deal about environment? I used Bt F1 this season and l
sprayed less. Doesn’t it mean that it is better for environment?

He not only discussed the issues in the economy frame, but also dismissed the

government’s claims in the ecology frame. These types of claims made by an

101

economically and socially prominent farmer of the village would appeal to his
neighbors and would likely be heard by farmers in other districts because these
types of farmers tended to be well-connected beyond their villages. Moreover,
these claims would have a broader appeal to people in general. In the rural
Indian context, the most valued and influential information that people use is that
coming from other farmers (Glendinning et al. 2001; Malhotra et al. 1983). When
people viewed as progressive farmers make these types of claims, it is more
likely that farmers within the same village and vicinity will accept their claims and
adopt their ideas and agricultural practices. It is also true that actors in general,
and not merely cotton growers, can probably relate themselves to the claims
made by cotton growers because they can supply their own anecdotal "evidence"
(Benford and Snow 2000: 619). As a result, such actors will harbor greater
sympathy for the growers. In India, where more than 70 per cent of the
population is in some way engaged in agriculture, the influence generated by

these types of claims is tremendous.

Conclusions
The complexity of agrifood biotechnology discourse has prevented
government actors from being consistent and coherent in their claims and
claimsmaking activities, thus forcing government actors to lose interpretive
control of issues raised in the debates. Government officials were subjected to
criticism and were questioned about the credibility of governmental organizations

involved in the evaluation of GMOs. The same complexity allowed farmers to

102

voice their views and demands. They have rarely been subjected to criticism for
not abiding by biosafety regulations nor have they been held responsible for the
Nb151 controversy. Instead, they received greater sympathy and support,
particularly from a range of actors in the local arena.

Further, the study suggests that the governance frame was initially the
most significant frame used by actors in India in evaluating the commercial
application of Bt cotton, both nationally and regionally. In particular, actors were
aware of how the system and the structure laid out by the government for testing
transgenics would determine the ways in which the new technology would be
implemented. In other words, actors scrutinized the strengths and limitations of
existing public policies governing transgenic seeds. However, when farmers
entered into the discourse, the economic frame gained momentum both
nationally and locally. Indeed, the example of Gujarat indicates that in the
upstream portion of the cotton commodity chain, economic issues not only
gained currency, but hegemonized the discourse by displacing issues in the
governance, society, and ecology frames. The analysis presented in this chapter
demonstrates the existence of multiple discourses in the Bt cotton controversies
— national and local, government and farmers, pre- and post Nb151. This is
evidence that the evaluation of a new agricultural technology involves both a
material conflict over how food and fiber will be produced, and a symbolic contest
over which understanding of reality will prevail. My analysis also demonstrates
how, at the same time, the prevailing understanding is constantly revised to

accommodate new interpretations and new events.

103

 

References

Bagchi, Kathakali S. 1991. "Drought-prone Western India: Gujarat." In Drought-
prone India: Problems and Perspectives, edited by K.S. Bagchi. New
Delhi: Agricole Publishing Academy.

Banrvale, Raju. 2002. "Transgenic Cotton: A Case Study." In Transgenic Crops
and Biosafety Concems, edited by G.J. Randhawa, R.K. Khetarpal, R.K.
Tyagi, and BS. Dhillon. New Delhi: National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Resources.

Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology
26: 611-639.

Black, Jilia. 2002. "Regulatory Conversations." Journal of Law and Society 29:
163-96.

Buttel, Frederick H., and Randolph Barker. 1985. "Emerging Agricultural
Technologies, Public Policy, and Implications for Third World Agriculture:
The Case of Biotechnology." American Joumal of Agricultural Economics
December: 1170-1175.

Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieux Bay." In
Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by J.
Law. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Cress, Daniel M., and David A. Snow. 2000. ”The Outcomes of Homeless
Mobilization: The Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation,
and F raming.“ American Journal of Sociology 105: 1063-1104.

DaSiIva, E. J., Ratledge, C. and Sasson A. (Eds.). 1992. Biotechnology:
Economic and Social Aspects Issues for Developing Countries. NY:
Cambridge University Press.

De Greef, Willy. 2001. "Agricultural Biotechnology and Moral Imperatives." Vitro
Plant 36 (5): 309-311.

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. NY: Pantheon.

Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. NY: Cambridge University Press.

104

Gamson, W.A., D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson. 1992. "Media Images
and the Social Construction of Reality." Annual Review of Sociology 18:
373-393.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public
Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." American
Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.

Gandhi, MK. 1937. "Harijan." In Panchayat Raj, edited by R.K. Prabhu.
Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.

Ghosh, PK. 2000. "Indian Experiment on Bt Cotton." Agro India: 28-30.

Glendinning, A., A. Mahapatra, and GP. Mitchell. 2001. "Modes of
Communication and Effectiveness of Agroforestry Extension in Eastern
India." Human Ecology 29: 283-305.

Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

GOI. 2002. "Recombinant DNA Safety Guidelines 1990." New Delhi: Department
of Biotechnology, Union Ministry of Science and Technology.

Grove, Richard. 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island
Edens, and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860. NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Gupta, Akhil. 2000. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of
Modern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hay, Colin. 1996. "The Discursive Construction of the Winter of Discontent'."
Sociology 30: 253-277.

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The
Political Economy of the Mass Media. NY: Pantheon Books.

Jeffrey, Robin. 2000. India 's Newspaper Revolution: Capitalism, Politics and The
Indian-language Press 1977-1999. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Malhotra, S.P., D.K. Saha, and G.V.S.R. Krishna. 1983. "Factors Influencing

Information Sources: A Study of Causal Relationship." Annals of Arid
Zone 22: 313-317.

105

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1992. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Patel, U.G. 1994. "Research Highlights: Cotton." Surat: Gujarat Agricultural
University, Main Cotton Research Station.

Qaim, Matin. 1998. "Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential
Socioeconomic Implications of North-South Biotechnology Transfer."
ISAAA Briefs No. 7. NY: ISAAA.

Rajaram, N. 1999. "Politics and Cotton Co-operatives in Central Gujarat."
Economic and Political Weekly 34: 2095-2103.

Sahai, Suman. 2002. "The Bt Cotton Case." Mainstream: 15-17.

Shah, AM. 1982. "Division and Hierarchy: An Overview of Caste in Gujarat."
Contribution to Indian Sociology 16: 1-33.

Shiva, Vandana. 2002. "Biotechnology and Biosafety: Bioterrorism Makes
Regulation of Genetic Engineering a Security Imperative." Resurgence
211: 42-3.

Shiva, Vandana, Ashok Emani, and Afsar H. Jafri. 1999. "Globalisation and the
Threat to Seed Security: Case of Transgenic Cotton Trials in India."
Economic and Political Weekly 34: 601—613.

Skillington, Tracy. 1997. "Politics and the Struggle to Define: A Discourse
Analysis of the Framing Strategies of Competing Actors in a 'New’
Participatory Forum." British Joumal of Sociology 48: 493-513.

Snow, David A, and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and
Participant Mobilization." In From Structure to Action: Social Movement
Participation Across Culture, edited by B. Klandermas, et al. Greenwich:
JAI.

Snow, David A., Burke E. Jr. Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D.
Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and
Movement Participation." American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.

Subramaniam, V.R., and AV. Dhake. 2000. "IPM in Cotton." Agro India: 13

Thompson, Paul B. 1997. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. London:
Blackie Academic & Professional.

Touraine, Alain. 2000. "A Method for Studying Social Actors." Journal of Worid-
Systems Research VI: 900-918.

106

Tripathi, K.K. 2002. "Bio-technology: Government of India Initiatives." SAKET
Industrial Digest: 13-21

von Glasersfeld, E. 1991. "Knowing without Metaphysics." In Research and
Reflexivity, edited by F. Steier. Newbury Park: Sage.

Woodhouse, Edward J. 1992. "Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk."
Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6.

Yamaguchi, Tomiko, and Craig K. Harris. 2004. "The Economic Hegemonization
of Bt Cotton Discourse in India." Discourse and Society 15(4): 467-491.

Zald, Mayer N. 1996. "Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing." In Comparative
Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing
Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy,
and M. N. Zald. NY: Cambridge University Press.

107

CHAPTER 4
THE BT COTTON CONTROVERSY: INTERGROUP RELATIONS

Introduction

Background

The controversies over Bt cotton constitute what Gieryn (1999) refers to
as “boundary work," which involves the competition for credibility and
trustworthiness among claimsmakers with opposing points of view. As shown in
preceding chapters, discourse about Bt cotton involved an extensive drawing of
boundaries by actors including the government, industries, NGOs, scientists and
farmers. The issues raised ranged from governmental processes to moral and
ethical implications, from environmental consequences to global competition and
agricultural development. Throughout much of these discussions, the ideals of
farmers and farming were frequently used to create or maintain boundaries, and
possible anchor points, for Indian actors in the contest over agriculture and
development. This chapter will focus on this anchoring strategy to shed some
light on the social dynamics that led India to take a precautionary approach1 to

genetically modified organisms, while fragmentation of identities at the local level

 

' The phrase is generally used to characterize a type of biosafety policy. However, in this paper it
is used in more general terms referring to India’s overall approach to agrifood biotechnology
including biosafety policy toward genetically modified organisms and as intellectual property
rights policy. Paarlberg’s (2000: 22) characterization of Indian biotechnology policies suggests
that apart from public research investment policy pertaining to genetically modified organisms,
biotechnology policies across a range of policy domains in India are either precautionary or
preventive. Other authors also conclude that India's agrifood biotechnology policies, particularly
biosafety policies, are precautionary for various reasons including regulations which cover a
broad spectrum of activities and India’s risk assessments involving evaluation of socioeconomic
factors (e.g., Gupta 2000; Scoones 2002).

108

 

has led to non-compliance with such a governmental approach. The thesis here
is that the Bt cotton controversies reflect national actors’ attempts to appeal to a
shared social identity at a time when farmers are experiencing the fragmentation
of their own social identity. The chapter argues that actors in New Delhi, whose
voices are frequently heard outside India, attempt to create and recreate a sense
of unity as a nation by anchoring their claims and claimsmaking activities in the
notion of farmers. At the same time, cotton growers in Gujarat are struggling to
reformulate their social identities, and may be decoupling from their social groups
(Indian and their village) after having had their identity fragmented by three
decades of a market economy.

A burgeoning number of studies have dealt with genetically modified crops
(GM crops) in Indian society, including issues of social concern (Rhoe et al.;
Sahai 2003a; Wakeford and Pimbert 2003), economics (Jenkins 2003; Qaim and
Zimmerman 2003; Qayam and Sakkhari 2003; Sahai 2003a), and political
motives (Newell 2002; Scoones 2003). While these studies have contributed to
an understanding of the conditions surrounding GM crops in India and arguments
that decisions about the future of agrifood biotechnology cannot be based upon
scientific knowledge alone, the studies tend to emphasize the objective
conditions related to GM crops. These studies rarely attribute tensions over
introducing Bt cotton to actions and reactions of individuals who view existing or
putative social conditions as problematic. In understanding Bt cotton in India,
however, we need to explore the subjective engagement of individuals and

groups, because many of the social, economic, political and ecological conditions

109

discussed in other studies are putative or have yet to become firmly
institutionalized, allowing actors to alter conditions. In addition, analysis
presented in the foregoing chapters suggests that the claims and deeds of actors
have driven much of what happened with the adoption of Bt cotton. This paper
analyzes corpora related to Bt cotton in India, with the assumption that
interactions among actors play a significant role in shaping problems related to
agrifood biotechnology and hence the governance of GM crops through
regulations and institutional arrangements. The argument here is based on the
premise that the communicative behavior of actors creates a particular
interpretation of Bt cotton, which in turn imposes a particular boundary which

works to define what is appropriate governance for GM crops in India.

The Notion of Farmers

The notion of farmers, referring to a cluster of concepts related to farmers
and farming, has been a recurring theme in the agrifood biotechnology debate in
India, as shown in preceding chapters. The basis for the importance of the
notion lies in India’s economic and political conditions. With approximately 60 to
70 percent of one billion Indians making a living from agriculture, contributing 30
percent of the gross national product (GNP) at present and having the second
largest arable and permanent cropland in the world - following only the US. —
India’s economic life revolves around farming (CIA 2003; ILO 2003; Rao 2000).
Despite the sector’s decline in contributions to India’s GNP relative to other

sectors such as modern industries and services, particularly since the adoption of

110

economic liberalization policies in 1991, agriculture still plays a significant role in
India’s economy. This in turn translates to a degree of political influence of
farmers over local, regional and national politics. Further, India's democratic
political system, which assures civil and political liberties of its nationals, will help
farmers to influence and become involved in policy-making processes at all
levels. Indeed, farmers’ unions have always been the crucial political force
outside normal governmental institutions (Brass 1994; Gupta 2002).

Further, the notion is a significant rhetorical tool used by political and
spiritual leaders to create a sense of unity among people with differing ethnic,
linguistic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. In fact, creating unity within
diversity has always been a significant social agenda shared by Indian political
leaders. The notions of agriculture, farmers and farming recur in public
speeches, sermons, political manifestos and other public oratory in describing
India’s core values and roots. The notion is also used to call into question the
validity of the current development path that emphasizes industrialization and
integration into the global economy. For instance, the political manifesto of
India’s Congress Party lists reinvigoration of agriculture as a key element of its
platform. The party relates agriculture to their political slogan of “Back to
Basics,” which derives from India’s philosophy of self-reliance, self-govemance,
and self-sustaining economic and political development. Their political manifesto
implies that farming is an important means of achieving a development path

reflecting such a philosophy (Congress Party 2004). Even in day-to-day

111

conversation, the expression “simple village life” reflects a general fondness for
rural communities.

The notion of farmers also impinges upon India’s ideologies of
development, which serve as a frame of reference for actors establishing and/or
re-establishing views towards Bt cotton. Throughout its history, and particularly
since independence in 1947, India’s approach to development has reflected
tensions between modernity and tradition, secularism and religion, modern
scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge (Devy 1998). Some suggest that
modernization requires a break from history, traditions and religions, reflecting
Nehru’s philosophy (Khilnani 1997), while others interpret modernity in India as
openness to Western ideas while maintaining independence and self-rule in all
spheres (economic, political, and spiritual lives) a position following Gandhi. In
much the same way, interpretations of Bt cotton reflect these fundamental
attitudes towards development. That is to say, the introduction of Bt cotton
involves not only a consideration of the technical and scientific specificity of Bt
cotton, but also reconsideration of the elements deriving from the other end of
the continuum of development ideology, such as traditions and lndianness.
Therefore, interpretations of Bt cotton inevitably involve redefining the whole
range of issues deriving from endogenous, not exogenous elements, such as
indigenous farming methods as opposed to the Western scientific methods for
agriculture, the roles of the agricultural sector as opposed to the industrial sector
in India society, and the roles of farmers as opposed to the roles of scientists in

adopting Bt cotton.

112

Concepts and Methods

Social Identity Theory

Bt cotton controversies have forced various actors to reshape their
identities in relation to Indian agricultural and governmental processes. Social
identity theory offers insights into these dynamics and provides a conceptual tool
for understanding how identities are (de)coupled. The theory of social
categorization suggests that individuals hold a collective awareness of
themselves as a social group with a distinct social identity. Actors determine
which groups they belong to and who belongs to their social groups, then draw
boundaries between actors within ingroups or outgroups (Turner 1987: 1). This
distinct social identity gives actors a sense of belonging to a particular social
category, from which they draw norms and values when interpreting a situation.
When evaluating the validity of their own or others’ interpretations of an object or
an issue, actors compare their views with those of others in the same social
category or in other categories, then calibrate their own views based on these
observations, keeping cognitive dissonance at bay. Seen in this light, the
questions of who said what, and whether to trust him/her become more salient in
interpreting the consequences of Bt cotton than substantive consequences of Bt
cotton use. In other words, views on Bt cotton and subsequent actions are
determined by the boundaries of ingroups and outgroups that actors draw.

To understand the social dynamics embedded in the controversy, one
must address the question of where actors draw their values and norms. As

suggested in Chapter 3, even when holding the same position on Bt cotton,

113

whether for or against, or emphasizing similar issues they consider important in
terms of Bt cotton’s impact (issues in governance), actors in the national arena
differ greatly from actors in the local arena in their interpretive processes. While
actors in the national arena look to institutional arrangements such as biosafety
regulations and environmental laws in making judgments and arguments about
the costs and benefits of adopting Bt cotton in India, actors in the local arena
such as state government officials, local NGOs, and farmers depend upon their
experiential knowledge in determining what is right and wrong. In other words,
actors in the national and local arenas base their decisions on different inputs,
suggesting that the local/national distinction influences them more than other
factors when formulating their views towards Bt cotton. It seems actors in the
national arena identify themselves with other actors in the national arena, while
actors in the local arena identify with other local actors, despite differences in
their social categories (e.g., government, industries, farmers).

The amount of polemic which has arisen around the Bt cotton issue
highlights the need for understanding how this debate has reshaped (or
entrenched) identities. In cases where actors have a strong emotional
attachment and commitment to their group, individuals attempt to embed their
own values and norms within those of a group (H099 and Abram 1988) so that
their claims will reflect its values and norms. Such parallels in values and norms
make the group more cohesive and unite the claims and actions of group
members. On the other hand, when group membership imposes constraints

upon individuals, actors decouple themselves from the group so as to seek

114

control of the conditions that surround them (White 1992). In this way a group
loses its cohesiveness and breaks into smaller sub-groups.

A discourse perspective — consisting of actors, claims, strategies, and
outcomes — provides the analytical framework for understanding the social
dynamics generated among interested actors. Critical to this perspective and
relevant to the discussion of this chapter is the view that a perceived social reality
can be analyzed through examining actors (Touraine 2000), claims, and
claimsmaking activities (Benford and Snow 2000). A discourse perspective is
particularly helpful when exploring interviewees’ opinions of an object or a new
idea and their interpretations of the opinions of others because it will conceptually
delineate who said what and what the consequences were of these claims.
Analyzing discourse and discourse processes in this manner focuses the
research on the competition among actors struggling to maintain a presence in

society by creating and claiming a particular identity in relation to other actors.

Methods

To analyze actors’ anchoring strategies, three types of data relative to the
discourse on genetically engineered cotton in India were collected. First, 95
interviews,2 both structured and semi-structured, were conducted from July

through September 2000 and from August 2002 through May 2003, in New Delhi,

 

2 Ninety-five interviews consisting of 22 interviews with actors in government, 20 in civil society,
seven in industries, eight newspaper reporters, 38 cotton growers, and 15 scientists. All the
scientists interviewed have primary affiliations, such as in government ministries and in industries,
so they are counted both in terms of their affiliation and as scientists. Subsequent interviews are
not included in the cumulative number because the stories tend to be sequential.

115

Mumbai and Gujarat. Respondents included actors in government, civil society,
industry, mass media, scientists, and farmers. The social actors in the sample
were identified first from coverage in the English-language Indian newspapers
and subsequently using a snowball sampling method. Some interviews lasted
nearly two hours while others lasted only ten to fifteen minutes, depending on the
availability of the interviewees and their willingness to be interviewed. In cases
where interviews did not provide sufficient data, I attempted to pay several visits
to the same person, to interview other people in the same category, or to collect
other information such as fliers, leaflets, and brochures as supplements, if
available. Interviews with actors in government, civil society, industries, and
mass media, including scientists, were semi-structured and mostly done in
English, and were taped and transcribed. Interview questions were geared
towards the social locations of actors, interpretations of the commercialization of
Bt cotton, their perceptions of the views of other actors, and perceived social
outcomes.

Interviews with growers were slightly different in nature and more
challenging than the other interviews. First, growers did not generally feel
comfortable being interviewed alone, with the few exceptions of farmers who
were village authority figures, so interview sessions tended to be in a group
setting. In order to ensure the correct association of interview context with
individuals, we made sure that questions were directed to the individual being
interviewed and that the individual would respond; then each individuals are

asked the same set of interview questions. Because I was concerned about

116

taking time out of their schedules and about their willingness to participate in an
interview which could involve long periods of waiting, we made sure to hold
interview sessions on the days that they told us to come, generally after lunch or
evening hours. On occasions where others who were not being interviewed
interjected information, a translator at the interview sessions made notes for me
to identify who said what in the recording. Second, interviews were done in
Gujarati with two research assistants (one using the interview guide to ask
questions and the other taking notes in English so that I could broadly follow
what was being discussed). Finally, the grower interviews were also taped and
subsequently translated and transcribed by one of the two field translators.

The second data type used in this paper consists of articles collected from
the major English-language Indian newspapers in the Lexis-Nexis database and
from several major Gujarati newspapers collected manually, so as to supplement
interview transcripts and to provide contextual information. These data were
discussed in depth in the preceding chapters. Finally, field notes based on
observations of actors were utilized in the analysis and interpretation of data.
These include notes from seminars relevant to agrifood biotechnology organized
by industries, government, NGOs, academic institutions, farmers’ field days, and
field notes taken when I accompanied journalists interviewing other actors.

All interviews were transcribed, stored, and coded using the qualitative
data analysis program NVIvo. Similarly, all of the newspaper articles and field
notes have been stored and coded in NVIvo. Analysis and interpretation of data

1 uses ethnographic content analysis (Altheide 1987) so as to discover emergent

117

themes and patterns that are significant in understanding actors, their claims,

and activities related to Bt cotton.

Findings

Talking about Bt Cotton: A Sketch

Following the classical content analysis method (Stempel and Westley
1989), I conducted a preliminary study of the interview transcripts prior to
beginning an in-depth analysis. Appendix C presents the relative frequency
rankings, by actors, of key terms in the domain of this study. Words not
substantively relevant or of lower frequency are not included. The list provides a
larger picture of the issues and concerns articulated by the six types of actors,
and more importantly shows that the category of farmer was established as a
distinct and significant social category across the six types of actors interviewed.

First, the significance of the category of farmer is reflected in the fact that
the word fanner(s) is used relatively more frequently than other words. Interview
content differs from that of agrifood discourse in English-language Indian
newspapers (Chapter 2), where actors in government appeared to have played
the central role in discussions represented in newspaper articles. Second,
comparison of the words used by actors in government, industries, civil society,
mass media, and scientists with those used by farmers show striking differences.
It was found that many of the higher frequency words used by farmers are either
not present or are ranked low in the columns of other actors. Conversely, many

of the higher frequency words used by the other actors are not present in the

118

column for farmers. For example, the words land and water are often used by
farmers but not by others. The words pesticide(s) and pest(s) also rank high in
the farmers’ column, but low in the columns of others. The words Bt and
government rank high elsewhere but are not present or rank low in the farmers’
column. In short, the table suggests that actors across categories view the
notion farmer(s) or the label farmer(s) as significant in discussing Bt cotton, and

that they associate the label with a significantly distinct social identity.

Discussion in the National Arena

Even a cursory examination of the content of interviews reveals that the
notion farmer(s) receives an enormous amount of attention in Indian agrifood
biotechnology discourse in comparison to other social categories such as
government or scientists. This section will elaborate further by describing how
actors used the notion in their discussions about Bt cotton. First, among the
several characteristics of claims involving the notion of farmer(s), the most salient
are actors' attempts to project a particular image of farmers in relation to the
societal changes that the commercial introduction of Bt cotton will bring about.
Establishing a social identity of farmers is important for national actors because
the image of farmers, a major consuming sector of Bt cotton, is an important
element in crafting claims about agrifood biotechnology. In other words, in order
to gain public support for their claims and claimsmaking activities, they relate
their arguments to the notion of farmers in such a way as to be accepted by the

public. Second, by invoking the notion of farmer(s), national actors attempted to

119

demonstrate how their identities relate to the social identity of farmers. In some
cases actors embedded themselves in the farmer identity, while in others cases
actors used the farmer label in their discussions. Third, actors used their
versions of farmer identity and their relation to farmers within a narrative about a
particular event that actors had observed or experienced related to Bt cotton
controversies. By telling stories about a particular experience, actors

emphasized values and norms that they considered important for India.

Social Identities of Farmers
Despite the opposing views towards genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), the various organizational affiliations, and the many roles assigned
within an organization, predominantly non-farmer actors in the national arena
portrayed Indian farmers as powerless and vulnerable. Actors in government
who supported GMOs and some actors in civil society who opposed GMOs had
emphasized the helplessness and economic vulnerability of farmers. As a
government official noted,
For the Mahyco-Monsanto people, if the market rate is a hundred rupees,
they may charge a thousand rupees. People will have no choice. So,
anything that is in demand, farmers will have to pay for it. So this is the
second fear I have in mind, that Mahyco-Monsanto will charge anything.
They will exploit the weaknesses. They will exploit the helplessness of our
Indian farmers. They, the farmers, again will lose out.
This government official was expressing his concern about the ovenrvhelming
dominance of a multinational life sciences company whose vital contributions to

the global seeds and pesticides market would result in the systematic exploitation

of Indian farmers.

120

The following comment by an actor in civil society also emphasized the
existence of systematic exploitation of farmers. He noted that the current political
economic system had forcefully locked farmers into the competitive global
market.

As I said earlier, we have 550 million farmers. Out of that, 70 percent are

small and marginal farmers. What is important is the entire agreement [of

the WTO] on agriculture — the way we have agreed upon — is going to
break down barriers and open up markets. So we are now going to have
cheaper imports coming into our country. When the cheaper imports start
coming in, what will happen? The marginal farmer will be thrown out of
agriculture. What will happen when he is made jobless?
Observing the economic changes that took place in India after the inception of
India’s economic liberalization policy in 1991, these actors suggested that
farmers would never benefit from Mahyco—Monsanto varieties.

Other actors suggested that the policy created a rather absurd market
situation in which there were far too many agricultural input suppliers, both in
public and in private, and too many types of varieties available to farmers,
supplied by companies of Indian and international origin. As a result, farmers
were increasingly unsure which varieties and agricultural inputs to use:

In India, more than 200 varieties are sown. Among these 200 varieties, 22

varieties are GOI [government of India] supported varieties. Various seed

multiplication programs have been carried out by private companies...no
restrictions are imposed upon the private sector...The same situation
applies to pesticides and fertilizers. There are an unlimited number of
pesticides and fertilizers marketed in India. (Interview with a government
actor)

These actors pointed out that liberalization of the agricultural inputs market has

been a mixed blessing to farmers. While they seem better off for having a range

of seeds and pesticides to choose from, the farmers have lost their bearings on

121

their farming methodologies by having been forced to learn about these new
products. Farmers find it increasingly difficult to decide which seeds and
pesticides to use, and thus need to depend on experts such as scientists and
extension agents to figure out how to manage farms. In short, these actors
interpreted “farmers” as alienated from agricultural knowledge, which used to be
adequate for the managing of their farms. Consequently, farmers are
constructed as disempowered, that is, to depend on other actors.

Actors in civil society, who also portrayed farmers as powerless, drew a
much more pessimistic picture of farmers. An adamant opponent of Bt cotton,
and one whose claims have frequently appeared in English-language Indian
newspapers, described farmers’ vulnerability by identifying farmers as "slaves of
seeds.” He, like many other interviewees in civil society, touched upon an
episode concerning cotton growers’ suicides in the states of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Punjab. The extent of the problem (in terms of the
number of cotton growers who committed suicides) and the direct causes of the
large number of grower suicides are unclear. Therefore, the story about these
incidents, which occurred in the cotton growing regions of India, has been used
by both sides as factual evidence supporting or opposing the commercial
introduction of Bt cotton (e.g., Times of India, February 11, 2001; Economic
Times July 6, 2001). For instance, an actor in civil society who opposed GM
crops pointed out that pesticide suppliers were to be blamed for recommending
that farmers use “cocktails” of synthetic pesticides should farmers begin to notice

pests developing resistance. He also blamed bankers and money lenders, who

122

had humiliated farmers by taking away tractors and buffaloes when loans were
not repaid on time. He went on to say that under the present circumstances
(wherein somebody else is in control of farmers’ lives and the economic
problems that farmers face are too serious and widespread), the introduction of
several varieties of Bt cotton would not be a solution to the crises that threaten
farmers.

Contrary to the image of farmers being powerless, there are
characterizations of farmers holding great power. Of all actors, news reporters
were most explicit in associating farmers with the image of a powerful actor and
enumerated why they perceived farmers to be influential in decision-making
involving GM crops. The portrayal of farmers as powerful and proactive has
been common in news reports. Between 1992 and 2002,3 27 articles covered
stories about demonstrations, rallies, and other movements organized by or for
farmers. A range of stories appeared in the newspapers, including accounts of
farmers burning field trial sites, demonstrating against Bt cotton cultivation,
opposing the sale of transgenic seeds, protesting the initial decision of the
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)4 not to approve Bt cotton
seeds, and demanding the scrapping of the GEAC. All of these stories portrayed
farmers as extremely proactive and, ultimately, successful in their efforts to

influence the outcomes of the central and state government decisions pertaining

 

3 A Lexis-Nexis online keyword search for BI cotton, India, field trials, and terminator technology
yielded 390 articles. Details are given in Chapters 2 and 3.

The GEAC is one of three committees that oversees biosafety aspects of transgenic crops,
along with the Institutional Biosafety Committee, and the Review Committee on Genetic

123

to the introduction of Bt cotton seeds into India. The following passage is from a
report that came out in December 1998, when India’s mass media began to pick
up on the Bt cotton story:

‘Farmers,’ it is said, led by Prof. Nanjundaswamy of the Karnataka Rajya
Raitha Sangha, attacked the Monsanto seed farm near Malaldguda in
Raichur district and destroyed the cotton crop in order to protect Indian
farmers from the dreaded Terminator Gene. The campaign was repeated
in Bellary district and other "farmers" in Andhra Pradesh did the same
thing. Speaking in the name of all of them, Prof. Nanjundaswamy has
vowed to repeat it in Maharashtra and Punjab (The Hindu, December 14
1998)

Beginning in January 2002, newspapers began to cover stories about
farmers’ groups supporting Bt cotton. Again portraying farmers as proactive and
powerful, the story reports on a rally that took place in New Delhi before the
GEAC had authorized the commercialization of Bt cotton:

Just a day before the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee gave its
conditional clearance to the cultivation of Bt cotton on March 26, 2002,
farmer representatives led by Sharad Joshi - who formed part of the Kisan
Coordination Committee - threatened to launch a civil disobedience
movement if the approval didn't come through...KCC representatives from
all the cotton growing states in the country like Gujarat, Maharashtra,
Punjab and Andhra Pradesh firmly supported the introduction of Bt cotton
in the current kharif season5 itself. Interestingly, tough questions were then
posed to Mr. Joshi and company by the journalists - notably, regarding the
credentials of the foreign-funded platform they were speaking from, right
down to why they were pressuring the GEAC to approve Bt cotton. But the
farmer representatives defended themselves stating that they had the right
to check out the latest technology as their cotton crops were severely
affected by bollworm attacks. (Financial Express, April 3 2002)

Reporters pointed out that the sheer number of farmers in India would fully

account for their power and influence, as farmers constitute the majority of India’s

 

Manipulation. These committees have been criticized for their inefficiency and ad hoc nature. An
expert panel was established in February 2004 to review the need to revamp the system.
5 Wet season.

124

population. Rural votes, one interviewee said, translate into the election of fully
two-thirds of the members of India's legislative bodies. Thus, the close
cooperation of the government and farmers’ unions is a useful strategy whereby

farmers, as well as politicians and policy-makers, can gain political clout.

Relating to Farmers

The interviews indicate that national actors either embedded their identity
in the social identity of farmers or frequently used the farmer label in describing
their views on Bt cotton. Indeed, actors emphasized their farming background
and experiences or their close relations to farmers. Assertions such as “I myself
come from a farming family,” “I have lots of experience of farming," and “my
organization is keen on working with farmers” were expressed often and with
enthusiasm. In New Delhi, even actors such as research scientists or
technocrats in New Delhi, who typically do not appear to have frequent
interactions with farmers in their daily activities, mentioned the importance of
being in touch with farmers and farming experiences in understanding their work
on modern biotechnology:

Scientists used to be very happy if we could publish papers in the

magazine Nature. We used to be on top of the world. We were not

bothered by whether our findings reached farmers or not. But today, I feel

that there should be no barriers, no walls, between the research laboratory

and the farmer. I feel it is the responsibility of us scientists to take our

message to farmers. (Interview with a scientist)

[the farm-level demonstration of Bt cotton] is going to play a very

important role because poor farmers whose livelihood depends on their

produce from a hectare of land will not like to try a new technology blindly.
(Interview with an actor in government)

125

As suggested in Chapter 2, the claims and the claimsmaking activities of
actors in industry have been relatively subdued in comparison to those of other
actors, so it is difficult to describe fully how actors in industry see themselves in
relation to farmers. However, a page-long ad that appeared in The Financial
Express (December 8, 1998), entitled “Monsanto’s commitment to the Indian
farmers” shows that industries wished to portray themselves as being at the
service of farmers. Representatives of seed companies who made several other
claims in other major daily newspapers cast a similar tone. This again shows
actors in industries attempting to demonstrate their close allegiance to farmers by
frequently invoking the farmer label every so often in their public relations efforts.

In contrast to actors in other categories, those in mass media rarely
expressed their views on Bt cotton even in face-to-face interviews. Indeed, they
appeared to take extra care not to give the impression that they were choosing
sides on the Bt cotton controversy. Despite such ambiguities in their positions on
Bt cotton, news reporters made it clear that farmers have the highest stake in
these disputes. Thus, news reporters, too, embedded their identities in the
identity of farmers, their comments emphasizing the high priority of farmers’
needs. Although journalistic norms drove news reporters to report and to claim a
range of views, rather than emphasize a specific point of view (Ten Eyck 1999),
all the news reporters who were interviewed for this research showed their
emotional investments in the notion of farmers.

All of these phenomena indicate that actors in the national arena believe

that anchoring their identities in social identities of farmers or using the farmer

126

label in their talk confers a real advantage in the formulation of persuasive
arguments for or against Bt cotton. Non-farmer actors believe such anchoring
strategies will help to create an image of them as credible claimsmakers
representing the interests of farmers. This phenomenon also suggests that the
values and the norms of Indian society at large encourage non-farmer actors in
New Delhi and Mumbai to carefully follow both the roles that farmers play in the
adoption processes of Bt cotton and the context that surrounds farmers when
non-farmer actors describe their positions for or against Bt cotton. If actors are
unable either to relate themselves to the notion of farmers or to use the farmer
label in their discussion of Bt cotton, these actors’ claims and claimsmaking
activities will not be trusted in the Indian context. While deliberation over
agrifood biotechnology in the non-Indian context may involve consideration of the
roles of both scientists and scientific knowledge, in the Indian context, the notion
of farmers plays a significant role in actors’ negotiations with other actors.
Actors believed to have overused or misused an anchoring strategy were
subject to criticism. The following example shows that civil society actors who
oppose GMOs criticized other civil society actors in the same camp by pointing
out the misuse and abuse of such strategies.
I feel that farmers are misrepresented here and there. This [farmers’]
movement in Karnataka [in opposition to GMOs] has no impact in
India. ..much of the questions raised are flagged from the Western
perspective. Claims made by these people have submitted to the Western
influences. Therefore, government can easily dismiss their claims.
Whatever the claims made by these people, the claims will end up being

only counter productive. (Interview with an actor in civil society)

A news reporter, critical of GMOs made a similar observation:

127

Now, right before the GEAC has approved Bt cotton, the NGO, Central
Institute‘5 has convened a press conference. I was there with many other
people, both from India and from abroad. Suddenly, how can the people
who are not farmers enter into discussions like that? They are trying only
to influence the decision-making processes. It is not ethical to try to
represent farmers like that.

Another news reporter shared his view that one leader of a farmers’ union is not
a legitimate voice for farmers:

There is the farmer leader called Suresh Yadav,7 who was very much in
the limelight about 15 years ago. He was successful in influencing the
policies in a way that favored onion growers. But now he has less
influence over farmers. The number of followers has decreased. The
problem is that Mr. Joshi sits in various government committees and has
become a part of the system, whereas the farmers are not part of the
system. (Interview with a news reporter)

In an effort to counteract such criticism, a farmer leader again reiterated his
farmer identity and drew a clearer boundary between himself and other actors in
civil society who had taken part in the Bt cotton controversies:
I started to hear about other NGOs during the last two years or so. I did
not hear about them or see them when the Indian farmers were really
suffering from government policies. It is only after the WTO came in, and
when there was an air of liberalization and globalization, that these NGOs
suddenly developed an interest in farmers. Their basic interest is in
opposition to liberalization and globalization, not in farmers.
These stories that characterize the vulnerability and powerlessness of

farmers reflect a strong sense of shared national identity, built around the social

identity of farmers and around non-farmers’ responsibility to protect farmers.

 

6 Not the actual name.

7 This is not the actual name. Although this news reporter’s observation might accurately reflects

his experiences, conversations with farmers not only in the village where fieldwork was conducted
but also in other villages in other districts gave me a sense that farmers viewed Mr. Yadav as their

128

Outcomes

A news reporter indicated that India needs to take a precautionary step in
considering the adoption of Bt cotton to make sure that farmers are protected
from any negative consequences:

In and around the time that the GEAC approved Bt cotton, farmers
demanded that they want seed...the State Minister of Punjab also made
the statement that farmers were demanding seeds...you know but farmers
are not aware of scientific dimensions...there were such incidents like
those involving the cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh who committed
suicide because of the spurious seeds and the spurious pesticides...who
can be held accountable to these problems. I feel that we ought to take a
precautionary approach...and use our own scientific community to test
technology.

Comments by a scientist working for a public research institute echo such
sentiments:

In the first instance, Indian people or Indian farmers are not only illiterate

and poor, they are foolish also. If one farmer says it is a good one, OK I

will do without caring what will happen. They are not concerned with the

results. If he has done it, I will also do it. In that system, if one variety
covers a large area, and if something happens to that one variety, maybe
due to environmental conditions or weather conditions or rainfall...maybe

an area is not suitable for such a variety, entire area will be just lost. A

scenario like this will be hard for Indian farmers to bear.

The process leading to the enactment of a national bill, the Plant Variety
Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, plainly demonstrates the significant role that
the relations between non-farmers and farmers play in shaping the type of
agrifood biotechnology policies that India adopts. Indeed, among the laws and
the regulations that govern the various stages in the adoption of transgenic

seeds, the Act, passed into law in 2001, is an explicit demonstration of the kinds

 

leader. Indeed, throughout the time that my fieldwork was conducted, Mr. Yadav, whose primary
residence was in Maharashtra, was in various villages in Gujarat, interacting with farmers there.

129

of relations that non-farmers have with farmers. This act, which includes a
separate chapter on farmers’ rights, is the first legislation in the world to confer
onto farmers the right to sell seed to other farmers (Sahai 2003b). The Act’s
emphasis on farmers’ rights demonstrates that Indian policies pertaining to
agrifood biotechnology accord prominence to the farmer. This privileging of the
farmer reflects how many Indians conceive of the relations between non-farmers
and farmers. Indeed, prior to the Act, members of the joint parliamentary
committee on the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Bill consulted
extensively with farmers in deciding its nature and content (Business Line,

August 26, 2000).

Discussion in the Local Arena
Social Identities of Farmers: Presenting the Self

Interestingly, the self-image of farmers in Gujarat who support Bt cotton
confirm the national actors’ characterization of farmers as vulnerable. Farmers in
Bhadharpura in Gujarat recounted various episodes confirming vulnerable and
powerless states. Farmers indicated that their vulnerability derived from their
having been caught up in a range of economic problems including the ever-
increasing costs of synthetic pesticides (especially those manufactured by
MNCs), the combination of an increase in the wages of laborers and a worker
shortage, and the fluctuating prices of lint:

Nowadays, labor charges are high, fertilizer and pesticides are expensive,
and prices of lint are very low. Last year, I ended up purchasing so many

 

8 Not the actual village name.

130

pesticides. I have purchased them on credit and used a ridiculous amount
of pesticides. In the end, I scared pesticides dealers...l suppose that they
were scared because I wouldn’t be able to pay. And I suppose they
thought I am going mad...my advice to other farmers was that if you are
willing to build the debt, go ahead and grow cotton but otherwise don’t. It
is like asking for trouble. (Interview with a cotton grower)9

One reason farmers view themselves as vulnerable hinges on their perceived
integration into the liberalized market. The following comments by a farmer
indicate their lottery-like situation in the sale of cotton. The success or failure of
the deal depends uniquely on market conditions:

In last season, the sales prices of chili was far more attractive than prices

of cotton in the market. Chili is good because hard work translates into a

good yield. Cotton is just like the lottery. You may win, but may lose. You

never know what to expect. . ..

However, farmers attributed their economic problems, such as the
accumulated debt from the purchase of expensive pesticides, to government
processes, not to the price of pesticides. Therefore, many farmers believed that
they must request government assistance in order to bring about the best
solution to their economic woes:

Some years ago, we organized a movement that targeted the government

and that demanded the cancellation of our interest-bearing debts. The

government has agreed to cancel the interest from these debts, but we
still have to repay the principal. If, someday, representatives from the
society come to ask me to repay my debt immediately, I will tell them to kill
me if that’s what they want, because I am unable to pay it back. My entire
family leaves the house early in the morning and goes to the farm and
comes home around noon. Again, we go to the farm around three and

work till seven. We are working extremely hard but we never see the
profits.

Farmers are clearly aware that market mechanisms determine the patterns of

their work and finance. They see that economic problems such as the

 

9 The remaining quotations are interviews with farmers, unless otherwise noted.

13]

accumulation of debt stemming from the purchase of pesticides are created
through such market mechanisms.

In addition, when referring to the major causes of their vulnerability,
farmers pointed out multiple agronomic problems such as water scarcity, soil
degradation, and pest infestations. The district where the village of Bhadharpur
is located, indeed, has been facing several soil-related problems such as water
erosion and soil degradation from saline water (Gujarat Ecology Commission
1997). Moreover, in 2002 (a year before interviews were conducted), the village
saw a catastrophic bollworm attack. Then, in 2002, my interviews coincided with
the most severe drought conditions since 1987 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2002):

In normal cases, we spray only once every 15 days or so...last year

[2001] we, farmers, sprayed pesticides every three to four days. . .. These

pesticides are high dose pesticides like Avant.10 They are about

Rs. 1 0,000/Iiter, very expensive.

A majority of the farmers whom I interviewed shared stories about serious
pest attacks in 2001. Some who could afford to purchase pesticides that were
manufactured by MNCs used them in large amounts. Farmers who could not
afford to buy the imported pesticides used ones that, available locally, were
considered inferior to the MNCs products. Farmers believed that their
vulnerabilities stemmed from two related problems: pest infestations and
exorbitant pesticide prices. Interestingly, farmers rarely assigned blame to the

MNCs that manufactured and sold these pesticides. From the farmers’ point of

view, MNCs were the actors that developed quality pesticides and put them on

132

the market without any intention of exploiting farmers. However, pesticide
dealers were perceived as profiteers that interacted, not always scrupulously,
with farmers.

A major issue for farmers was their inability to control and manage their
farms in ways that adhered to the farmers’ wishes:

Actually last year pests were not controlled by any kind of the pesticides

Green bollworm was the major problem for us, and, after November,

lashkan"1 harassed us no end. I constantly sprayed pesticides to control

them, but I couldn’t succeed.
When describing the pest attacks of the previous year, the farmers whom I
interviewed, particularly those in their thirties and forties, emphasized a decline in
their capacity to control their farms. Throughout their lives, they had been
familiar only with high-input agriculture, which typically involves large amounts of
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. To their minds, farming had always been a
business-like enterprise that required proper control and management. Thus,
interviewees noted that a situation in which farmers were unable to control their

enterprise, regardless of their investment that they make, was a situation that

rendered them vulnerable.

Relating to Other Actors
In addition to the economic and agronomical problems that farmers deal

with, perceived vulnerability derives from the social dynamics arising from

 

'° Not only this tamer, but many other farmers being interviewed, pointed out that they find
pesticides such as Avant, Confidor, and Endosulfanare expensive but they have no other choice
but to use them to save their plants.

133

interactions between farmers and those actors in the cotton commodity chain
who have become integral to farmers’ lives. In dealing with the range of actors
around them, including traders, pesticide dealers, and government
representatives, farmers felt “cheated.” For instance, when selling their lint,
farmers interact with traders, co-ops, or people at government-run corporations.
Farmers took issue with all three of these actors.

Muslim people own their trucks, so they do not have to rent a car to collect

lint from my village. ..besides they give us less weight for lint. It is usually

the case that traders get one quintal extra each day by collecting extra lint

from each one of us.

Farmers who interacted with traders accused the latter of unfair practices.
To the farmers’ minds, traders are economically prosperous because they benefit
from a range of material resources such as trucks and scales. Thus, farmers
have concluded that those persons who are materially prosperous (the haves)
ought to help others who are not (the have not). Consequently, a commonly held
belief is that exploitative practices undertaken by the haves are immoral.
Farmers also complained of unfair practices typical of the representatives of co-
ops and the CCI,12 which market the farmers’ cotton. The co—ops and the CCI,
according to the farmers, work little and profit a great deal while farmers work a
great deal and profit little:

Their role is to exploit...we don’t feel the need to have a co-op. It was

initially the government’s plan to set up the cotton union [co-op] for the

sale of our cotton. But it is not working well. People at the co-op have
never been present when they purchase lint from us nor do they sell lint to

 

" A popular term used to describe armyworm, a major pest in the area, which defoliates young
cotton plants.
‘2 Cotton Corporation of India, a government affiliate specializing in cotton marketing.

134

the market...lf we deal with these people, we have to pay them a
commission.

Most of us farmers are cheated by everybody. If we sell our lint to the
CCI...we feel cheated. We have no way of knowing which prices to offer
when we sell cotton to them...Say if the market price is Rs.22,000lbale,
well, we ended up selling Rs.18,000lbale...l tell you, these people are
corrupt.

None of the farmers were sure whether their claims accurately reflected
reality,13 though the situation leaves them wary. Indeed, cotton prices vary
substantially over time because prices are generally highly sensitive to domestic
and international market situations. Under circumstances in which the
importation of cotton is fully liberalized and there are no government subsidy
programs for cotton growers, remuneration to cotton growers in India tends
(unlike the remuneration to cotton growers in the US.) to fluctuate with market
prices more than in countries with a price support system. This tendency
suggests that perhaps Muslim traders and the CCI were paying less because the
market prices happened to be low on the day they collected cotton.

Farmers frequently shared their bitter feelings toward the government because
they resent government agricultural policies and government management of
those areas of international trade concerning the exportation and the importation

of cotton:

I heard that in America farmers get 95 percent subsidies...but in India we
farmers never get any support from our government.

In Israel, government has a direct contact with farmers...so that farmers
get benefits directly from the government; no commissions are taken by
middlemen, whereas we in India always have dealings with middlemen
who get commissions.

 

'3 Farmers who made these types of claims were predominantly owner cultivators and Hindu.

135

The examples of other countries that farmers brought up almost always
concerned how some governments protect their farmers while the Indian
government stridently opposes such protections. In addition, a common
pronouncement made by farmers was that the government is incapable of
handling the range of trade negotiations that global market mechanisms call for:

This year we are using Bt and we are expecting good yield from it, but you

know what is happening to us? The government has decided to import

cotton from other countries...and this liberalization of the cotton market
will lower the prices of cotton in India and put us in a situation in which we
profit a good deal less from the sale of cotton. Government officials have

a vested interest in the import of cotton: they probably get some kinds of

commission in the process. . ..

We are exporting cottons to other countries, like Japan. . .I heard that a

Japanese delegation came to India to purchase lint from the H6 variety.

They have asked the Indian government how long India can supply cotton

to Japan. Because our government could not provide them with a clear

answer, the Japanese delegation decided not to purchase cotton from

India. We have many opportunities like this, but, because of the incapable

politicians, we suffer.

For farmers, industry primarily refers to pesticide dealers. Beyond seed
dealers and pesticide dealers, farmers have few major interactions with sales
representatives of major seed and agrichemical companies. A seemingly
monolithic actor, such as an industry, is actually a loose aggregate of individuals,
consisting of a web of social relationships. This web of social relations can
create conditions where illegal activities are socially accepted (Denzin 1977).
Farmers voiced strong resentment of the ways in which dealers make profits at
the expense, so to speak, of farmers:

Dealers of pesticides tell us that they are selling pesticide 40%-50% less

than the MRP [maximum retailer price]. . .What are the manufacturing
costs of these pesticides? We do not know the manufacturing cost for

136

sure but, even if they reduce the prices by half, they would probably
squeeze some impressive profits out of them. I sometimes wonder what it
would be like if the prices of pesticides were at the MRP...how much profit
would the pesticide manufacturer reap?

Industry names such as Mahyco, Monsanto and Navbharat, and the
names of their varieties such as Bollgard and Nb151 are mentioned frequently in
interviews. However, to farmers, these companies are not active agents who
would negotiate or interact with them. Thus, farmers described the poor
performance of several varieties of Mahyco-Monsanto or excellent performance
of a Navbharat variety, but rarely blamed Mahyco-Monsanto or praised
Navbharat for supplying such varieties; instead the farmers generally came back
to government incompetence:

I feel that the government made a terrible mistake...in banning Navbharat

varieties. The government did this because of pressures introduced by

the pesticide companies. You see, the business viability of pesticide
companies will be at stake if we do not have to use pesticides. I used to
spend Rs.25,000 for pesticides but this year I only spent Rs.250 for
pesticides. l have only had to spray once, so far.

We think that the government has been influenced by pesticide

companies...so they banned the use of Nb151. I feel that people in the

government listen to them more than to us farmers. Politicians need to
raise funds from these people in an election year...l don’t think there is
any formal union of pesticides firms in the pesticide industry but there

must be an informal group that influences government. After all, why did

the government approve the Monsanto varieties, the ones that do not

perform well? We want to ask the government whether officials have been
bribed by Monsanto.

Farmers take a rather less pessimistic view of scientists and news
reporters, characterizing them as potentially reliable sources of information,
particularly information pertaining to the impact that the use of Bt cotton has on

pest resistance, soil quality, and the yield deterioration that accompanies a shift

137

from F1 to F2 (first, and second generations of the original seed). However, a
problem is that these actors, viewed by farmers as reliable information sources,
are rarely accessible.

I see that newspapers and scientists are reliable sources of information for

us, but they don’t come to our villages...so I’ll need to go to other farmers

if I want to learn about new seeds.

Generally, I am going to the progressive farmers if I need some

information about farming. Mostly, I farm according to my method, so I

rarely go to other people like other farmers, extension agents, or

scientists. But I like to hear what they have to say.

Indeed, on an occasion where l was invited to participate in a seminar
organized by Panchayat, a village council, I felt that farmers were eager for
information concerning the technical and scientific aspects of Bt cotton. Intensive
interactions arose between farmers and a range of speakers including district-
Ievel government officers, scientists from a cotton research station, and scientists
from an agricultural university who gave lectures on the agronomy of Bt cotton
throughout the day.

By describing problems that arise from their interaction with others,
farmers were demonstrating that there is a clear boundary between farmers and
others. In my interviews, farmers expressed a conviction that people belonging
to outgroups were clearly different. It was often stated or implied that their values
and norms are different from those of farmers; thus, in the eyes of farmers, their
behavior sometimes appeared immoral. In short, farmers had difficulty in

establishing a rapport with people whose social identities were different from

theirs.

138

Decoupling

Among the many incidents associated with the Bt cotton controversy, one
involving the spread of Nb151, an unauthorized variety of Bt cotton, greatly
influenced and changed interactions between farmers. Two types of Bt cotton
had become available for village farmers. One was the Mahyco-Monsanto
variety called Bollgard, which had been tested under the supervision of the Indian
government’s intenninisterial committees, charged with the responsibility of
overseeing the biosafety aspects of Bt cotton. The other, Nb151, had been sold
by Navbharat Seeds, a seed company based in Gujarat. Recognizing the extent
of the spread of unauthorized Bt cotton seeds, the GEAC issued a recall of
Nb151 seeds from the markets and farmers’ houses, of lint harvested from
Nb151 seeds, and ordered the burning of standing crops of this variety. Being
strongly in favor of Nb151, farmers resorted to all forms of counteractions,
including storing F2, F3, and F4 of Nb151 (second, third, and fourth generations
of the original seed), the mobilization of available social networks that might open
up access to Nb151, the articulation of provocative claims critical of the
government and their dissemination in newspapers, and the deployment of
farmers’ leaders to New Delhi for consultation with government officials. All of
these coordinated claimsmaking activities were meant to persuade the central
government not only to reverse or revise its decision but also to issue immediate
approval of Nb151.

While engaging in these activities and regaining their sense of collective

identity, farmers were nevertheless undergoing a fragmentation of their social

139

identity following unpleasant negotiations and interactions with their fellow
farmers. At the time the interviews were conducted in 2002, Bollgard varieties
were not abundantly available in the market, and the availability of Nb151 was
low because the central government had banned sales of the seed during the
previous cotton growing season, so the social competition for access to seeds
was intense. The threat of not having access to these seeds had driven farmers
to remove themselves from an existing social group and to reasign themselves to
a smaller social category, such as their immediate family, that acted as the
primary place for social interaction and a privileged source of information about
access to Nb151. Comments such as “He [a farmer leader] said he would bring
us back F1 on his next trip to Andhra Pradesh but he’ll probably try to profit out of
it,” and, “I am not worried about the availability of Nb151 for the next season
because my brother is planning to make a trip to Andhra Pradesh to get seeds,”
reflect why and how farmers felt that decoupling from a group was a better
strategy than group membership, especially when the decoupling was thought to
maintain a farmer’s economic well-being. Skinner (1992) suggests that
maintaining control of one’s surroundings is an important element for individuals
in relating to groups. Actors seek to gain control of a situation by resorting to
numerous actions. For example, they seek knowledge that will explain or predict
the course of events. If alternative choices are not present, actors decouple
themselves from a group so that their social and economic well-being will not

deteriorate further as a consequence of membership (White 1992).

140

The farmers whom I interviewed had chosen to decouple themselves from
a social group whose boundary was otherwise parallel to the administrative
border of a village, because access to Nb151 involved competition with fellow
farmers. This trend became evident in the ways in which farmers brought up a
range of labels to differentiate themselves from others. Instead of describing
themselves as a farmer, a generic social category, or a farmer in Bhadharpur, a
label that other people had given to them, the farmers interviewed were explicit in
describing their differences from other farmers in the same village. Farmers
perceived numerous social categories in their village and pointed them out,
including, “rich and poor farmers,” “farmers who own tubewells and who don’t,”
“farmers who have big land and who do not,” “Hindu and Muslim farmers,”
“farmers who own electric pumps and who don’t,” “farmers who have contacts
with farmers outside village and who don’t” and “farmers who belong to the
farmers’ union and those who don’t.” These are just a few among many
distinctions farmers identified and discussed. The anchor that farmers used was
still the notion of farmers, similar to the actors in the national arena. However,
farmers found heterogeneity among the people who have been generally
bracketed in this category.

As manifested in the confrontational comments of farmers regarding public
. policies on Bt cotton and government reactions to controversial events, farmers
have had trouble with government appeals for unity in the national arena, and
have resisted these appeals at every step. Farmers’ efforts have gradually

influenced other types of actors in the local arena, spreading values and norms

141

that created a background leading to a societal consensus on accepting
continuous planting of unauthorized seeds. After the Nb151 controversy erupted
in Gujarat, I observed a bifurcation in discourse at the national and local levels.
At the national level, actors in government and some actors in civil society saw
the illegality of Nb151 as a major issue because using the seeds violated India’s
biosafety regulations. They pursued the case by suing the owner of the local
seed company. At the local level, on the other hand, the interpretations of
farmers, seed companies, and some actors in state government were more
practical, based on the immediate needs of farmers. These actors pointed out
that they did not see any major distinctions between Bollgard and Nb151 and
argued that Bt cotton had already been tested by the government for biosafety.
Therefore, all the varieties using the same gene would, these actors concluded,
have the same impact on the environment, regardless of their names. In the
local arena, actors in both industry and state government chose to reformulate
their values and norms in order to side with farmers, considering it more
important to be identified with the values and norms of farmers than those of
officials in the central government. This attempt by local actors outside the farm
community to align themselves with farmers strengthened the power and
momentum of the claimsmaking activities of farmers. Indeed, farmers began to
claim that their activities complemented the interests of India as a whole. For
example, farmers claimed that government decisions had been not for the
common good but for the good of a privileged few. It was further argued that the

government had made arrangements to foster a monopoly market for MNCs.

142

This line of interpretation has prevailed in Gujarat and influenced the ways in
which the Nb151 incident was viewed locally. State government officials began
to make claims in newspapers that were sympathetic to farmers and that
portrayed them as the victims of, not as the culprits behind, the Bt cotton
controversy. Such an interpretation ultimately translated into the Gujarat state
governments’ decision not to conform to the central government’s plan to burn
the standing Nb151 crops. This aggressive step by the state government meant
that, at the local level, the central government had no apparatus through which it

could implement its plan.

Conclusions

Given the various attitudes toward Bt cotton and the diversity of affiliations
and interests of those involved, it becomes important to understand what, if any,
common linkages have been formed among those involved in the controversy.
Non-farmer actors who were interviewed share several underlying values and
norms that bind them together as a coherent group. First, in describing their
views on Bt cotton, non-farmers placed importance on characterizing the social
identities of farmers. Actors in government, civil society, industries, and scientists
characterized farmers as vulnerable and powerless, a characterization which
served their political purposes. On the other hand, news reporters enhanced
their role of communicating controversial stories to the public by characterizing
farmers as powerful, setting the stage for conflict between two powerful groups.
Second, non-farmer actors related themselves to farmers and the farming

experience as a way of presenting themselves as credible claimsmakers. In the

143

case of Bt cotton in India, prevailing social values and norms in India require that
actors who are not farmers establish a collective identity that includes farmers as
a part of their group. Non-farmer actors felt it was important to embed their
identities in the social identity of farmers in making persuasive arguments for or
against Bt cotton.

In the local arena, however, farmers placed an emphasis on self-definition
in conveying and justifying attitudes towards Bt cotton. While characterizing their
social identity in the same way as non-farmer actors, local actors witnessed their
social groups shrinking and their membership becoming much more exclusive
than inclusive. The advent of Bt cotton has accentuated some of the existing
social boundaries, such as those between Hindu farmers and Muslim traders,
owner cultivators and laborers, and agricultural users and suppliers. Further,
social competition for access to Bt cotton seeds has redrawn boundaries
between those with and without access to Nb151. Second, farmers share the
view that government actors are the ones to negotiate with if they are to handle
changes generated by the introduction of GM crops. Farmers seem to agree that
confrontation with the government is an important tactic in dealing with changes
taking place around them triggered by the introduction of GM crops. Farmers did
not see actors in industries, scientists, NGOs, or news reporters as active
participants in the controversy, instead viewing actors in government as key.

Two contrasting dynamics manifested in the national and the local arenas
have shaped the social phenomena surrounding the process of adopting Bt

cotton. In the national arena, the perceived social identities of farmers in

144

combination with their strategies of appealing to a broader audience laid the
foundation for shaping government actions and public policies pertaining to GE
crops. In the local arena, the social identities of farmers and their strategies of
decoupling, and of confronting government, influenced the situation to the point
that the noncompliance of farmers with government regulations is socially
acceptable in the local arena. Thus, examining intergroup relations, we can

adequately explain the reasons behind controversial social phenomena.

145

References

Altheide, David L. 1987. "Ethnographic Content Analysis." Qualitative Sociology
10: 65-77.

Altieri, Miguel A. 1987. Agroecology: the Scientific Basis of Alternative
Agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.

Benford, Robert D., and David A Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology
26: 611-639.

Brass, Tom. 1994. New Farmers Movements in India. London: Frank Cass.

Chambers, Robert. 1997. Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last.
London: Intermediate Technology.

CIA. 2002. CIA World Fact Book. Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency.

Denzin, Norman K. 1977. "Notes on the Criminogenic Hypothesis: A Case Study
of the American Liquor Industry." American Sociological Review 42(6):
905-920.

Devy, G. N. 1998. Between Tradition and Modernity. India' s Search for Identity.
Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002. India Book of the Year. Gurgaon, Haryana:
Encyclopaedia Britannica (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gujarat Ecology Commission. 1997. "Ecological Degradation around Gulf of
Khambhat, Gujarat: A Status Report.” Vadodara: Gujarat Ecology
Commission.

Gupta, Aarti. 2000. "Precautionary Decision-Making for Biosafety in India."
Cambridge: Harvard University Center for lntemational Development.

Gupta, Dipankar. 2002. "Farmers' Movements in Contemporary India." In Social
Movements and the State, edited by G. Shah. London: Sage Publications.

Hogg, Michael A., and Dominic Abrams. 1988. Social Identifications: A social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. NY: Routledge.

146

ILO. 2003. Economically Active Population: 1950-2010. [Online]. Available at:
http:llwww.laborsta.ilo.org/. Accessed June 1, 2004.

Indian National Congress. 2004. Manifesto: Indian National Congress 2004.
[Online]. Available at: http:/lwww.congresssandeshcoml. Accessed June
1, 2004.

Jenkins, Rob. 2003. "International Development Institutions and National
Economic Contexts: Neo-Iiberalism Encounters India’s Indigenous Political
Traditions." Economy and Society 32: 584-610.

Khilnani, Sunil. 1997. The Idea of India. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Macleod, Roy M., and Deepak Kumar. 1995. Technology and the Raj: Westem
Technology and Technical Transfers to India, 1 700-1 94 7. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.

Newell, P. 2002. "Biotechnology and the Politics of Regulation." IDS Working
Paper, Biotechnology Policy Series. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies.

Paarlberg, Robert L. 2000. "Governing the GM Crop Evolution: Policy Choices
for Developing Countries." Washington DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.

Qaim, Matin, and David Zimmerman. 2003. "Yield Effects of Genetically Modified
Crops in Developing Countries." Science 7(299): 900-902.

Qayam, Abdul, and Kiran Sakkhari. 2003. "The Bt Gene Fails in India." Seedling
13-17.

Rao, Sambasiva B. (Ed.). 2003. Agriculture in India. New Delhi: Serials
Publications.

Rhoe, Valerie, Sivramiah Shantharam, and Suresh Babu. 2002. "Institutions and
Institutional Capacity for Biotechnology: A Case Study of India." In
Economic and Social Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, edited by RE.
Evenson, V. Santaniello, and D. Zilberman. NY: CABI Publishing.

Sahai, Suman. 2003a. "The Bt Cotton Story: The Ethics of Science and its
Reportage." Current Science 84: 974-975 .

—. 2003b. "India's Plant Variety Protection and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001
Current Science 84: 407-412.

147

Scoones, Ian. 2003. "Science, Policy and Biotechnology Regulation." In
Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing
Countries Briefing Series. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Skinner, EA. 1992. "Perceived Control: Motivation, Coping, and Development."
In Self-efficacy: Thought Control of Action, edited by R. Schwarzer.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Stempel, Guido Hermann, and Bruce H. Westley. 1989. Research Methods in
Mass Communication. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Ten Eyck, Toby. 1999. "Shaping a Food Safety Debate: Control Efforts of
Newspaper Reporters and Sources in the Food Irradiation Controversy."
Science Communication June (20): 426-47.

Touraine, Alain. 2000. "A Method for Studying Social Actors." Joumal of Worid-
Systems Research VI: 900-918.

Turner, John C. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization
Theory. NY: Blackwell.

Wakeford, Tom, and Michel Pimbert. 2003. "Power Reversals in Biotechnology:
Experiments in Democratisation." In Democratising Biotechnology:
Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series.
Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Warren, Dennis M. 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural
Development. Washington DC: The World Bank.

White, Harrison C. 1992. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social
Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

148

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings

This research has explored agrifood biotechnology discourse in India from
the beginning of the controversy in 1998 through 2002, the year the Indian
government first gave approval for transgenic crops. It has looked into
processes of social conflict, resonance, and compromise among groups holding
divergent views towards the introduction of these crops. l have focused
especially on mapping the issues contested by six types of actors — government,
industries, civil society, scientists, mass media, and farmers, studying discourse
in national and local arenas and examining relations between groups, particularly
the group dynamics between farmers and non-farmers. l have proposed the
development of a discourse perspective consisting of actors, strategies, claims,
and outcomes to describe and analyze social processes leading up to the Indian
government’s approval of the first transgenic crops.

This project used 390 articles from Indian newspapers, 77 articles from
two Gujarati language dailies and one major Gujarati farm newspaper, and 95
interviews conducted in New Delhi, Mumbai and Gujarat. In analyzing,
interpreting, and describing the contours of debates, I have also used policy
documents such as biosafety guidelines, national agricultural policy, and annual
reports and pamphlets obtained from organizations to which interviewees
belonged. Field notes were used to reconstruct the context wherein interviews

were conducted. In order to accomplish the objectives stated above, this

149

research has followed a series of methodological steps drawn from an
ethnographic content analysis approach (Altheide 1996).

Beginning with 1998, I have highlighted processes of conflict and
compromise involving negotiations among a range of actors with vested interests
in Bt cotton. l have particularly focused on those actor groups influential in
federal policy-making, and on, farmers, a group which is the major consuming
sector of Bt cotton seeds. Central is the argument that the Bt cotton controversy
involves ongoing conflict and compromise among interested actors attempting to
redefine issues related to the commercial introduction of this crop. As shown in
the foregoing chapters, in many ways the controversy has been a symbolic
contest over whose understanding and interpretations of a newly available
technology will prevail. Actors with divergent values, holding a range of views in
respect to genetically engineered crops (GE crops) and to what India should
become, confronted one another to redefine what it means to introduce Bt cotton
to India and to influence public’s views of Bt cotton. These intensive interactions
especially arose when newsworthy events provoked changes in public attitudes.

For instance, initial optimism towards GE crops faded when a farmers’
group burned Bt cotton field trial sites in protest against Mahyco-Monsanto. Bt
cotton, initially introduced as a promising agricultural technology to help alleviate
a range of cotton industry-related problems, had suddenly become a problem
itself entailing negative economic, ecological, social, and political consequences.
In particular, a controversy involving the spread of unauthorized Bt cotton seeds

in Gujarat and other cotton growing states marked a turning point in how issues

150

were framed, from the frame related to governmental processes to one related to
the livelihood of farmers. The focus of debates turned from discussions of
biosafety policies, the three tier-mechanisms for assessing biosafety aspects of
transgenic crops, and field testing procedures, to Bt cotton yields, farming, pests,
soil fertility, drought, and seeds. At the same time, ownership of the issues
shifted from the national actors, groups in New Delhi and Mumbai close to
agrifood biotechnology policy-making, to farmers and other actors directly tied to
farmers in the local arenas. This shift forced groups in the national arena to
modify stand on Bt cotton and to surrender to the views of actors in the local
arena, primarily strong supporters of farmers.

The second premise I developed in my argument was the assertion that
the Bt cotton controversy reflected negotiations of interested actors attempting to
control the agrifood biotechnology discourse through various strategies. Actors
expressed their views towards Bt cotton through newspapers, seminars,
workshops, and other media, as well as through communication networks with
other actors, with the goal of enlisting support for their views. Actors not only
communicated their ideas through claims but also developed new concepts
which they acted upon creatively to achieve their own goals. The complex
pattern of actions and reactions among actors were partly intentional and partly
unplanned, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect. The tactic actors used in their
confrontation and negotiations with others in the controversy most often was that
of claimsmaking in news reports. Actors in government proactively generated

favorable publicity for Bt cotton by having a range of actors within government

151

make a large number of claims which were duly reported in the newspapers. In
contrast, although the number of claims made by actors in civil society and
reported in the newspapers were small, this group has been very focused and
effective in their claimsmaking activities, having provocative claims or dramatic
stories reported in newspapers. In many ways the strategies employed by
scientists overlapped with the strategies of other actor categories, because in the
Indian context, the division of labor between scientists and government officials,
scientists and activists, and scientists and industries is not always clear. Thus,
those holding biophysical science degrees were versatile in being able to shift
their identity from that of a government official to one as a scientist, or as an
activist to a scientist, as needed.

Although farmers might not have had the same level of strategic intent to
be reported in the newspapers as did other groups, the direct actions that
farmers resorted to, such as demonstrating against a field trial and burning cotton
fields, were reported heavily in the newspapers and thus substantially influenced
subsequent debate. Among many stories reported in the newspapers, an event
involving the spread of unauthorized Bt cotton from the state of Gujarat into other
cotton growing states most tellingly demonstrated how powerfully the collective
actions of farmers could override not only the claims of other actors but also
existing social structures, such as biosafety regulations. Though individual
actions were spontaneous, common problems and interests brought farmers
together. The collective that emerged operated powerfully in controlling

discourse.

152

A less explicit and yet effective strategy employed by actors is the use of
rhetorical tactics in dealing with emerging threats and opportunities in discourse.
As outlined in the discussion of frame theory in Chapter 2, actors in India used
frames in two different ways. The first related to a strategy of countering the
claims of others while maintaining a frame. The analysis indicated that actors in
the national arena used this option of not deviating from an established frame
already used in making claims so as to create an impression that they were
engaging in a discussion, instead of avoiding direct engagement in discussions
of the issues. A typical example given in Chapter 2 relates to how civil society
and government actors talked past each other. While civil society actors
complained that relevant governing bodies were inadequate in addressing
biosafety issues, government officials declined to engage in debates, instead
reiterating the existence of elaborate biosafety policies as key elements in
considering whether India was ready to adopt Bt cotton or not. The same use of
frames relates to the strategy of ollverriding the claims of others by promoting the
importance of an alternative frame. An episode in Chapter 3 illustrated the
adoption of this strategy by farmers. Instead of employing frames used by non-
farrners, farmers used a completely different frame that was significant and
relevant for their lives. Many of the issues raised by farmers follow from their
own experience or from the observation and testimony of others, not from
theories nor a priori knowledge. Such claims, which have been empirically
validated, tend to be more influential than conceptually-based claims, as

evidenced by the strong support that their claims have received.

153

Third, actors in India engaged in boundary work (Gieryn 1999) in
establishing the credibility of their claims. Chapter 4 demonstrated how non-
farmer actors used an anchoring strategy to convince others that they were
credible claimsmakers who could stand for the social and economic well-being of
farmers, while farmers rejected such presentations by asserting their own social
identity in conveying and justifying their attitudes towards Bt cotton. While both
non-farmer actors and farmers used these strategies as a means of validating
their claims, closer examination of the content of interviews suggest that non-
fanners tried to project the image of trustworthy claimsmaker, while farmers, not
needing to create a public image, emphasized the credible nature of their own
claims. What these dynamics suggest is that non-farmers were under great
pressure to conduct themselves properly as compared to farmers, who were free
to behave in more sensationalist ways. In other words, impression management
was more important for non-farmer actors than for farmers in their claimsmaking
activities. This finding runs counter to Goffman’s notion of stigma (1963), which
suggests that such pressure to assimilate is generally placed upon marginalized
groups. Non-farmers in India would not be considered a marginalized group.
They are in fact an educated urban elite enjoying privileges in many different
ways. However, the ways in which these groups of people emphasized idealized
and normative identity, and behaved to achieve full acceptance of others in
Indian society, indicate that non-farmers were cognizant that they would be
marginalized in agrifood biotechnology discourse unless they were able to gain

acceptance by a majority of the Indian population. Government officials were

154

particularly under social pressure to present themselves in a way that would
show that they were representing the interests held in common by the members
of India society. Thus, such social pressures influenced the nature of their claims
and claimsmaking activities, and hence the process of establishing their social
identity in their interaction with others.

Behind these processes of interaction lies India’s emphasis on building
consensus in the name of a larger cause. Consensus building has been
particularly important for government officials in matters related to agrifood
biotechnology, as every interested group is responsible for acting upon what has
been decided collectively. Not only actors from government, science, and
industry who are stakeholders in the traditional sense, but also farmers typically
viewed as passive participants in the discourse and subjected to the
consequences of a public policy decision will play a significant role in determining
how well a decision is implemented. For instance, without the support of farmers,

biosafety policies are not feasible.

Contributions
A major contribution of this dissertation is its analysis of social processes
involving the acceptance or rejection of agrifood biotechnology in developing
countries. Integrating theories and concepts deriving from the sociologies of
agricultural development and science and technology, this project detailed
perceptions towards transgenic crops in developing countries and the kinds of

actions and interactions that people engage in to gain acceptance and support

155

for their positions. A discourse perspective is well-suited to understanding the
social landscape of agrifood biotechnology in India, providing a scheme for
understanding the complex and constantly changing social reality by untangling
claims, actors and actions, by relating claimants to subsequent events, and by
comparing and contrasting claims across actors and over time. Conditions in
India during the period of the study were particularly complex and in a state of
influx due to uncertainties deriving from a range of factors, such as unknown
risks and benefits of transgenic crops, unstable government institutions
evaluating the biosafety aspects of transgenic crops, and complex biosafety
policies.

In addition, several other factors contributed to the increasing dynamism
of this social landscape, stoking the controversy since its eruption in 1998. First,
the Indian government displayed a lack of firmness in pursing their intended
plans, and lacked consistency in their claims, creating an open space for other
actors to express their opinions about government plans and policies. Second,
the farmers’ unions, being highly organized, had the capability to take direct and
militant action in pursuit of their social, economic and political goals. Finally, a
whole network of NGOs proved adept at pulling in domestic and international
funding, which allowed them to actively participate in public discussions.
Moreover, being articulate speakers, spokespersons of Indian NGOs have had
significant influence on public opinion.

Second, this dissertation demonstrates the power of the social

constructionist approach to social problems to lend insight into areas well beyond ‘

156

social problems per se. The topic here is one in which the social problem
literature has rarely been engaged. The literature generally deals with topics of
relevance in the US, such as mental illness, homelessness, alcoholism, and
crime (Best 1990; Conrad and Schneider 1980; Goffman 1961; Gusfield 1996;
Snow and Anderson 1993; Wierner 1981), but rarely addresses topics related to
agricultural technology nor issues taking place in developing countries. However,
I see substantial parallels in terms of purpose (to understand the ways in which a
problem is defined by actors and to explore actors’ awareness that the particular
conditions are a threat to their values and norms) and conceptual framework
(viewing social reality as an ongoing process involving actors, claims, and
claimsmaking activities).

Third, this project has demonstrated the significant analytic utility of the
framing literature in understanding agrifood biotechnology discourse by virtue of
its system for analyzing the content of claims in relation to interested actors.
Framing theory has helped me engage in a substantive analysis of agrifood
biotechnology discourse by providing an analytic scheme to organize a range of
claims, experiences, and events reported in newspapers and obtained in
interviews. It has allowed me to track a sequence of events over a span of five
years, as well as events connecting actors situated in different geographical and
social locations. Drawing on Goffman’s (1986) idea of how individuals’
interpretive processes of events and interactions with others involve a cognitive
schema (which he labeled frames), l organized the content of claims about Bt

cotton into five different frames at the outset of this research, obtaining results

157

which later became a basis for understanding actors’ framing strategies and for
understanding the nature of interactions among actors.

Goffman’s (1959) concerns for actors’ cognitive schema have been
subjected to numerous criticisms. I will elaborate on two such criticisms:
exclusion of activities that fall outside individual interaction, and neglect to
address the relations between actors and social structure (Gouldner 1971). This
dissertation has in part been an effort to respond to such criticisms by
demonstrating the utility of frames in understanding interpretive processes that
take place among groups, processes which may have been outside Goffman’s
concern with face-to-face interactions between individuals. Indeed, viewing
actors as holding collective interpretations and awareness is more culturally
appropriate in analyzing group interactions in the Indian context.

Observing the interactions within India and in the US, I have come to
understand and appreciate that Indian cultural values and norms place much
more emphasis on groups, collectivism, and conformity to group values and
norms than in the US, where Goffman’s fieldwork took place. People have
never been prohibited from expressing their views and opinions in either country;
however, what has been expressed as individual opinion in India frequently
mirrors what others in her/his group have said. This has particularly been the
case with government officials, industries, and farmers. Voices in government
and industry tended to be monolithic because their claims reflected the roles that
they were expected to play. Claims of farmers were also homogenous because

they shared similar experiences with cotton cultivation and Bt cotton. Thus, the

158

concept of frames was highly applicable in analyzing and explaining group
interaction. The second criticism of Goffman’s work, that it fails to account for
how actors relate to structure, has been addressed in work examining social
movements, public opinion, and mass media discourse (Gamson and Modigliani
1989; Snow et al. 1986). By using framing literature that extends Goffman’s
concept, this dissertation has demonstrated how the use of frames can effectively
mobilize and counter-mobilize opinions and thus influence social phenomena,
and how domination of a particular frame in mass media discourse can influence
the collective view of a technology.

Finally, although the focus of this dissertation is to develop a theoretical
and conceptual framework in understanding and describing social processes
involving the adoption process of Bt cotton, this project lends insights into
achieving better enforcement of existing biosafety policies. The first practical
step will be to collect qualitative data in varying geographical locations through
focus groups and interviews with farmers so as to gain better understanding of
the issues and concerns in relation to the implementation of biosafety regulations.
The example of cotton growers in Gujarat suggested that they had concerns over
the ecological impact of planting Bt cotton, though they were not following
biosafety regulations partly because of the shortage of accurate information, and
partly because of the difficulties in accommodating the rules stipulated in the
regulations. Qualitative data collected from varying geographical regions will
uncover unexpected concerns and issues with current regulations, and reasons

for regulations not being met. Second, a body such as the GEAC will need to

159

use these qualitative data to consider not only the wider policy implications and
social and moral dimensions of GM crops, but to reexamine the question of the

extent to which the existing guidelines match the reality on the ground.

Limitations and Future Work

In spite of the explanatory power of this study, more empirical work is
needed to clarify the ways in which specific claims and actions have led to
particular social outcomes and vice versa. Such work will help us address the
larger theoretical question of how the actions of individuals and groups influence
and shape society, and how these processes then relate back to individual
opinions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Activities involving agrifood biotechnology in India are intricately
connected to activities in the global arena. This suggests the importance of
incorporating a global dimension in studies of biotechnology controversies in
India. The scope of this work, local and national agrifood biotechnology
discourse within India, has limited my analysis to claims and claimsmaking
activities within India. However, phenomena in India are inevitably influenced by
global factors, including claims made and actions taken in the global arena. At
the same time, phenomena in the global arena are shaped by claims,
claimsmaking activities, and events taking place in India. Incorporation of a
global dimension would lend insight into how the actors, claims, claimsmaking
activities and events in the global arena impinge upon controversies in India and

how claims and claimsmaking activities in India shape agrifood biotechnology

160

discourse in the global arena. By delving into linkages and interactions of
discourses at the local, national and global levels, we may gain a clearer
understanding of the complex situation that developing countries face in
considering the adoption of agrifood biotechnology.

Second, it would be useful to undertake comparative studies of two or
more different nations to account for the variety of public reactions to GM crops,
and also account for the variety of ways in which transgenic crops are introduced
(whether through the careful approach of Kenya, Brazil and India in allowing the
commercial introduction of GM crops, or China’s bold spearheading of
commercialization). Cross-national comparisons would enable researchers to
gain a better understanding of how claims and actions relate to outcomes.

Finally, this study has revealed that actors in India view their government
as having played a key role in controlling access to and adoption of Bt cotton. In
coming years, as more people use transgenic cotton, and other transgenic crops
are developed and introduced, it is easy to imagine that the implementation
mechanisms of Indian agrifood biotechnology policies at the state level (e.g.,
implementation of biosafety guidelines, and labeling) will become highly
contentious. This study can serve as a reference point as the situation evolves,
but only if future snapshots are available for comparison.

Actors inform, modify and recreate the social reality connected to agrifood
biotechnology. Therefore, actors and their deeds are a significant part and parcel
of the social dynamics surrounding agrifood biotechnology. It is my hope that this

dissertation has contributed to a better understanding of such social processes.

161

Only through the insights into such processes can we know what the future may

hold for agrifood biotechnology in developing countries.

162

References

Altheide, David L. 1996. Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Best, Joel. 1990. Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern about Child-
victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. 1980. Deviance and Medicalization:
from Badness to Sickness. St. Louis: Mosby.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public
Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach." American
Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. NY:
Doubleday.

—. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. NY: Anchor Books.

—. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

—. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.

Gouldner, Alvin Ward. 1971. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. NY: Avon.

Gusfield, Joseph R. 1996. Contested Meanings: The Construction of Alcohol
Problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of
Homeless Street People. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., Burke E. Jr. Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D.

Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and
Movement Participation." American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.

Tripp, R. 2001. "Can Biotechnology Reach the Poor? The Adequacy of
Information and Seed Delivery." Food Policy 26: 249-264.

163

Wierner, Carolyn L. 1981. The Politics of Alcoholism: Building an Arena around a
Social Problem. New Brunswich: Transaction Books.

164

Appendix A

A Preliminary Guide for Undertaking Semi-structured Interviews
with Gujarati Farmers

 

 

Through undertaking semi-structured interviews, I am attempting to identify and
understand 1) the actors involved in agrifood biotechnology debates in Gujarat,
2) their views toward agrifood biotechnology in general and Bt cotton more
specifically, 3) their experience with the Bt cotton controversy, and 4) their
strategies in influencing the views of other actors.

When conducting interviews, one should remember that interviews are meant to
facilitate an understanding of respondents’ points of view. Therefore, the
interviewer should listen carefully to what respondents have to say and exhibit a
supportive and understanding disposition toward the respondents’ voiced
concerns. The interview situation should approximate everyday social
conversation. An interviewer who is unclear about the meaning of an
interviewee’s statement should ask the interviewee to expand on his or her
meaning.

The questions listed below constitute a preliminary guide for an interview. I have
inserted my notes, which are in italics, in between the questions. The flow of the
conversation is more important than the order of the questions, as long as all the
questions are covered.

l. Actors

Land and Crops

1. What is the size of the agricultural land you own? Is it a woodlot or forested
land agricultural land?

2. Do you farm (plant crops on, raise animals on) all of the land you own, or do
others farm some of it? In addition to the land you own, do you operate any
land that you do not own? You’ve told me that you own and operate xxx
acres; how many fields are those xxx acres divided into?

3. Out of all the land you operate, what is the proportion of the land on which
you planted or are planting cotton for the two previous seasons and for the
current season? What other crops did you plant for each season? What is
the proportion of the land on which you plant each of these other crops? Can
you tell me the proportion of each crop in relation to each season? Why do
you grow each of the crops that you grow (e.g., for household consumption,
for sale in a local market, for sale to a processor, for sale to a co—operative,

165

for animal consumption)?
Irrigation/Source of Water Supply .

4. How much of the land isirrigated and how much is rainfed? Can you tell us
this plot by plot (field by field)? Is irrigation year round or only part of the
year? , .

5. Do you always have a sufficient supply of water? If not, how often do you
not? On how much of the land that you operate do you not have a sufficient
supply of water? When does this happen?; what causes this to happen (e.g.,
monsoon rains do not come, other users take water from canals, wells go

dry)?
Inputs - ,

6. What are the inputs (e.g., seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, labor, etc.) that you
use for cotton? How much do you pay per acre for each input? Are the
inputs the same each season and each year? If different, could you tally the
costs for the last three years (previous two years and the current one)? For
example, are seeds purchased some years but not others, and are fertilizers
purchased some years but not others?

7. What was or is the yield-per-acre for cotton for 2000, 2001 and 2002?
iSLIbsidies and , CreditAvaiIability _

8. What kinds of support do you get from the government in purchasing
agricultural inputs, in cultivating cotton, and in selling cotton? For example,
are fertilizers and pesticides given or offered in subsidized prices? Are there
monetary subsidies given for the cultivation of crops? Are there loans
available? Where do you get the loans?

Availability of the Seeds" and the Use ors‘ee‘ds ‘
9. What kinds of cotton seeds are available to you to plant?

This question is for identifying the types of cotton varieties that farmers have
used and use in the village (e.g., Nb 151:F1/F2, Bollgard, Desi, Certified
seeds, research varieties).

I would like to identify farmers’ experiences with Bt cotton in comparison to
other types of varieties. The farmers may see the types of cotton as differing
on several dimensions, such as cost, yield, labor requirement, profit, safety,
and legality. Some farmers may mention other difl'erences between the types

166

of cotton. The important thing is to obtain as clear and as complete an
understanding of the farmers’ perception of the differences as possible.

10. Which varieties of cotton seeds have you been using for the two previous
seasons and the current season?

11.Why have you used each of these types of seeds? Why did you switch from
m to xxx in [2000/2001/2002]?

12.What are the advantages and disadvantages of the seeds you have used for
the two previous seasons and the current season?

If yield is an issue, I want to know the average cotton yield per acre. If cost is
an issue I would like to now how much they cost. If labor is an issue, I would
like to know how much labor each requires. In other words, raise additional
questions in their responses to question number 12 to understand the
advantages and the disadvantages that, as they see them, conespond to the
particular seeds that were used.

13. Out of the land planted with cotton, what is the size of the land on which each
type of seed (AIB/C/D) was planted in 2000, 2001, and 2002? (AlB/C/D
refers to the types of the seeds that the farmer named in Question 10.)

14. Where did you get each type of seed?
Pest Attacks

Questions 15 through 17 are for understanding farmers’ experiences of pest
problems.

15. Can you describe for me the situation regarding pest attacks as you
experienced it in 2000 and 2001, and as you are experiencing it in 2002?
How severe have been pest attacks? Have the bollworrns been the only
pests that you have had a problem with? Have there been other pests that
you have had problems controlling?

16. How have you been controlling bollworms? How many times have you
sprayed in 2000, 2001, and 2002? What chemical(s) have you used? How
much chemical treatment do you apply to your crops in each spray? How
many acres does each spray cover?

17. What was the estimated crop loss for the last Kharif (winter) season? What
did you do to cope with the crop loss?

167

Others ,

18. How many years have you farmed? How many years have you cultivated
cofion?

19. Demographic Information: age, education, the number of people in the
household.

II. Views, on Bt Cotton & Experiences with the Controversy ,

Questions 20 and 21 are meant to facilitate an understanding of farmers’ views
on Bt cotton. Question 22 is about their experiences with the Bt cotton
controversy. I would particularly like to Ieam what they consider to be
controversial in regards to Bt cotton and why.

,Awarénessdf andwéws'OnB’tCotIOri'f . .

If a respondent has not previously indicated any awareness of Bt cotton, then ask
Question 20A:

20A. Are you aware of [Bt cotton]? What have you heard about [Bt cotton]? Do
you remember how or where you heard that, or from whom you heard that?

Go to Question 21

If respondent has indicated awareness of Bt cotton but has not discussed it in
detail, then ask Question 208:

208. A few minutes ago, you mentioned Bt cotton (insert the names of Bt
varieties of cotton seeds that the interviewee has mentioned in response to
the various questions above).

Now I would like to ask you some questions about [Bt cotton varieties].
What have you heard about Bt cotton? Do you remember how or where
you heard that, or from whom you heard that? After exploring the response
to the “what have you heard, and how" question thoroughly, ask, “What are
the most important attributes of [Bt cotton varieties]?”

Go to Question 21

If a respondent has already discussed some important attributes of Bt cotton,
then ask Question 200:

20C. A few minutes ago you mentioned that [Bt cotton varieties] are [whatever
the respondent said]; now I would like to ask you some more questions
about [Bt cotton varieties]. I would like you to think back to when you were

168

first hearing about [Bt cotton varieties]. What were you hearing about [Bt
cotton varieties]? Do you remember how or where you heard that, or from
whom you heard that? After exploring the response to the “What have you
heard, and how” question thoroughly, ask, “In addition to what you
mentioned before, are there other important attributes of [Bt cotton
varieties]?”

Go to Question 21

21. The Planting of GMOs

a) If respondents have indicated that they have not planted Bt cotton varieties,
then ask,

A few minutes ago you indicated that none of the cotton you planted during
the previous two years and the current season was Bt cotton. Can you
explain why have you not used it? Would you like to use it? If so, what
keeps you from using it? What would be the disadvantages for you of
using Bt cotton in comparison with [non-Bt cotton varieties]?

b) If respondents have indicated that they have planted Bt cotton varieties, then
ask,

A few minutes ago, you indicated that you have planted [Bt cotton varieties].
And you said that you planted this variety (or these varieties) for [these
reasons — whatever reasons the respondent noted] and that this variety (or
these varieties) had [these advantages and disadvantages - whatever
advantages and disadvantages the respondent noted].

Are there are any other reasons for which you decided to use them? Are
there any other advantages that Bt cotton has over [non-Bt cotton varieties]
for you? Are there any other disadvantages of [Bt cotton varieties] in
comparison with [non-Bt cotton varieties] for you?

22. What issues do people around here talk about concerning Bt cotton? What
issues have concerned ypp most?

It is very important to differentiate two sets of actors: people around here and the
respondent by asking two separate questions about how the respondent
understands what people around his or her villagp talk about and what {Lip
_rr_a§pondent him- or herself is concerned with.

169

If a respondent is not too clear about what this question concerns, probe how he
or she perceives the following issues:

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

a) Can people in this village easily get access to the cotton seeds that
you want to use? Is the supply of seeds sufficient?

b) Can m easily get access to the cotton seeds that you want to use? Is
the supply of seeds sufficient?

c) Do people in this village talk about spurious seeds mixed in a Bt
package?

d) How was the quality of Bt seeds m used? Were some spurious
seeds mixed in a Bt package you used?

* Relations with Other ACtors

Government: Do you interact with people from government? Why? For
which governmental department do they work?"

Government: Do you have a sense of what position(s) people in government
take with respect to the current controversies over Bt cotton?

Government: Has the government in any way helped or intervened in your
daily work?

Scientists: Do you interact with scientists? Why? For which organization do
they work?

Scientists: Do you have a sense of what position(s) scientists take with
respect to the current controversies over Bt cotton?

Scientists: Have scientists in any way helped or intervened in your daily
work?

Industries: Do you interact with people from industries? Why? For which
organization do they work?

Industries: Do you have a sense of what position(s) people in industries take
with respect to the current controversies over Bt cotton?

Industries: Have industries in any way helped or intervened in your daily
work?

NGOs: Are NGOs engaged in projects on agriculture around here? If so,
what projects?

170

33.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

IV.

NGOs: Do you have a sense of what position(s) people in NGOs take with
respect to the current controversies over Bt cotton?

NGOs: Have NGOs in any way helped or intervened in your daily work?

Farmers’ Unions: Do you belong to any farmers’ unions? Can you describe
to me the activities that you are engaged in as a member of a union? Why
do you belong to this or these farmers’ unions?

Farmers’ Unions: Have any of the groups to which you belong taken a
position with respect to the current controversies over Bt cotton? If so, do
you have a sense of what position(s) they have taken?

Farmers’ Unions: Have these unions in any way helped or intervened in your
daily work?

News Reporters: Do you interact with newspaper reporters? Why? Which
newspapers are these reporters representing?

News Reporters: Do you have a sense of what position(s) people in mass
media take with respect to the current controversy/controversies over Bt
cotton? If so, what positions do they take? '

News Reporters: Have they in any way helped or intervened in your daily
work?

Do you feel that any of these groups represent your views? If so, which

one(s)?
/

How do you think the Indian public in gengel feels about Bt cotton?
What about people in this villege and people in this germ?

Strategies for Influencing the Opinionsof OtherActorS 1

Through the following questions, I would like to understand the strategies, such
as direct actions and dialogues with journalists, that farmers use to influence the
opinions of other actors.

In addition, I would also like to understand whether farmers are aware of the
scientific and the technical aspects of Bt cotton. If so, where have they have
obtained that knowledge and how do they utilize it?

171

Strategies . .

43. Why do you think your views make more sense than the views of other
people? You said that Bt cotton will [whatever impact claim]; if someone
challenged you, how would you justify your view?

44. What have you done or will you do to influence the opinions of others who
do not hold views similar to yours?

What did yep do to influence government officials?

What did m do to influence other farmers?

What did m do to influence (e.g., seed, pesticide, fertilizer) dealers?
What did m do to influence NGOs?

What did yep do to influence news reporters?

For example, did you attend forums and seminars to talk about your
experiences? Did you organize meetings? Did you talk to news reporters?

Appropriation of Scientific Knowledge
45. Have you heard of scientific findings concerning Bt cotton?

a) If the respondent says “no,” then this is the end of the interview for that
respondent.

b) If the respondent says “yes, ” then ask,

What scientific findings have you heard about? What do you know about
those findings?

Where did you come to know about it?
Reply to the answers given by the respondent:

a) If the respondent mentions the development of Bollworrn resistance,
then ask, "Can anything be done about the development of bollworm
resistance? If so, what would yet] do?”

b) If the respondent mentions a refuge area, then ask, “Would setting
aside some land as an insect refuge be an economically viable option
for m?”

c) If the respondent mentions harm to non-target species, then ask, “Can

anything be done about negative impacts on non-target species? If so,
what would M do?”

172

d) If the respondent mentions either harm to health or environmental
hazards, then ask, “Can anything be done about negative impacts on
health or on environmental hazards? If so, what would yep do?

e) If the respondent mentions his or her need to continue to spray for
sucking pests and other types of pests, then ask, What did you or
would you do to deal with sucking pests and other types of pests? Did
you or would you spray for other types of pests?

This is the end of the interview for respondents who said “yes. ”

173

Appendix B
Memo for Translation: For g Groufiession

In order to gain a better understanding of what farmers have shared with us in a
semi-structured interview setting, we will meet with them in a group. The
purpose of a group session is clarification of both some of the significant points
that the farmers did not expand on and things that we are not familiar with.

The memo includes questions I will ask during a session. My spontaneous
questions for farmers and these farmers’ responses need to be translated at the
session.

1. Adam
Laird

1. What is the condition of your soil?

2. When (i.e., which year) did you begin to observe the deterioration of soil
quality?

3. Why do you think the quality of soil has deteriorated over the years?

I - r' ?-.<‘ A ; Asa-{f

Crops ' '

._..

4. When (i.e., which year) did people in Bhadharpur begin to grow cotton?

5. How many pickings of cotton per season are there in general? When do they
take place?

6. Why is it detrimental to depend on one crop, instead of several crops?

WaterSupplv ‘ ‘ '

7. Can you help me understand what exactly Khadi (ponds) is by telling me 1)
how they are formed (man-made or naturally formed), 2) how the canal is

connected to the ponds, and 3) how large the ponds are. Is it a catchment
area or an estuary?

8. What is the distance from your house to the Khadr?
9. I would like to clarify both how many diesel engines are available and what the

costs are for bringing in water from Khadi (i.e., Rs.60/hour). How many hours
do the engines need to be used?

174

10. How many times do you supply water in each season to, respectively,
Nb151 F 1, Nb151 F2, Bollgard, H4, H6, H8, Ajit 11, Arujun, and others?

11. When did problems begin to affect the water supply? Have the problems
been there ever since you began fanning?

Seeds ‘ """""
12. How do you decide which seeds to plant and where to plant them? For
example, where would Nb151 F1 be planted as opposed to H8 or F2?

Would the location of Khadi have something to do with the allocation of
seeds in each plot?

13. I’m seeking a clarification of the seeds needed for cultivation (e.g., 1 kg for 1
acre?)

14. Why don’t you save seeds for the following year? Why do you prefer to go
back to the market every year? Has this always been the practice?

15. How do you know whether the seeds you are using are F1 or F2?

16. Tell us the differences between the F1, F2, and Bollgard varieties in terms of
the following issues:

maturation period (i.e., How many days?)
timing of pickings (i.e., Which month?)
frequency and timing of water supply
sizes of bolls

number of bolls for each plant

sizes of plants

17. Can you explain to us what bali gayu is? Do you experience it very often?
climatic Conditions] j .

18. During which month does the moist begin to set in? How does this timing
affect cotton cultivation?

Pests and Pesticides
19. When did cotton pest problems begin in this village?

20. Besides bollworm, Iashkri, gervu, and sucking pests, what other pest
problems do you have?

175

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28

Do you apply a pesticide for each of these pests? Or do you apply just one
kind of pesticide for all the pests?

I would like to clarify 1) which types of pesticides are used in accordance
with which varieties of seeds and 2) the methods (e.g., biological,
mechanical, cultural) by which pests are controlled. I am most interested in
the following seed varieties:

Nb151 F1

Nb151 F2
Bollgard

Certified varieties
Research varieties
Desi seeds

Why don’t you use alternative pest controlling methods, for example the use
of an integrated pest-management method, if you feel that the costs of
pesticides are high?

Besides the problems stemming from a lack of water with which to dilute
pesticides, the high labor costs of applying pesticides, and the high costs of
pesticides, what other problems has the use of pesticides created for you?

When (i.e., which year) did people in this village begin to use synthetic
pesticides?

It is true that 10 to 20 years ago, the majority of farmers used to grow tuvel
but shifted to cotton cultivation because of the development of pest
resistance?

Do you sometimes sprinkle powdered pesticides? For what purpose?

When exactly did the bollworm attacks begin last year?

3454345511355Guarantees.'and’cedit Availability ' ’ V _ .

29.

30.

Have you borrowed money for purchasing seeds, purchasing pesticides,
renting diesel engines, or renting land?

Who finances your credit needs? Is it traders, aditayo (the commission
agents), money lenders, relatives, friends, the pesticide dealer network,
commercial banks, rural banks, or co-operatives?

Sellingof‘Lmt " j j “ * . -

31.

To whom (i.e., CCI, co-operatives, industries) do you sell your lint?

176

32. Why do you prefer to sell lint to this buyer and not to the others?
r1..vrewsr.5hj;;afr¢5&oninsistent-555555whit ’tljéth Cotton controversies
About0ther59cralActors -‘ ‘- ' . ' "

33. Why do you think the government has banned the use of Nb151?

34. Do you know anything about how farmers in a minority community in
Bhadharpur view Bt cotton? Do they support the use of Bt cotton seeds or
do they oppose the use of Bt cotton seeds? Do you know if they use Bt

cotton seeds?

35. Do you share your cultivation experience of cotton with farmers in a minority
community? Do you visit their farms? Do you sit with them to exchange
information?

36. When the village leaders go to the nearest town to purchase seeds and
other inputs for farmers in Bhadharpur, do they also purchase inputs for
farmers in a minority group?

177

Relative Word Frequency Lists by Actors (high to low)

Appendix C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government Industries Civil Society Mass Media Scientists Farmers
seeds seed(s) farmer(s) farmer(s) farmer(s) seeds
cotton farmer(s) India(n) India(n) India(n) land
farmers India(n) technology transgenic(s) seed(s) cotton
variety(ies) government government seeds research pesticide(s)
Bt cotton people technology cotton pest(s)
people crop(s) biotechnology information technology farmer(s)
research people cotton people biotechnology. H8

state biotechnology agriculture agriculture government yield
government food Bt Bt BI water
crop(s) Bt farming cotton science problem
technology gene issue(s) Bollgard gene F2
agriculture company(ies) U.S. crop(s) GMOs plants
market technology countries government plant(s) fertilizer
ministry committee food Navbharat information variety(ies)
problem country organic need(s) state attack
public transgenic(s) need(s) field system soil
Gujarat research information money crop(s) government
private public market system Gujarat F1
India(n) agriculture population biotechnology public price
price Mahyco seed(s) public Issue(s) village
hybrid production small research transgenic(s) farming
U.S. Gujarat interest scientist(s) variety(ies) information
committee GEAC research policy agriculture expenses
crop state science yield GEAC plant
gene variety(ies) variety(ies) GEAC right price(s)
production laws Gujarat scientific company(ies) Bollgard
certified system water variety(ies) conference crop(s)
department hybrid place fact(s) input(s) bollworm
science plant right hybrid policy Navbharat
ICAR department world ministry land season
information RCGM problem pesticide(s) media desi
country right economic food Monsanto hybrid
central industry pesticide(s) GMOs need(s) Iashkari
development consumer public land discussion spray
plant(s) control environment country field input(s)

 

 

 

 

 

 

178

 

N.‘

Q

40

   

Iljljjjjijijjjl[iii