‘We can’t repeat the same mistakes with our farmers’

Gene Campaign founder Dr Suman Sahai has been a leading advocate of efforts to promote trade and gene literacy among farmers and the conservation of our genetic wealth. She argues that the new Seeds Bill 2025, which the Modi government is trying to push through Parliament in the ongoing winter session, once again privileges corporate interests at the expense of farmers. Excerpts from a conversation with Rashme Sehgal:

The draft Seeds Bill, 2025 aims to replace the Seeds Act, 1966, and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The government says it will modernise seed regulation for today’s agricultural and market needs. Farmers’ organisations fear it will hand the entire seed sector to the corporate lobby, both domestic and foreign, making seeds unaffordable for the average farmer. Do you share this fear?

The Bill has unmistakably been drafted by corporate houses; everything in it is tilted in their favour. This should come as no surprise since this government seems to favour industry. It is not a pro-farmer Bill, nor is it a Bill that will in any way support the seed sovereignty of our country.

Considering that 80 per cent of our farmers are marginal and small farmers, one would have expected the draft to focus on their needs, because the big farmers can, after all, take care of themselves. This draft should be set aside and we should have a fresh round of public consultations [the first round closed on 11 December] in order to come up with a seed Bill that is pro-farmer and ensures the nation’s food sovereignty.

The Bill permits price regulation only in ‘emergent situations’ effectively allowing companies to set prices freely under normal circumstances. It also mandates the use of a central seed portal (SATHI) and QR codes for traceability. What’s your take on this?

An ‘emergent situation’ can mean anything; it has not been defined in the Bill and can be interpreted in any way. This whole emphasis on going digital places a tremendous bureaucratic burden on small farmers and community seed keepers, the majority of whom lack internet access or even digital literacy. Look at the state our BLOs have been reduced to during the SIR exercise for similar reasons. We cannot repeat the same mistakes with our farmers.

Critics fear that the new Bill will not only increase cultivation costs but also weaken existing protections. While it upholds an individual farmer’s right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds (provided they are not sold under a brand name), farmer organisations argue it undermines stronger safeguards already available under the existing Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. Would you agree?

The Plant Varieties Act cannot be superseded under any circumstances. All its provisions must override any legislation that touches upon farmers and seeds. Also, we need to have price control as a provision for compulsory licensing. If a seed is not made available in adequate quantities by the company or if it is overpriced, the government will have the right to produce the required seed and make it available to farmers under this compulsory licensing clause.

What about penalties?

Penalties should be a deterrent. Levying a maximum penalty of Rs 30 lakh for violations is a ridiculously low amount for corporates. I would suggest Rs 75 lakh for the first violation, Rs 1.5 crore for the next and Rs 3 crore if there is yet another violation.

A provision allowing foreign organisations to be recognised for VCU (Value for Cultivation and Use) testing has rung alarm bells that genetically modified (GM) or patented foreign seeds could enter Indian markets. Could you please elaborate?

I do not think VCU testing is linked to GM crops. We have a law that prevents GM crops from entering the country. By allowing foreign organisations to test their own varieties, there is a real danger of results being skewed in their favour.

We already have a system that tests new varieties. The All India Coordinated Trials is an effective system. Private companies should be required to pay a fee to this system to test the varieties they propose to release. The new Seeds Bill should focus on setting stringent standards to ensure the performance of new crop varieties. Traditional farm seeds cannot be subjugated to these new regulations.

The Bill offers no simple, accessible mechanism for farmers to receive timely compensation for crop failures caused by faulty seeds. Instead, they must seek damages through time-consuming civil courts, which many cannot afford to. Your comments.

Compensation for failure, non-performance or underperformance should be addressed within the framework of legislation by a tribunal. The government needs to set up a tribunal to ensure swift and fair compensation for farmers. They cannot be made to run around to civil courts to claim compensation when they have been sold dud seeds by companies.

The compensation amounts should reflect the realistic loss to the farmer, not just the cost of the packet of dud seeds. It should include the loss of the potential earning from at least three harvests, had the seed been of good quality.

This Bill is also a blow to federalism. The Central Accreditation System (CAS) beingproposed will allow any nationally accredited company to be automatically recognised in every state. Individual states would no longer have the power to overrule national decisions, even if a particular ruling does not suit local conditions. Your comments.

The CAS cannot be permitted since agriculture is a state subject. This has been clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Each state must have the authority to decide what best suits the needs of their farmers and consumers.

Another major blow is that the draft Bill labels community groups — such as Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), women’s seed collectives and traditional seed-saving networks — as commercial entities. They would then be subject to the same bureaucratic and digital compliance requirements as large companies. Won’t this further facilitate the exploitation of our genetic heritage?

How can traditional seed collectives and seed-saving networks be classified as commercial entities? They have existed for centuries and should be allowed to function undisturbed. Also, the government needs to understand that the rules that apply to a large seed company like Bayer, for instance, cannot apply to a seed collective. They fulfil entirely different needs that are successfully addressed through well-established systems.

It almost seems as though this Seeds Bill, combined with proposed changes to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, is determined to legalise the biopiracy of our rich genetic heritage. What can be done to stop it?

Biopiracy happens in all kinds of ways; it is already happening under the international treaty. To stop biopiracy, we need to plug the many avenues from where leakage is taking place. Civil society has to come together to ensure the government does not succumb to corporate pressure.