Selling out our farmers and our seed sovereignty

India’s 150 million farmers are in danger of losing sovereignty over their vast agricultural genetic wealth. No other nation in the Global South can match India’s crop diversity. With almost six million varieties of crops, India is also the only country in the world that grows 200,000 kinds of rice.

But this will soon change. The 11th session of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture held in Peru (24–29 November 2025) set the stage for major seed treaty reforms that threaten farmers’ rights.

Driven by countries of the Global North — which possess minimal plant genetic resources — the treaty seeks to bring the Global South’s bounty under a multilateral system (MLS) of access and benefit sharing, handing over control to multinational seed corporations, with scant clarity on compensation.

Shockingly, India was represented by a single negotiator, Dr Sunil Archak, officer-in-charge of Germplasm Exchange (National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources). His claim — that even after signing this treaty, India will retain the freedom to choose which plant genetic accessions it wishes to make — has been countered by experts. The treaty, they warn, is a binding international legal instrument which obligates all signatories to make all their plant genetic resources available, effectively internationalising control over them.

Activists have flagged a conflict of interest in Dr Archak’s appointment to such a sensitive post, citing controversies over his heading seed industry-funded institutions. Surprisingly, the maximum protests against the treaty on genetic resources in the earlier review meetings came from African nations, rather than South Asia or Latin America.

Dr Sarath Babu Balijepalli, who heads the Forum of Scientists for Diversity, strikes a sombre note: “If India chooses to compromise, the technology-rich Global North will get away with the Global South’s genetic wealth served up on a platter. We stand to gain neither monetary compensation nor non-monetary benefits like technology transfer, nor can we claim intellectual property rights over our knowledge and genetic wealth.”

Such an agreement would directly conflict with India’s national law, specifically the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which assert India’s sovereign control and farmers’ custodianship over genetic resources. Is the Modi government buckling under pressure from the USA and other Western countries in these negotiations?

Archak claims that expanding the MLS will help India gain access to crops like soybean, tomato, groundnut and oil palm. Scientists, civil society organisations and farmers’ groups argue that the limited benefit of a few crops cannot justify the massive cost of giving up India’s sovereign rights over its genetic resource base.

Dr Suman Sahai, chairperson of Gene Campaign, points out that earlier, the Global South had opened up 64 crops to be accessed under the MLS on a voluntary basis. “Biotechnology has become one of the most dominant technologies and is a huge money-spinner. Most of these technologies have been developed and patented in the US — they stand to gain the most. This allows big agribusiness and multinational seed companies to access India’s genetic wealth without accountability or transparency,” says Sahai.

Referring to the US emerging as a big producer of rice, she added, “India exports Rs 49,000 crore worth of basmati. Once they have access to our seeds, they will cut into our market.”

Civil society and farmers warn the treaty fails to regulate digital sequence information (DSI) from shared plant resources, paving the way for digital biopiracy and anonymous data sharing outside India’s control.

Despite claims to the contrary, records show that India has already provided more than 400,000 samples on a multilateral sharing basis. According to Government of India notifications, this material includes farmers’ varieties.

Farmer groups have written to the government pointing out that India already possesses substantial diversity in crops and can access additional varieties through bilateral agreements, avoiding the need to surrender its national sovereignty.

Sadly, the government is not listening, and in fact, has a double whammy in store, with the latest Draft Seeds Bill, 2025, which will replace the Seeds Act, 1966, and the Seed Control Order, 1983. As with previous attempts in 2004 and 2019, this draft Bill has drawn sharp criticism for favouring seed companies and agribusinesses over ordinary cultivators, particularly those relying on traditional, chemical-free farming.

Under the new Bill, minor offences, such as selling substandard seeds or failing to update the SATHI portal, incur fines of upto Rs 1 lakh. Major violations, including selling spurious or unregistered seeds, can attract up to Rs 30 lakh in fines and up to three years in prison.

Farmers’ right activist and agrarian expert Kavita Kuruganti is shocked that the Bill lacks a compensation clause. “If faulty seed results in crop failure, the farmer will have to seek compensation through a court of law, which can take years to decide a case,” she said.

While individual farmers will be allowed to save and share seeds, community groups, women’s seed collectives and traditional seed-saving networks will be classified as commercial entities, subject to the same digital compliance as large companies. Extensive digital reporting, QR codes, online submissions and continuous tracking will be a huge challenge for small rural seed keepers with limited internet access.

But the most frightening feature of this anti-farmer Bill is that it empowers the Centre to accredit companies — once accredited, state governments cannot reject their registration. Kuruganti cites the Monsanto case, where Andhra Pradesh banned the company for selling defective BT cotton seeds. Under the new law, however, no state government could blacklist any company cleared by the Centre.

Food expert Devinder Sharma believes this will deal a death blow to federalism, pointing out that states have the right to ban companies or seeds they find unsuitable. “For example, the Delhi government allows Bayer’s Roundup pesticide, but Punjab has banned it. States must be free to test new seed varieties and then decide what is best suited to their local environment,” he added.

The new Seeds Bill claims to liberalise seed imports to give farmers access to a wider range of global seeds and technologies. Farmers and activists, however, see it as an ‘open sesame’ to highly controversial GM crops. As Sharma says, “No country will hand over their best seeds. Unhindered imports risk introducing many alien, invasive species.”

Experts believe this free pass will squander the gains of the Green Revolution. Previously, imported seeds were first tested by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). For instance, a reddish wheat variety was brought to India from Mexico. Since Indians do not eat red wheat, ICAR scientists crossbred it with Indian varieties, resulting in two very popular strains: Kalyan Sona and Sonalika.

What is sad — though not surprising — is that the Bill ignores famer’s rights and the need to protect traditional seeds that have evolved over centuries, and focuses on corporate interests instead.

Aflatoon of the Kisan Mazdoor Parishad bluntly says this law is a move to corporatise India’s seed sector and assist predatory pricing by corporate monopolies.

Seed expert Bharat Mansata, a member of the Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch, warns that, “The Seed Bill, combined with proposed changes to the treaty, could effectively legalise biopiracy of our rich genetic heritage.” Agitations against the draft Bill were held by farmers’ organisations on 26 November, the fifth anniversary of their historic protests against the previous farm laws.

The Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture has urged the GoI to reject the proposed amendments to the International Plant Treaty and allow wider debate on the proposed Seeds Bill 2025. They submitted their concerns in a formal letter dated 15 November addressed to the agriculture minister. They await a response.