South Indian Farmers response to the draft LA &RR Bill

To,
 
Mr. Jairam Ramesh,
Honorable Minister for Rural Development,
Government of India,
New Delhi.,

Dear Mr. Jairam Ramesh,
Greetings,

We , South Indian farmers movements are submitting hereunder our response to the Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011 (LA&RR bill).We write to demand the ministry to take our south Indian farmers response in to consideration in regard.

Yours Sincerely,

Chukki Nanjundaswamy,

S.Kannaiyan.

Coordinators,

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM)

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements

(SICCFM)

636, Ideal Homes Township,

Raja Rajeswari Nagar, Bangalore -5600098. Karnataka.

Telephone +91 94444089543,

Email: siccfm@gmail.com

South Indian Farmers response to the draft LA &RR Bill

31st August, 2011.

The Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011 (LA&RR bill) released by the ministry of rural development on July29th, 2011 in the public domain for discussion does not address genuine “public purpose” - such as rural development, agriculture, eco restoration, land for landless, rights of forest dwellers and tribals etc. Instead it is completely biased towards facilitating industrialization.  This bill is a result of a political compulsion - the compulsion to ensure that there is a coercive law to satisfy the forces [mainly industry] intending to grab land and resources. And that too at a time when those who want to acquire the land, whether government or the private sector has accumulated capital as never before, sufficient to bid and ‘buy’ land at the going rate in the market.

The farming community has no urgency to pass this bill; this is the urgency solely of the government and the industries to advance urbanization and private takeover of our resources. We do not accept the idea that our way of life has no place in the future of India. Industrialization and urbanization is not the right direction – there are already serious environmental, climatic, livelihood and food crises at stake. These crises will only worsen with the vision enshrined in this bill. We demand people’s sovereignty over resources. Why are we not giving land to the landless and completing the land reform process before acquiring land for the industries? We disagree with the fundamental principles laid down in this bill below and list out the reasons why as well as our main demand.

We reject the draft Land acquisition bill in the present form because:

1.  We oppose the fundamental spirit behind the bill. The definition of Public Purpose is absolutely unacceptable to us: The sole purpose of this draft bill is to accelerate industries and urbanization at the cost of all rural communities and our way of life. This bill does not cater to the needs for agriculture or eco-restoration or for land to the landless and small/marginal farmers. We oppose that the state should use its eminent domain in order to spread industries at the cost of rural livelihoods thus increasing the threat of food insecurity and the climate crisis. The role of farming community in ensuring the food sovereignty of India is absolutely more vital to the future of this country than unrestricted industrialization. We therefore reject this definition and demand that a genuine national consultation and deliberation with the farming and rural communities’ takes place at the local level to really define public purpose which should be determined along with farmers and the rural community before any development project. We are willing to give our lands for genuinely public purposes.

2.  Change of farm land use to industrial private purposes is unacceptable: Land is not a commodity to be purchased and sold. Land is about our identity, our roots and out community. Furthermore we oppose that farm land be turned into uses like hotels, residences for rich people. We also reject the distinction between irrigated and un irrigated lands.  This bill promotes acquisition of all lands except multi-cropped irrigated agricultural land, which is often owned by the rich farmers. All agricultural land should be kept for farming purposes only. There should be strong monitoring of land use even when purchased in the open market to ensure that the food sovereignty of India is not put in danger.  We condemn the commodification of land by the govt to facilitate industrialization – agriculture cannot wait and industrialization needs to wait!

3.  Minimum displacement is not the driving force behind this bill: In fact there is no mention of “no forced displacement” or “prior informed consent”. Furthermore 80% consent mentioned is only for PPP projects and not for government projects and there is no guarantee that the government will not use its eminent domain to acquire land for industry. No procedures have been laid out for obtaining the consent of 80% and who will decide that the consent has been obtained? Under the current draft bill the company itself can ascertain 80% consent and the chances are high that they can use forgery and other malpractices to prove consent. We demand a clear laid out procedure in the act itself and that 80% consent must apply to all acquisitions including only for government projects to minimize the trauma of displacement.

4.  No mechanism to protect land losers from unfair negotiations or malpractices of private players to buy land: There is a great power asymmetry between the land buyers and those whose lands are sought. The bill makes no effort to address this. There is no guarantee that private players will not use underhand methods, muscle power, forging etc to grab peoples lands. It does not prevent and protect the people from being forcibly dispossessed of their land through ‘sale’ of land to land mafias of all kinds.

5.  No guarantee that compensation, R & R will happen before the land is taken: The bill promises a ‘liberal’ and speedy compensation, relief and rehabilitation prior to the acquisition but at the same time permits delayed payment of compensation; The collector has enormous powers to decide when R & R is completed and also take over land before compensation is paid. The land losers are at the mercy of the collector who incidentally is also the person to be approached for making any complaints! Instead to strengthening the farmer’s position the bill is putting them at the mercy of the bureaucracy who have historically proved to be serving the interests of the industries and against the people.

6.  We reject the lip service to tribals, forest dwellers and gram sabhas in decision making: Forest dwellers have the primary right under Forest Rights Act to make decisions on forests and this bill does not address that for conducting any project, permission and consent needs to be first acquired from forest dwellers and tribals. How can forest dwellers rights over forest and natural resources be exchanged with an R and R package? Also the Gram Sabhas will receive a “token” consultation, under the current bill, they will not have any meaningful participation or the power to stop a project or give their prior informed consent; This bill also denies any decision making right on ‘relief and rehabilitation’ to the people, the gram/ward sabhas

7.  Inadequate rehabilitation package: Why is R and R only applied to 100 acres and above? Even if a single acre is acquired for any government project, then R and R should apply. Furthermore, the bill denies compensation and R & R to those affected by the acquisition of common property or public land and denies infrastructural amenities in the resettlement area where the number of resettled families is less than one hundred families. It exempts private companies from the provisions of rehabilitation and resettlement when the ‘land acquisition’ is for less than one hundred acres;

8.  Social impact assessment is a farce: Under the current bill the SIA seems like a window dressing. The main issues as to how the SIA will impact the final decision on the project are not answered. It seems like the SIA is only meant to improve the project rather than rejecting it if opposed by the people. Furthermore the SIA will only be reviewed by an independent expert body but will be conducted by the “appropriate government” when it should be both conducted and reviewed by independent bodies. There is no provision for participation of the affected people or Gram Sabhas in the SIA. It offers social impact assessment to be carried out, but does not insist that the decision to acquire land has to be based on its recommendations;

9.  Unfair disciplinary mechanisms: the bill provides for only disciplinary proceedings for offenses by the officials while providing for imprisonment and penalty to those people obstructing land acquisition.

OUR DEMAND

·        We demand the introduction of a new Bill instead of the bill the “The Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011” published by the ministry of Rural development on 29th July,2011 to repeal the draconian “The Land Acquisition Act 1894”. The ministry should completely revamp the bill and should come out with a new bill taking in to the consideration of the farmer’s movements and people’s movements.

·        We demand the government of India to formulate a committee comprising the representatives of the farmer’s movements to finalise the new bill for the land requirement for the government and Rehabilitation & Resettlement.

·        We demand that a genuine guideline of public purpose is created after nationwide debates at the taluka level. Only when genuine public purpose is determined by the new guidelines and after prior informed consent of those whose lands are needed in each case land can be given to the state after a liberal offer of compensation along with a relief and rehabilitation far above the operative market prices.

·        Project affected persons and or gram sabhas should have the right to stop a project if they find violations, or if the social impact assessments so recommend.

·        We demand that the government makes a timeline to build a consensus among the farming and rural communities of India, we need debates at the taluka level. The new bill should be translated in all regional languages so that we may be able to have discussions and debate at the grassroots level.

·        We demand  the government of India to  release a White Paper on the extent of land acquired for industrial purposes and extent of land ‘really' utilised for the purpose specified in the past six decades

·        Finally, before the new law comes into place all acquisition processes under the draconian 1894 Land Acquisition Act should be suspended.

Endorsed by

Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangh( KRRS) (Karanataka).

Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam( Tamil Nadu),

Uzhavar Ulaippalar Katchi(Tamil Nadu),

Uzhavar Periyakkam(Tamil Nadu),

Katchi Sarpartra Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam(Tamil Nadu),

Kongunadu Vivasayigal Sangam( Tamil Nadu),

Kerala Coconut Farmers Association (KCFA)( Kerala)

Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha(Kerala),

The Hindu : NATIONAL / KARNATAKA : Stakeholders trash draft Bill on land acquisition

The Hindu : NATIONAL / KARNATAKA : Stakeholders trash draft Bill on land acquisition

No to Land Acquisition for private purposes

South Indian Farmers Consultation

On Land Acquisition Act

Chennai, 12 July 2011

 Report by Ashlesha Khadse and Kannaiyan

We the members of SICCFM (South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements) representing south India's farmers had a discussion in Chennai on the 12 July with the participation of various farmers’ leaders from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

We condemn the idea of land grabbing by the state for corporate interests from those who depend on land for their livelihoods. A farmer without land is like a fish without water. Others who depend on farmers for their livelihoods also suffer an immeasurable loss when land is taken away. Some may point out that farmers are willing to sell their lands, but the bitter truth today is that India’s faulty policies are leaving us no choice. This is due to the promotion of a wrong model of agriculture and a market oriented farming system which is leading to poor and volatile prices of produce, expensive inputs, degrading lands and water tables, loss of agro-diversity, lack of public services and mass suicides due to indebtedness. This is the reason that some farmers are doing the unthinkable – selling off their lands at the great price of the loss of identify, livelihood and breakdown of their community. They do this at the prospect of some short term monetary gain in a desperate situation but this is no long term solution to India's development. This trend will only swell up the numbers of the poor, increase urban migration, unemployment and slums in cities.  India cannot put its food producers through this loss of dignity. That is why we have come up with the following demands on the new law that will govern land sales from farmers for development purposes. Let’s have a law that will uphold people's rights over resources as the main basis of development.

The general principles on land needs for development

1.    We say no to land acquisition for private purposes. If industries need land then they can buy lands at the market prices in the real estate market from willing sellers. We need a government authority to make sure that no private entity uses underhand methods like harassing, bribery etc to purchase lands without farmers consent. Heavy penalties should be imposed on such cheaters.

2.    The concept of eminent domain should be nullified. The state cannot have the right to alienate anyone from their land.  If land is needed for a government project for public purpose and for development purposes then a democratic discussion should take place with the land owners and a transparent process should carry out the establishment of the public purpose behind the proposed project, the terms of compensation and rehabilitation and only after prior informed consent of the affected community and gram sabhas should the project planning start.

3.    We reject forceful acquisition of land. Land can be forcefully acquired only from those holding excess lands above land ceiling to be used for development and upliftment of the poor, agriculture and rural economy based livelihood generation and housing for the poor. 

4.    Prior informed consent should the primary guiding principle behind receiving land for public purposes.

5.    We demand an end to the 'urgency clause'. No forceful acquisitions should take place.

6.    Least or no displacement should take place. Options assessments must form part of all proposed projects.

7.    Land cannot be turned into uses that are unproductive. Especially cultivable land use should be reserved for agricultural purposes only.

8.    The rights of women and minorities should be protected at all times and their right to land should be recognized.

9.    Land titles should not be transferred if possible.  We may consider ideas like long term leasing of land, but the land should be returned to the original owners in the original condition after the use is over.  

If land is needed for government projects directed towards development and public purpose then then we demand the following to be incorporated in the law that will govern this process:-

1. Compensation:

1.    10 times the value of the market price should be given. Market price means the operative prices at the time of purchase.

2.    The compensation should also take into consideration the future price and value increase for the next 20 years as a result of the change in the land use.

3.    If the land seller so desires then a choice should be available to them to receive that part of the compensation which is above and over the lump sum land price in monthly instalments over the next 33 years.

4.    The land losers should also be given a percentage share in the new upcoming project.

5.    Shares and debentures cannot form part of the main compensation but can only be offered above and beyond the compensation so as to avoid any losses to the land givers.

6.    Compensation should be given in joint accounts with women of the family as well as land titles in the case of land for land should be in the name of both men and women.

7.    Those people whose livelihoods will be affected such as dependents on the land [labourers, tenants etc] should be counted as affected persons and also receive compensation or solatium.

2. Rehabilitation

1.    Those losing livelihood should receive the first priority for jobs in the proposed project and if there is a skill gap then training should be provided. One member of the family should be guaranteed a government job as a result of the loss of livelihood

2.    Land for land should be the first principle of rehabilitation.

3.    A transparent process with participation of the affected people should drive the designing of the rehabilitation package. This should ensure that the people rehabilitated are left better off than before. Their incomes should be at least 6 times better under the new rehabilitated project.

4.    Strategies should be created to ensure that the communities’ development needs are fulfilled. The community should discuss its needs and decide how to include these in the rehabilitation project.

3. Mechanisms

1.    We demand a process that is transparent and democratic. It should include the participation of the concerned gram sabhas at all levels of the project planning and implementation.

2.    We demand one national authority for the entire land receiving, compensation and rehabilitation process.

3.    This authority should be of easy access to affected persons.

4.    The decisions of this authority should be challengeable at the court.

2. Issues before receiving land

1.    Prior informed consent should be taken.

2.    Public purpose should be established.

3.    Options assessments should be done. Displacement should be the last option.

4.    Social impact assessments and environmental impact assessments should be undertaken.

5.    Compensation and rehabilitation should be completed first before taking possession of the land.

3. Violations and misuse

1.    Land that is not used within 5 years should be returned to the original owners. It cannot be auctioned off for other purposes with the government pocketing the profits. If a new purpose is needed then the entire process for prior informed consent should be initiated.

2.    Stringent penalties should be formulated to penalize any violations of the new act.

Other demands

-        The repealing of the outdated 1894 land acquisition act and a new law for both land purchasing and rehabilitation. This law should have a name that highlights the real development needs of the people and does not reduce the land sellers to victims but recognizes their right to land.

-        A national public consultation should take place to define “public purpose”.

-        There should be an immediate stop to all ongoing land acquisitions until the new law is brought out to the satisfaction of the people.

-        A White paper should be released on all past land acquisitions and their current status.

Endorsed by:

Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam

Uzhavar Ulaippalar Katchi

KarnatakaRajya Rayatha Sangam (KRRS)

Kerela Coconut Farmers Association

Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha

And representatives of farmers groups in Tamil Nadu including CIFA, Tamil Nadu.

For further details:

S.Kannaiyan,
Convener,
SICCFM.
+919444989543
siccfm@gmail.com,
sukannaiyan69@gmail.com

PEOPLES ALLIANCE CAN DEFEAT FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AGENDA

                        KERALA SWATANTRA MATSYA THOZHILALI FEDERATION (KSMTF): 

                                                               www.keralafishworkers.org

__________________________________________________________________________________

                                                     18 January 2011, Thiruvanathapuram  

MEDIA RELEASE

Thiruvanathapuram: A southern India level seminar was organised on 17 January 2011 in the city on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Groups from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and New Delhi participated in the one day meet organised jointly by Kerala Swatantra Matsya Thozilali Federation (KSMTF), South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM) and two Delhi based groups Focus on the Global South and Madhyam. The meeting was called in the context where the Government of India is implementing and negotiating more than 30 FTAs in an undemocratic and non-transparent manner.  

‘India’s enthusiasm for FTAs, in the context of the current global crises when countries are eschewing trade liberalisation and concentrating on reviving domestic economies and creating jobs, defies economic logic’ said K N Harilal of the Centre for Development Studies and member of the Kerala State Planning Board. Harilal further added that ‘with the abrogation of the right to raise tariffs and the right to intervene in the market on crucial issues such as finance, agriculture and fisheries the Central Government is fundamentally undermining the Indian constitution’.

Primary tropical commodity prices are prone to sharp price fluctuations and tend to decline in the long term. Those that believe that the current steep rise in rubber prices in Kerala is because of the ASEAN-India FTA and will continue to rise do not understand basics of commodity trade’, concluded Harilal.

Economist and Author Kavaljit Singh from the Delhi based Public Interest Research Centre said that ‘in a situation with some 500 million citizens without a bank account and 292 under-banked districts, de-regulating banking rules to facilitate the entry of more European banks, would undermine the public banking sector and financial inclusion. Under the EU-India FTA the crisis ridden European banking industry is demanding that India open up to products such as derivatives which ironically led to the Euro zone crisis’.

Nandini from the Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha (KRRS) said farmers from Karnataka had joined with farmers and fishworkers from Kerala in blockading the Mangalore port in November 2009 against the ASEAN-India FTA. ‘We will have to resort to such direct actions if the Government does not listen to our demands to stop free trade in agriculture’ she said.

Usha Jayakumar from Thanal said that the possibility of value addition for agriculture products is negated through the ASEAN-India FTA. ‘If one examines the tariff schedule of the agreement, while some primary commodities such as coconut are on the sensitive list, semi and processed forms of the same product are not’.

Lawyer Kajal Bhardwaj from New Delhi said that European pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer were lobbying for patent rights for life-saving drugs through the EU-India FTA and this would ensure that many medicines are out of reach of common people.

T Peter of KSMTF said that the fight against FTAs was not a sectoral fight of the fishworkers. Government employees, farmers, workers from small and medium enterprises, dalits and adivasis need to come together to counter this anti-people pro corporate agenda of the Government. ‘Only such a broad people’s alliance can win this fight’. He further added that KSMTF would reach out to other groups to have more such regional meetings in South India in the immediate future.

Other groups that participated include Kerala Coconut Farmers Association, South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) and National Fishworkers Forum. (Ends)

==================================================================

For more information contact T Peter: + 91-9447429243. ksmtf@keralafishworkers.org 

Our memorandum to Tamil Nadu Agriculture University

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements

(SICCFM)

636, Ideal Homes Township,

Raja Rajeswari Nagar, Bangalore -5600098. Karnataka.

Telephone +91 94444089543

Email: siccfm@gmail.com

To:

                                                                                                            October 29, 2010

The Vice Chancellor,

Tamil Nadu Agriculture University,

Coimbatore.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Cancelling all collaborative research projects with corporations like Mahyco, Monsanto & others – stopping appropriation of farmers’ resources

This is with regard to the various collaborative research projects that your University has with corporations like Mahyco, Monsanto and others, especially with regard to transgenic seed development (Bt Brinjal, for instance) and testing (Monsanto’s GM Maize, for instance).

We, farmers and consumers representing more than 15 states of the country, have come into your University as part of Kisan Swaraj Yatra today, to highlight the agrarian distress that Indian farmers are steeped in and the lack of accountability displayed by agricultural universities/NARS to stem the distress by way of promoting sustainable technologies and stopping toxic, ‘treadmill’ technologies that are making farming unviable, eroding natural resources and providing toxic food to consumers.

The Kisan Swaraj Yatra is a nation-wide mobilization drawing fresh attention to the continuing agricultural crisis in India, and calling for a comprehensive new path for Indian agriculture – that will provide livelihood and food security for small farmers, keep our soils alive, and our food and water poison-free. It set off on Gandhi Jayanti at Sabarmati Ashram and will end on December 11^th 2010 at Rajghat, Delhi, after covering 20 states in all. Thousands of farmers and consumers are joining this Yatra around the country to highlight the role of anti-farmer policies adopted by the government in deepening the distress and in particular, to highlight the contribution of faulty agricultural technologies promoted by the agri-research establishment.

We are concerned in particular about the role that TNAU has played in allowing corporations like Mahyco to appropriate farmers’ varieties in the guise of collaborative research. Your University, as a sub-licensee to Mahyco, provided the company with brinjal varieties that were essentially derived from farmers’ varieties and after backcrossing for the Bt gene, these varieties were returned as Bt Brinjal varieties to you. However, Mahyco has proprietary rights over the EE1 event and we would like to know from the University who the Bt Brinjal varieties now belong to – who owns them?

Further, we would like to find out from the University why Bt Brinjal is needed when ecological pest management options exist for controlling pests and diseases in crops like Brinjal. TNAU has itself evolved several such NPM (Non pesticidal management) options for brinjal pest management along with groups like NRI, UK, as we are aware. Why can’t the technology transfer gap be bridged for technologies like NPM rather than going in for hazardous, unproven-to-be-safe technologies?

We would like to know from the University whether there has been any analysis taken up by the University on the current agrarian crisis in the country and the role of agricultural technologies in increasing indebtedness, eroding/contaminating resources and making farming unviable.

We would also like to know what independent tests has the University taken up to assess the biosafety of Bt Brinjal apart from falling back on a corporation’s word for it, of which you are a sub-licensee? As a public sector body being run by taxpayers’ funds, why was not any independent study taken up by your University on conclusive evidence related to biosafety, including long term implications?

We are concerned about disproportionate investments going into transgenic research compared to sustainable, ecological options and would like to know from the University whether this has been assessed and analysed in the University and which technologies have been assessed to be more sustainable, for the benefit of farmers and consumers.

WE would like the University to assure the farmers of Tamil Nadu that it would stop facilitating appropriation of farmers’ varieties by corporations, that it would immediately stop all transgenic trials that it is taking up, that it would recast its agriculture research mandate to keep sustainability as a key parameter for all projects and that it would promote existing environment-friendly, affordable & safe technologies as the way forward for the extension system to pick up too. It is also important for the University to document and disseminate farmers’ practices that are sustainable, viable, safe and affordable.

We request you to address all these issues of concern and we hope to hear from you at the earliest on these issues.

Sincerely,

Signed by farmers leaders and kisan Swaraj Yatra participants.

                                               

“FARMERS DONATE MONEY TO TAMIL NADU AGRI UNIVERSITY (TNAU) & URGE IT TO TAKE UP RESEARCH FOR THEM ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE”

Here is the press release of SICCFM which was shared to the media during a demonstration organised by South Indian Coordination Committee of farmers movements( SICCFM) during Kisan Swaraj Yatra's arrival in Coimbatore on 29th October, 2010 to oppose anti people land acquisition acts and TNAU's US Aid led research for TNCs . This press release was widely ignored by English media including The Hindu, the reason is known only to them.

 - S.Kannaiyan

 _____________________________________________________________________________________

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements

(SICCFM)

Telephone +91 94444089543

Email: siccfm@gmail.com

Press Release

Coimbatore, October 29, 2010: Accusing the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU) of taking up research that benefits only agri-business corporations in various collaborative research projects and of facilitating appropriation of farmers’ varieties, hundreds of farmers raised money to donate the TNAU, urging it to take up research for them and not just for corporations. This was done as part of the Kisan Swaraj Yatra, which arrived in Coimbatore today, on its last day in Tamil Nadu. Farmers here also picked up the issue of land appropriation for more than 150 SEZs, road Neelambur bye pass road construction and airport expansion and demanded that the government of Tamil Nadu stop appropriating farmers’ resources. Various farmers associations affiliated to South Indian Coordinated Committee of Farmers Movements staged a Dharna in front of Red Cross society.

Speaking about large scale acquisition of land in the state, Dr M R Shivasamy, President, Tamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam said, “The central Land Acquisition Act is a colonial Act even as the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act is more draconian than the Central Act. The various departments of state and central governments are empowered to acquire farmers’ lands under these objectionable laws. The large scale farm lands acquisition underway in the state for SEZs and to formation of lands to road construction such as Neelambur Bye Pass road and airport expansion is uprooting farmers from their land and destroying their livelihoods. Tamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam demands an immediate repealing of these Acts and an immediate end to diversion of agricultural land to other purposes and forcible land acquisition” He has also said that all the bye pass road schemes in Coimbatore and Triupur districts to be canselled.

Chellamuthu, President , Uzhavar Uzhaipalar Katchi said, “The TNAU going ahead with Bt Brinjal development and other GM crop trials is objectionable given that the Chief minister of Tamil Nadu and the state government has already expressed its apprehensions to the Centre on this front. The University has to draw its mandate from what farmers need and want, and from the state government and not get into these partnerships with corporations like MNC since they are bringing in a little money into the University. Today, we have come to tell the University symbolically that the farmers would also pay it if that is the only way this public sector body will take up pro-farmer research agendas”.

Referring to the Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Council Act of 2009, L K Sadagopan of Uzhavar Periakkam demanded that the government should immediately drop the Act. “This is an anti-farmer piece of legislation. It completely de-recognises the knowledge of farmers and believes that agricultural knowledge and skills come only from universities. IN the garb of regulating agricultural practice in the state, it seeks to legitimize corporate control over farming here, it seeks to convert knowledge of agriculture into the exclusive domain of those holding a degree from the universities listed. This is completely unacceptable”, he said.

Kannaiyan, Convenor of South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements (SICCFM), objected to the University facilitating the appropriation of farmers’ varieties. “Farmers’ varieties, given in good trust to the University by farming communities, are being allowed by the University to be appropriated by corporations like Mahyco in the name of collaborative research projects. We will not allow the University, which has been set up in our name, to use taxpayers’ funds for acting as corporate agents. We demand that the University immediately scrap all agreements with Monsanto, Mahyco and such other corporations”, he said.

Subbu Ravikumar of Bhavani Riverwater and Groundwater Protection Committee brought up the issue of mindless industrialization around rivers like Bhavani and Noyyal which is polluting the river waters. “Discharging of effluents into these water bodies should be stopped immediately. The water is rendering much irrigated land useless”, he said.

Farmers from Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, as part of the Kisan Swaraj Yatra, extended their solidarity to the Tamil Nadu farmers who are taking up the cause of conserving and protecting farmers’ resources and rights.

The Kisan Swaraj Yatra is a nation-wide mobilization drawing fresh attention to the continuing agricultural crisis in India, and calling for a comprehensive new path for Indian agriculture – that will provide livelihood and food security for small farmers, keep our soils alive, and our food and water poison-free. It set off on Gandhi Jayanti at Sabarmati Ashram and will end on December 11^th 2010 at Rajghat, Delhi, after covering 20 states in all. So far, the Yatra traversed through Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and will enter Kerala tomorrow.

For more information, visit www.kisanswaraj.in and contact:

S.Kannaiyan, South Indian Coordination committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM): 09444989543.

siccfm@gmail.com

 

There is no alternative to organic farming: farmer

Date:25/10/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/10/25/stories/2010102560250300.htm Back Karnataka - Bangalore There is no alternative to organic farming: farmer Staff Reporter Kisan Swaraj Yatra reaches Bangalore — Photo: K. Murali Kumar PROGRESSIVE:Kodihalli Chandrashekar (left), president, KRRS, Kultar Singh, progressive farmer from Punjab, Kavitha Kuruganti, convener, Kisan Swaraj Yatra, in Bangalore on Sunday. Bangalore: “Green Revolution has ruined Punjab. Our rivers are devastated and this has affected aquatic life. All these are the evil design of the perpetuators of the Green Revolution,” charged Kultar Singh, a progressive farmer from Punjab. Addressing farmers and civil society members at the Institute of Agricultural Technologists here on Sunday, he said that Punjab was at a point of no return. “The country should learn from Punjab's mistake. Today, multi-national companies are funding research in agriculture universities. There is no option but to go organic and green,” he said. Mr. Singh was here as part of the Kisan Swaraj Yatra, a pan-Indian bus tour by Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) for the cause of “Food, Farmers and Freedom”. The yatra that began at Sabarmati Ashram on October 2 will reach Raj Ghat, New Delhi, on December 11. Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission said that the yatra has received tremendous response from farmers across the State. “There was a near-unanimous understanding of the corporate stranglehold over farming which is making agriculture unviable and eroding our resources,” she said. Later, she presented data compiled from official records of the past several years of Bt cotton cultivation in Karnataka. She pointed out that Bt cotton has not lived up to its claims or promises. She said that organic farming was the only hope for the revival of agricultural sector in the country. “Organic farming can be self-reliant, environmentally-friendly and profitable. We have to bring back farmers to the sector. The people who should go out of the sector are Prime Minister and Union Agriculture Minister and multinational companies such as Monsanto,” she said. Kodihalli Chandrashekar, president of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, said that the State Government should step up its efforts in promoting ecological farming and set an example for other States to follow. There should be greater efforts to conserve seed diversity, to build capabilities of farmer-breeders and to promote agro-diversity. He said that Bt cotton was not a success, as was being claimed. “No new cotton variety has been developed by our agriculture universities over the past decade. The farmers have no option but to cultivate Bt cotton. Our scientists should hang their heads in shame for not being able to develop a new variety,” he said. He said that MNCs were only interested in profiteering at the expense of farmers. “Earlier, farmers would exchange seeds among themselves. Today, seed business is done at an international level. One kg of tomato seeds is priced at Rs. 1 lakh, while one kg of brinjal seeds is Rs. 40,000,” he said. He said that punishment envisaged under the Seed Bill should be made stringent and urged the State Government to take a more pro-active role in Central legislation so that farmers' interests are protected. Farmers from Orissa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and other States interacted with farmers here. The yatra has covered Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa. It will enter Tamil Nadu on Monday. The aim of the 71-day tour is to create awareness about ill-effects of biotechnology and promote ecological farming. © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu