Abstract
This chapter explores the enduring controversy about genetically modified crops in India. It asks what role different interpretations of past agricultural development play in the construction of contested sociotechnical futures with(out) transgenic crops. The theoretical frame for this analysis combines the ‘social construction of technology’ with the concept of ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ to understand temporal scales in the construction of such futures. Based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews, the chapter identifies four sociotechnical imaginaries in the debate. These are shaped by different interpretations of India’s agricultural past. The author argues for a greater role of temporality in studying technological controversies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Genetic modification of plants is more precisely described as transgenic modification, which refers to recombinant DNA technique, i.e. inserting genes extracted from one species (e.g. a bacterium) into the DNA of a target organism (e.g. a plant) when both organisms are sexually incompatible. This intervention is done using complex laboratory techniques that allow manipulating organisms on the molecular level. Accordingly, I will use the terms ‘genetically modified’ and ‘transgenic’ interchangeably in this chapter.
- 2.
I draw on material I collected during two ethnographic visits to India from February to April 2012, and January to March 2013. My field visits were funded by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University as part of my dissertation research which focuses on the role of publics in the Indian and European controversies about GM crops and the co-shaping of technological development and democratic politics.
- 3.
Insect-resistance traits are induced into plants with transgenes from the soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). If successfully modified, the plant synthesizes a protein that works as a pesticide against lepidopteran insects, such as the cotton bollworm (Bt-cotton) or the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot borer (Bt-brinjal).
- 4.
Jane Carpenter works for Croplife International a research organisation that is financed by and can be said to represent the interests of biotechnology companies in the transgenic seed sector such as BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroScience, Monsanto, and Syngenta (CropLifeInternational 2014; see also Powerbase 2014).
- 5.
The term Green Revolution refers to the period after World War II in which improved agricultural technologies, such as high yielding crop varieties, inorganic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and mechanized irrigation systems were applied to the agricultural systems of developing countries. These innovations led to productivity increases and made some countries from net importers to net exporters of food.
- 6.
Mahyco is India’s largest seed company, having an approximated market share of 10% in crop seeds. Monsanto India Ltd, a subsidiary of Monsanto Company, USA owns 26% of Mahyco. Mahyco and Monsanto India together form the 50/50 joint venture Mahyco Monsanto Biotech. Mahyco distributes several Bt-cotton varieties and was centrally involved in the development of Bt-brinjal.
- 7.
Shiva has published on many issues of agriculture (Shiva 1991), livelihood and ecology (Shiva 1988), and on GM crops (Shiva et al. 2000). Some describe her as a “rock star of the global fight against biotechnology” (Specter 2014). While many Indian grassroots level activists question the legitimacy of her campaign as representative of India’s civil society and farming community, internationally she is often represented as “the voice leading the crusade against GMOs” (Frankman and Weinberger 2014).
- 8.
Non-target organisms are organisms in the field which do not reduce yield; they may include soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds, and other animals. Although GM crops seem to be more target-specific than conventional pesticide applications, non-target effects with ecological consequences cannot be principally ruled out.
- 9.
A notable exception here is the state of Andhra Pradesh, where non-pesticidal management has been taken up by the state government to upscale this less chemical-intensive practice of dealing with insect pests (for an analysis of how NPM addresses issues of vulnerability in the farming community, see Quartz 2011).
- 10.
TRIPS refers to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as agreed between the member states of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.
- 11.
Activists like Suman Sahai are however well aware of the role of the Green Revolution narrative in contributing to increased food security and India’s independence from food imports in the post-independence period.
- 12.
From this perspective, the Green Revolution acquires the meaning of having established a system of dominating land and agricultural resources to control developing countries; and GM crops are mere continuation thereof.
References
Adam, B. (2006). Time. Theory, culture, society, 23(2–3), 119–138.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Trans. M. Ritter). London: Sage.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brooks, S. (2005). Biotechnology and the politics of truth: From the green revolution to an evergreen revolution. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(4), 360–379.
Carpenter, J. E. (2011). Impact of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops, 2(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15086.
Choudhary, B., & Gaur, K. (2012). Socio-economic and farm level impacts of Bt cotton in India 2002–2010. http://www.isaaa.org/india/media/Socio-economic%20and%20farm%20level%20impact%20of%20Bt%20cotton%20in%20India,%202002%20to%202010-11%20aug%20final.pdf.
Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265–285.
CropLifeInternational. (2014). CropLife international-About. http://croplifefoundation.org/about/funders/.
Dorhout, D. L., & Rice, M. E. (2010). Intraguild comeptition and enhanced survival of Western Beat Cutworm (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) on Transgenic Cry1Ab (MON 810) Bacillus Thuringiensis Corn. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103, 54–62.
Express, T. I. (29 Aug. 2013). Seeds of change. The Indian Express. http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/seeds-of-change/1161406/.
Frankman, E., & Weinberger, J. (2014). Vandana Shiva, voice of the Anti-GMO debate. The Take Away. http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/vandana-shiva-voice-anti-gmo-debate/.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. London: Polity Press.
Glover, D. (2010). Is Bt cotton a pro-poor technology? A review and critique of the empirical record. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(4), 482–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00283.x.
Grant, H. (Ed.). (2008). Monsanto CEO grant discusses impact of genetically engineered crops on human health. http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/874. Accessed 28 Aug 2008.
Gruère, G., & Sengupta, D. (2011). Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence-based assessment. Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), 316–337.
Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, J. R. (1980). The time of history and the history of time. History and Theory, 19(2), 113–131.
Hammond, E. (2010). Counting the costs of genetic engineering. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2010/1/counting-the-costs-of-genetic.pdf.
Heller, C., & Escobar, A. (2003). From pure genes to GMOs. Transnational gene landscapes in the biodioversity and transgenic food networks. In A. Goodman, D. Heath, & M. S. Linde (Eds.), Genetic nature/culture. Anthropology and science beyond the two culture divide. Berkley: University of California Press.
Jackson, M. (2010). Biotechnology and the critique of globalisation. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 67(2), 141–154.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imagianries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kaviraj, S. (2011). Introduction to the enchantment of democracy and India. The enchantment of democracy and India (pp. 1–24). Bangalore: Permanent Black.
Kuruganti, K. (2012). Bt cotton, a bitter havest for farmers: Suicide and despair in India. http://climate-connections.org/2012/06/02/bt-cotton-a-bitter-harvest-for/.
Marcus, G. E. (Ed.). (1995). Technoscientific imaginaries: Conversations, profiles, and memories. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Monsanto. (2012). Sustainability report. http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/csr_reports/2012-csr.pdf.
Padmanaban, G. (2013, September 2). Sow the wind, reap a storm, opinion. The Hindu. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/sow-the-wind-reap-a-storm/article5082915.ece.
Peled, M. X. (2011). Bitter seeds. An examination of the debate surrounding biotechnology and the future of farming. San Francisco: ITVS. https://itvs.org/films/bitter-seeds.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. New direction in the sociology of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Powerbase. (2014). Powerbase public interest investigations. Profile: CropLife international. http://powerbase.info/index.php/CropLife_International.
Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., & Sekher, M. (2013). Food security as a lagging component of India’s human development: A function of interacting entitlement failures. South Asia-Journal of South Asian Studies, 36(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2012.739256.
Quartz, J. (2011). Constructing Agrarian alternatives. How a creative dissent project engages with the vulnerable livelihood conditions of marginal farmers in South India. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Ranjith, M. T., Prabhuraj, A., & Srinivasa, Y. B. (2010). Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa Armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India. Current Science, 99(11), 1602–1606.
Rao, C. K. (2013). Genetically engineered crops would ensure food security in India. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful agricultural innovation in emerging economies. New genetic technologies for global food production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 199–228.
Sainath, P., & Bhatia, D. (2009). Nero’s guests. Amsterdam & New Delhi. https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/e9265992-0425-4592-acca-29d2ba61010b/neros-guests.
Schurman, R., & Munro, W. A. (2010). Fighting for the future of food. Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian culture, history and identity. London: Penguin.
Shah, E. (2005). Local and global elites join hands: Development and diffusion of genetically modified Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(43), 4629+4631–4639.
Shah, E. (2012). A life wasted making dust: Affective histories of dearth, death, and debt and farmers’ suicides in India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1), 1–21.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sharma, D. (2011, January 19). Ground reality: Killer technologies will not increase our food production. http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.nl/2011/01/killer-technologies-will-not-increase.html?q=killer+technologies.
Sharma, D. (2014, February 6). Ground reality: Prime Minister ignores the facts. Openly bats for dangerously risky GM crop technology. http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.nl/2014/02/prime-minister-ignores-facts-openly.html.
Sharma, S. (2013). Critical rime. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2–3), 312–318.
Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women.
Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution. London: Zed Books.
Shiva, V. (Ed.). (2014, Febrary 21). Transcript speech at food otherwise conference. http://www.voedselanders.nl/voedselanders.nl/Start_files/FINAL%20transcript%20vandana%20shiva-%20plain%20text.pdf.
Shiva, V., Barker, D., & Lockhart, C. (2011). The GMO emperor has no clothes: A global citizen’s report on the state of GMOs-False promises, failed technologies. https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/gentechnik/studien/gmo_emperor_study_pdf.pdf.
Shiva, V., Jafri, A. H., Emani, A., & Pande, M. (2000). Seeds of suicide: The ecological and human costs of globalisation of agriculture. New Delhi: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
Smith, E. (2009). Imaginaries of development: The rockefeller foundation and rice research. Science as Culture, 18(4), 461–482.
Specter, M. (2014, August 25). Seeds of doubt. An activist’s controversial crusade against genetically modified crops. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt.
Stone, G. D. (2012). Constructing facts. Bt cotton narratives in India. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(38), 62–70.
Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
Visvanathan, S. (1997). Footnotes to Vavilov: An essay on gene diversity a carnival for science: Essays on science, technology, and development. Delhi & New York: Oxford University Press.
Wynne, B. (2005). Risk as globalising democratic discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement (pp. 66–82). London: Zed Books.
Zhao, J. H., Ho, P., & Azadi, H. (2010). Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173(1–4), 985–994.
List of Semi-Structured Interviews
Ganguly, B., activist Timbaktu Collective, conducted at Amritha Bhoomi, Chamaraja Nagar District, Karnataka, 14.02.2013.
Kuruganti, K., Convenor Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), conducted in Bangalore, 16.02.2012.
Kuruganti, K., Convenor Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), conducted in Bangalore, 08.01.2013.
Padmanaban, G., molecular scientists Indian Institute of Science, conducted in Bangalore, 19.02.2012.
Ramanjaneyulu, G. V., Executive Director Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), conducted in Hyderabad, 27.03.2012.
Rao, C. K. General Secretary Foundation for Agricultural Biotechnology and Awareness (FBAE) conducted in Bangalore, 10.01.2013.
Ravikanth, G. scientist Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, conducted in Bangalore, 07.02.2013.
Sahai, S., Director Gene Campaign, conducted in Delhi, 28.02.2012.
Saldanha, L., Coordinator Environment Support Group (ESG), conducted in Bangalore, 20.02.2012.
Sarangi, activist Living Farms, conducted in Bhubaneswar, 17.03.2012.
Seetharama, N., Executive Director Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises (ABLE), conducted in Delhi, 28.01.2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mitzschke, A. (2019). Between Past, Present, and Future—The Temporality of Sociotechnical Futures in India’s GM Crops Debate. In: Lösch, A., Grunwald, A., Meister, M., Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds) Socio-Technical Futures Shaping the Present. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27155-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27155-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-27154-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-27155-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)